VINDICIAE MINISTERII EVANGELICI REVINDICATAE: OR THE PREACHER (pretendedly) Sent, Sent back again, TO Bring a better Account Who Sent Him, and learn his ERRAND: By way of REPLY, To a late BOOK (in the Defence of Gifted Brethrens Preaching) Published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: So far as any thing in their Book pretends to Answer a Book published, 1651.

CALLED Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici; WITH A Reply also to the Epistle prefixed to the said BOOK, called, The Preacher Sent.

By John Collinges B.D. and Pastor of the Church in Stephens Parish in Norwich.

London, Printed by S. G. for Richard Tomlins, at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Pye-Corner, 1658.

To my Reverend and much Honour­ed Brethren, the Authors of the late Book, called, The Prea­cher Sent.

Dearly beloved Brethren,

I Have seriously perused your Epistle directed to those pro­fessing the Order of Church Fel­lowship, and Government, called Presbyterian, of which number I must own my Self to be one (though the least of all the Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, who walk in that way) to­gether with your Book to which it is prefixed; and must profess my self, as to several parti­culars in either of them, very much unsatisfi­ed, both as to the truth of the Notions you contend for, and to the mediums by which you endeavour to establish them; putting [Page] therefore away all wrath, prejudice, or bitterness, as in the following sheets I have endeavoured to shew you your mistakes, as to the matter of your Book, so I shall in this Epistle do the like, as to what is contained in your Epistle: In the mean time professing my self (to use your own expression) bound for peace, as far as the shoes of the Gospel will carry me; and long­ing for that dispensation (if it may be expect­ed in this life) when all the Lords People shall be blessed with One heart, and guided into one way, only desiring to divide my zeal equally betwixt truth and peace, knowing that God is as much the God of the one, as of the other.

I rejoyce to see my dear and Reverend Bre­thren sensible of the great abuse of that Li­berty, for which they plead. I know our Brethren have not been such Strangers in Is­rael, but they have seen and observed, that most of those spurious notions, which in [...]hese times of Blasphemy have been found in every Street, and with an impudent forehead have called the holy Spirit of God Father, and the lovely Virgin Truth mother, have been found lying at the door of this Liberty, and have really been born in her house. That most of those sad Earthquakes, which have rent the bowels of the Church, and overturned some Churches of God, both in Holland, and in Old and New England, have been caused by [Page] the wind of this Liberty, which they still en­deavour to keep up. I know they cannot but have heard the cryes of many poor people in this County, who are fed with these husks in­stead of bread, with the chaff of these exer­cises, instead of the more substantial wheat of publick Ordinances. And surely, if an Ar­gument from the blastings of Providence, or the general disrelish of judicious Christians, be worth any thing, we have as good a plea as against any licentious practice in the worship of God.

It was said once by a Learned Person in this Nation, that if a Book were composed of all the English Sermons, preached by men of worth, containing the choicest matter contained in them, which had been Preach­ed within some few years, he believed no Book in the world would be to be compared with it: I believe our Brethren judge, that if all the Errors, Crudities, Nonsense, imperti­nencies, blasphemies, self-contradictions, which (by vertue of the exercise of this Liberty they plead for) have within these fifteen or sixteen years last past, been vented in open Pulpits, were summed in one Book, the Tur­kish Alcoran would scarce afford such a rapsody of error, nonsense, blasphemy and impertinency. To give our Brethren a taste, I have a Letter still by me, wrote by a gifted Brother, who took upon him to tell me, that he heard me [Page] such a day, and I did not open my Text a­right (my Text that day was, Eph. 2.— Aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.) He told me, if I had rightly opened it, I must have told my people, 1. What the wealth of Israel was. 2. How it came to be common. 3. How far forth it was common. With much more such non­sensical stuff; and very teachy he was with me, that I had not fallen upon his notions: if either this person had understood the Greek, or our Translation had Translated [...] polity, all the jest had been spoiled, which probably he would have made three Sermons upon.

I should have really thanked our Brethren, for acknowledging an abuse of this Liberty, if I could have seen, 1. That any use of it (other than I had granted them) were not an abuse of the greatest Ordinance of the Gospel.

2. Or if I could have seen that our Bre­thren could have fixed a rule of regulation, it would have done something with me; but when you tell us, you plead for none but such as are really gifted, and then tell us none have to do to judge whether they be so or no, it is con­venient the Church should, but if they Preach without, it is no sin. To my apprehension yee do but complain of a Flood-gate, that stands ope too deep, when your selves put in a bar that it may not shut down more close. It is true, the abuse of a thing plainly necessary [Page] by a necessity of precept, is no argument to take away the use, but where no precept is plain, the general miscarriage, and accursed conse­quences of it, are a strong topick to prove it is not according to the will of God. And I hope our Brethren upon second thoughts, will not judge any one Text quoted by them plainly concluding the Case. All your Argu­ments run either from the use of gifts, to the use of this gift (when as yet you will not al­low all gifts to be so exercised) nor any judg­ment to be made of the gift) or from examples where there is no parity, as you will perceive by the following Discourse.

You rightly apprehend, that the singular notion you have entertained of a Church is the [...] of this, and many other unhappy Controversies; you are therefore pleased in your Epistle, to endeavour to make the light of your notion concerning a Church to reflect upon our faces. You tell us,

That a Church is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual Fellowship in the means of worship appointed by Christ, Ep. Dedic. for the glo­ry of God, the edification of their own souls, and the good of others. This you say is the only Church that is capable of Officers to be im­mediately set in it, and over it.

That this is a Church we grant, but that only this Church is capable of Officers we de­ny: I shall have liberty to enter my dissent, [Page] in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description.

First, You say it is a company, that we grant, Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis, one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church.

Secondly, You say it is a particular Company, and that there never was, nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ, any other than a particular com­pany. I must confess to my dear Brethren, that I cannot fathom their notion of particular: we use to say, particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis, I suppose our Bre­thren here oppose it to Ʋniversalis. An uni­versal theme in Logick is that (as our Brethren know) which is apt to be predicated natu­rally concerning many: I think Church is such a Theme. Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant, that their Congregations at Lon­don, Norwich, Yarmouth, may each of them be called a Church. Now the Question is, whe­ther all these Churches may not be consider­ed together, and called a Church: Or if you will, Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth, may not by an universal notion be called a Church, or is not called a Church in Scripture. You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an uni­versal company, but not an universal Church, that is (as I suppose you mean) a body capable of Officers, otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons, who are visible Saints [Page] should be called a Church, Mr. Hudsons Vindic. p. 31. ad. p. 40. and seven hun­dred should not. If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote, he will shew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches, Acts 8.3. Gal. 1.13. Acts 26.11. Acts 9.31. compared together, Acts 12.1. Acts 2.47. 1 Cor. 10.32. Gal. 4.26. Eph. 3.10. 1 Cor. 12.28. All these Texts will prove, that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called.

But you will say, This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it. Brethren, have you read what Mr. Hudson saith, to prove Mi­nisters Officers to the Church Catholick? Do they not (when they Baptize) admit into the Catholick Church; Pag. 232: why else are not your Members baptized again, when they are tran­slated from the particular Church into which (according to this principle) alone they were Baptized? Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholick Church? Or will our Brethren say, that a Church may lawfully ad­mit to its Communion, a Member which ano­ther Church hath cut off from her Communi­on? Were the Apostles (think our Brethren) Officers only to a particular Church? If to the Ʋniversal, then there was an universal Church once existing, capable of Officers. Nor is that irrefragable Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. (as our [Page] Brethren say) prest to the service of the Catho­lick Church. No, it comes as the Lords Volun­tier willing to engage for this Truth. You say Brethren, that what it is written, ver. 18. of that chapter, God hath set the Members every one in the body, doth as much prove a Catholick or universal Body, as God hath set some in the Church, proves a Catholick Ʋniversal Church. I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word: that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body, together with ver. 12. and all the members of that one body, being many are one body, will prove that the body is Totum integrale: So also saith the Apostle is Christ, i. e. the Church of Christ. If our Brethren will but grant us this, That the Church is a Totum integrale, you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum. If you say there is no other To­tum called a Church, but only the particular Church, I have proved the contrary, that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church. If you say, this Church hath no Officers, that Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. confutes you; neither will your consequence follow, that because an universal body is not proved from ver. 18. therefore an Ʋniversal Church is not proved from ver. 28. viz. from the whole verse. If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body; and then the Text had made an enu­meration [Page] of such members, some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body, but would serve any other particular bodies, as he doth of Church Officers, ver. 28. I hope it would have proved an Ʋniversal body. You tell us (Brethren) you renounce the name and thing of an Ʋniversal or Catholick Church, you must then renounce the Holy Scripture (witness the Texts before mentioned) and renounce right reason, and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren, who generally acknow­ledge, both the name and thing, only deny it to be Organical: But you think, you have five Arguments will prove, that a particular Church cannot be a part, but a Totum.

1. You say first, every part is in power incom­pleat; But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church—And may act in all Church work, not as a part, but as a whole. I must deny your Minor (Brethren!) I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod, and to consult (at least) a piece of Church work, to which Gods word gives a power, Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again, you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod. We say the like for Ordination (ex­cept in cases of absolute necessity) and for ex­communication (where the Church is very small) there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church. See Brethren what [Page] Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited.

2. You tell us next, that every whole is really distinct from every part, and from all its parts collectively considered, they are constituting, that is constituted; but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches, or wherefore it is you know not. This is Brethren such a fallacy, as scarce deserveth an answer; the body of a man is a whole, all his members are parts; now when you have found out where that body is, which is really distinct from all the members, and wherefore it is, you will have answered your selves. The Nation of England is a whole, every Parish is a part, finde us where that Nation is, which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together. We use to make this a Maxime in Logick, Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis & unitis. That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts ta­ken together and united.

3. In the next place you tell us, there can be no visible universal Church, because there is no universal visible meeting: and that the Greek word translated Church (in all Civil and Sacred usage) signifies a meeting, in fieri or facto esse. But you began to think that the invisible Church, are never like to have such a meeting; and therefore (to salve it) you heal this wound in your Argument (in my opinion) very slightly, when you say, it doth meet invisibly & in Spirit. If you will but grant us that Brethren, that the [Page] name of Church in Scripture, is given to those that never locally meet, but it is suffi­cient for them to be present in Spirit; you have by an unhappy heel, kicked down all that good milk, which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-no­tion of a Church. And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it, it speaks of the Church of the first-born. There is an universal meet­ing of the Catholick visible Church, at the throne of Grace (before their great Pastor) and in Spirit (as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet) whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinan­ces. For the visible Meeting which you menti­oned at first, you have quitted your plea for the visibility, to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication; and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick, visible, from any hurt by this Argument.

4. You go on (Brethren) and tell us, There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church: Ergo, there is no such Church. If you had expressed the Major Proposition, I should have denied it; the assertion of a Church Ca­tholick visible (though we add Organical) doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church; it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches (which as parts constitute that whole) have power to act as Officers in any of those parts, which [Page] united make up that whole: I am not wil­ling, but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren, that this is no fair play, to pretend to dispute against the Presbyteri­an notion of a Catholick Church, and to mention only the Antichristian, and Prelatical Notion of it. Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication, p. 129, 130, 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church, as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head, and Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. for his derivatives. But this we say, that the whole Church (all the particular Churches in the world) make but one body of Christ; and as it is one (una) so it is (unita) united in a Common Profession of the Gospel; & as there is this union, and communion of members, so there is a communion of some Officers, par­ticularly Ministers, who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors, by vertue of Office, any where, and may any where Baptize, and Admini­ster the Lords Supper, upon occasion; and we say our Brethren in practice grant this; for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those, to whom he is not in Office, as his particular Church, and this is a Common practice with our Bre­thren; how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge: while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches, they do but blinde the Com­mon [Page] People with a dark notion, that signi­fies nothing: What mean they by a Commu­nion of Churches, if they do not mean this, that by the word of God, one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another? If they have so, there must be a Communion of Offices, as well as Gifts, for the dispensing the Sa­craments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office. If that it be not the will of God in his Word, that the Officer of one Church, should do an act of Office in ano­ther Church, or to a Member of another Church, it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches. If this be his will, it is as much as we ask; for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church, and the members of it, but also to any particular Churches in the world, or to any of their Members. We ask no more. This is the Catholick Organi­cal Church we plead for. Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an I­dol, and pretend to abhor it, in the notion, they do not in practice bow down to it, and commit Sacrilege.

5. You tell us in the last place (Brethren) That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine, and hear offences, Mat. 18.17. But that is a particular Church. Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra [Page] aleam controversiae, and you have taken as good care as you could, to strengthen it, by saying, it cannot be meant of both; and to ex­clude the Congregational Church, is unscriptural, irrational, absurd.

But I must crave leave to tell you, 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Questi­on; for it is not, whether be greater the Church Catholik, or the Church particular; but whe­ther there be any Church Catholick or no, grea­ter or less.

Object. But you will say, if there be any it must be greater.

Answ. Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater, whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality: If in respect of quantity, number, &c. the Ma­jor is apparently false. If in respect of quality, as you seem to hint by the term, having power, then your Argument is this,

There is no Church hath a greater power, than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches:

But the particular Church hath that power, Mat. 18.17. Ergo.

I will give you Brethren such another Ar­gument, judge you whether it be good or no, and if it be not, you must prove your own better.

There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offen­ces in a Nation.

But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences. Ergo, that is as great a Court as the Court of Common. Pleas.

You must therefore put in finally determine, and all offences, in any part of the Church, or else your Major is false, when you have men­ded that we will deny your Minor, and tell you, that admit that Text, Mat. 18.17. should be meant of a particular Church, yet it proves no such power, either finally to determine, or all offences, as well those betwixt Church and Church, as those betwixt party and party, or party and Church. Neither can I divine the ne­cessity you would impose upon us of exclu­ding the one or the other Church out of that Text, (according to the nature of the offence) nor do I think your saying, that to exclude the Congregational Church, viz. some Congre­gational Churches, is unscriptural, irrational, absurd, amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case. I think it is far more rational, and far less absurd, to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth, it should be done by a Church, made up of several Chur­ches in association and upon a Common con­sultation, and by a common act of many Re­verend and Judicious persons, then by seven persons, none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause. And in reason it should seem more like [Page] to be the will of Christ, who is very tender of all his peoples souls. Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches, excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors, who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things.

You tell us Brethren, that the Officers of Churches met together, are no true Church. Zuinglius (you say) said some such thing, but it was in a case no more like this, than chalk is like cheese: We are disputing now, whe­ther the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod, may not be called a Church, they being sent to represent the particular Churches. We have a Rule in Logick, Cui competit definitio convenit definitum. I therefore argue.

A Church say you, Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ, for the glory of God, the edification of their own souls, and the good of others.

But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company— Ergo, they are a Church.

1. They are a Company, one cannot make a Synod.

2. They are a particular Company, they are but a part of the Church, not every individual; nor (say our Brethren) did ever any other company exist.

3. They are an holy Company, at least should, or may be so.

[Page]4. They are united, their consent to meet and sit together unites them, so doth the con­sent of the particular Churches sending them.

5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship, we will suppose them while they are together, to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear, pray, receive Sacraments together, &c.

6. The end of this fellowship, is the glory of God, the edification of themselves, and the whole Church, and the good of others.

So that in Answer to our Brethrens expres­sion borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differ­ing case, Representativant esse credo, veram non credo. I return, Aut veram esse credo, aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem: Either they are a true Church, or your definition of a Church is not true.

Thirdly, you tell us, a Church must be an holy Company. I Answer.

1. So was not the [...] mentioned Acts 19.32, 42. But concerning the Church of Christ, we grant it (sano sensu) upon some of your Arguments, which I think are conclu­sive enough.

2. We say, God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy, Exod. 19.6. The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy, where one of them was a believer, 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy, separated from a Paganish conversa­tion, [Page] and under an external Covenant with God.

3. We say, it is their duty to be holy by sanctification, this they are to labour after. But we deny,

1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints, or no Church, and this our Brethren will not own.

2. That a visibility of saving grace, is neces­sary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it.

1. Because our Brethren (we hope) will own the Infants of their members, to be mem­bers, in whom is no such visibility.

2. Because special saving grace is a thing in­visible, and of which we can make no true judgement.

3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it; we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by, who ad­mitted three thousand and five thousand in a day, Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Gospel.

Fourthly, our Brethren themselves say, that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted, which is not fit matter in the constitution: We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes, as they have united themselves in means of worship, Churches constituted, not to be constituted; and do not understand (while [Page] the form, which doth dare esse continues) how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church, any more then the rottenness of some pieces of Timber, yea though the ma­jor part of those pieces be hardly sound, makes the house (while it stands and keeps the form) not to be an house.

But fifthly, we grant to our Brethren, that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel, or are affectedly ignorant of them, or are guilty of leudness in their lives, ought to be cast out of the Church, though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace, remembring the failings of Lot, Noah, David, Solomon, and Peter; yet we say by ver­tue of the Command of God (though they may have a root of grace) they ought to be admonished, suspended, and excommuni­cated, and this for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the good of their own souls, not because they have no saving grace, or no visibility of it; for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them, as to make us of another minde.

We therefore grant you (brethren) that the vi­sible Church, is the Kingdom of Christ, the body of Christ, and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom, who give not due homage to him, members of this body, real members, and yet must be cut off, branches in this Vine, and yet not bringing forth fruit, John 15.2. [Page] ‘ You desire to know what reason we have to ju­stifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace, in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper, and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints.’ The An­swer Brethren is very easie, Because we find, that a man should examine himself before he eat­eth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup: but we no where find, Let a man examine himself, before he comes into the fellowship of the Church; and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission, to do it very throughly. But our Brethren know no Rule they say, for an ordi­nary suspension of compleat and owned Mem­bers of the Body from the Sacrament. If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6. He will shew you plain Scripture for it; if the incestu­ous person had been excommunicated, St. Paul needed not to have said, sufficient is the punish­ment which is inflicted, for they had punished him as much as they could. Nor was there any thing to be remitted. See Beza on the Text more fully. However our Brethren (as I hear) ordinarily practise it, when a person is under admonition, and the Church waiting to see the issue of it, we plead for it no further.

5. You tell us fifthly (Brethren) that a Church must be an united company; if you had told us in what sense you understand united, we could better have told you our minds (at [Page] least I could have better told you mine) con­cerning it. People may be united by cohabita­tion, by common profession, by mutual consent, this you seem to understand: this again may be either explicitly, by Covenant, or implicitly, by a constant joyning in the same practice which our Brethren contend for, or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell: this being premised Brethren, I conceive.

1. Every company called [...] cannot be said to be an united company, either as to an union of judgement or practice: the rout, Acts 19. called by this name were not.

2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ (called by this name in Scripture) were united, but neither by cohabitation, nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinan­ces, but every such company must be an uni­ted company as to profession of the same Do­ctrine, and acknowledging the same specifi­cal Ordinances of the Gospel; all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the uni­versal Church prove this.

3. There is no need that every particular Church (if not organized) and under the exercise of Discipline, should be united, by consent as to pra­ctice, in the same numerical Administrations; every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called [...] without such a consent; you often read of the Church in a particular house, Col. 4.15. [Page] Rom. 16.5. Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved.

4. Indeed it seems reasonable, that a par­ticular Church, organized, and in which Disci­pline ordinarily should be administred, should be a company united by consent; for my own part I can allow you this, though I know some of my Brethren will not.

5. That this Ʋnion must needs be by an expli­cite Covenant, or consent is neither to be proved by one Text, nor yet by one sound reason, and to im­pose this as necessary, is a meer humane in­vention, and not to be indured, because there is not the least warrant in Gods word for it.

But lastly, we heartily wish, that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power, the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicite consent. And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it, though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such, as seeing no command of God for it, shall not think fit to submit to it: Thus far I can yield our Brethren, that a particular Church is an united Company. And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Socie­ties to be true Churches, not (as some would (ridiculously) fasten upon us) because they live within such local limits, but because they [Page] are societies of baptized persons, who by a tacit, and implicit consent, have united themselves, wait­ing upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship. And this Ʋnion holding, we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches, although (as the Church of Corinth) corrupt­ed in some of their members, and therefore not to be separated from, nor disowned as no Churches, but to be purged, and the old lea­ven put out, that they may be a new lump.

5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place, That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appoint­ed by Christ, and this for the glory of God, &c. I freely grant, nay it may be I will grant more, viz. that they must be a people, who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordi­nance of Discipline.

But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren, if I tell them, I have almost made my head ake, with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle (save one) and do what I can, I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse, or is brought in upon any easier terms, then they say, The Fellow brought in Hercules, viz. by head and shoulders; for un­doubtedly) if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason, it would never have come there: The passage is this,

But we shall say no more of this, Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the same truth, asserting Presbyterial Government to be from hea­ven, although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this: The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government. May be! they would have said, must be, had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it.

I must profess my self (dear Brethren) to be so ignorant, that I can neither understand the sense of this passage, either copulatively, or disjunctively; will you give me leave to sift it a little? possibly (though it all looks like chaff) some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it.

But we shall say no more of this (you say) Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the same Truth. Of this? of what? You had be­fore been speaking of the Papists, making their Decrees and humane inventions, equal with the ten Commandments; and told us, you believe Revela­tions of new matter are ceased, and that Christ hath ceased from his work, &c. Now you tell us, you shall say no more of this: your Bre­thren (viz. We of the Presbyterial perswasion) not being baptized into the belief of the same truth, asserting Presbyterial Government to be from hea­ven: whats this to the making of Church Ca­nons of equal authority with Gods word? Do any of us make them so? Or had our Brethren a [Page] minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts, nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books. Doth [the same truth] relate only to what fol­lows, that we are not all of a minde, as to the Divine Right of Church-Government: what need­ed our Brethren have added this in this place, or what is the meaning of those words? [But we shall say no more of this] and then adding the other as a reason. But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth, That the Presby­terians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven: They are fouly to blame then, for I should think Popery, as to Govern­ment, better than Presbyterie, if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven. But it is yet more wonderfull (Brethren!) which you tell us, that the Assembly did not so believe, yea, expressed as much; for they only say, Many particular Congregations may be united; and you note, they would have said must be, if they had so judged. Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more then it may be, but they have also in the same place proved that it was so, both in the Church of Jerusalem, and also in the Church of Ephesus.

If they only say it may be, but prove it must be, I hope it is enough; our Reverend Brethren loved to use soft words, and hard Arguments: But indeed they could not well say it must be, for there might be but one particular Church in [Page] a Nation, and then it was not necessary; but surely our Brethren would not have said, it may be, if they had thought there was no par­ticular or general ground for it in Gods word, and surely, what hath such a foundation in Gods word, is jure Divino (not withstanding our Brethrens critical observation.) Our Brethren of the Assembly do not say it may be, the sense of the Texts they quote to prove it, yet you (Brethren) must remember you tell us so for some if not all of your Texts for Election, where all you pretend to, is our sense may be the sense; yet I hope you will say that Election is jure Divino. Our Brethren know that they have pretended a Jus Divinum too for gifted mens preaching, and yet for fear of their ask­ing maintenance (and to avoid our Argument from thence) tell us, they may preach occasio­nally, but will not say, They must preach constantly.

In the last place Brethren, you fear we may be provoked against you, and therefore you favour us with your Reasons, for engaging in this service, and excuse for coming into it so late. ‘A pit you say hath been digged, and a long time stood open, and divers have fallen into it, and you come out in charity to cover it.’ Whether you have indeed covered, or uncovered a Pit, Let every judicious Christian judge, yea let the experiences of all the Churches of Christ te­stifie. I beseech my dear and reverend Brethren [Page] to lay their hands upon their hearts, and consider whether they have not uncovered that pit, into which some years since, many (sup­posed) Brethren in New England falling, sank, and rose up no more to a visible repentance for their Errors and Blasphemies. That pit, in­to which many Members of our Brethrens Churches in Holland fell, & that sadly too. That pit into which many Members of their late Churches in England, yea in Norfolk fell, and are come out Quakers, pleaders for the Jewish Sab­bath, for the power of Miracles (as not ceased) conferring (as they pretend) the Holy Ghost, &c. That pit which the most learned, judicious, & godly-wise Brethren, Pastors of our Brethrens Churches in England, will not indure to stand open where they have to do; which the reve­rend Pastors of the Chu [...]ches in New England dare not let stand open without a Teaching El­der present to watch it. This pit our Brethren have endeavoured again to uncover, and I hope it will appear as vain an attempt as his who would needs rebuild Jericho (as to the issue of the work, though not as to the pu­nishment of the persons, whom I desire to love & honor, for their work sake, though not for this works sake) I could have heartily wished, my Brethren had left this Idol to plead for it self, and I dare say, they might have done it without offending, one humble, serious judi­cious Christian, (at least who is known to me)

I most humbly beseech my dear and Reve­rend Brethren, to hear the cryes of many sober judicious persons, lamenting the sad conditi­on of the Parishes wherein they live, which instead of able and godly Ministers, are served with none, but such as mend their trading on the week day, by assuming this unbridled li­berty on the Sabbath, who are both obtruded upon them, and unable to speak the word of God as they ought to speak; so that they are forced (in these days of Reformation too) to go from Parish to Parish, to seek one who can speak to them in the name of the Lord, or to whose preaching they can go in faith, and at­tend upon it as a publike Ordinance. Doth not this Liberty dead the hearts of sober men, as to acting in any Reformation, by casting out scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient Ministers? While they see little more good from it, then casting out one ignorant insufficient man, to make way for some others; or the casting out one that would prophesie of wine and strong drink, to make way for others, who shall pro­phesie the vain imaginations of their own hearts, or the errors of Millenaries, Anti-Mini­sterial persons, and high flown Anabaptists; and who would not judge, that if people must be under this sad destiny to have a snare for their souls stand in their Pulpits, it had better be one that every one knows, and would avoid, than one that is covered over with the hypocrisie [Page] of a little hay or stubble, and is no less dan­gerous and more hard to be discovered by vulgar eyes?

Dear Brethren! I beg your pardon, if in this case, the zeal of my God, his House, People, Truths glory, hath eaten me up, in this Cause in which I think all of them are so deeply concerned, and sad experience hath pro­ved it.

As to your excuse, for coming so late into this Dis-service to the Church and Truth of God, I have no reason to be trou­bled at it; as thinking you have at last come too soon: And I am apt to believe the Rebukes of your own Conscience might retard your expedition: I have en­deavoured to follow you with more speed, observing it a piece of Wisdom of the GOD of Nature, to plant the Anti­dote within view of the Poison. I can truly say that while you have a just An­swer of your Book (so far as I am con­cerned in it) I have the Answer of a good Conscience, having spoken nothing on this Subject, but what I believe to be the Truth of GOD. Nor have I wil­lingly shewed any passion.

So praying that those honest Hearts (of which I perswade my self you are all possessed) may hereafter be found en­diting [Page] a better matter. I commend you to the LORD, and to the blessing of his Grace: Being

BRETHREN,
Your Servant for the Lord Jesus Christs sake, John Collinges.
Chaplyfield-House in Norwich, Febr. 12. 1657.

To every Christian Reader.

Reader,

THere are three or four great Truths of God, the Tu­telage of which, from their enemies (at least in these parts) I have formerly undertaken, 1. The Divine Or­dinance of Gospel Preaching, in the administration of which, all who thought themselves gifted men pleaded a right of intercommonage with those, who according to Gospel-Rules are separated to that work: 2. The liber­ty of Christians, from the observation of Holy Days. 3. The pure administration of the holy Sacrament of the Supper: and 4. The Divine Right of Church-Go­vernment in the hands of Christs proper Officers. My discourse concerning the first, I have already once vin­dicated; what I said upon the second (to my knowledge) none hath yet answered; as to the two last, there hath been something published to the world, under pretence of answer. John Timson and Mr. Humfry have pretended something by way of answer to the third: and Theoph. Brabourne to the fourth. And now three Reverend Bre­thren have undertaken me the second time, in the defence of the Preaching of gifted mens Preaching. I shall only give thee a true account, why I have said nothing to the three other Answerers, nor have any thoughts to do it. As for John Timson had he fallen upon me but with his Cart­whip, I think I should have turnd again, but falling so fouly upon me with his plow-staff (upon a maxime I have learn­ed from some Gentlemen, that a Rapier is no weapon fit to engage a Carter upon the Road) I thought it prudence to [Page] runaway: Besides that, perceiving he had got the Art to answer himself by more then one manifest contradiction; I thought it pity any one else should be put to the trouble, especially considering, that after I had drawn seven or eight sheets of an Answer, my Stationer assured me, he had not sold above one of his Books, and it was pity by an Answer, to commend his Book to the worlds Enquiry Mr. Humfry indeed discovers a reverend opinion of his Book, I suppose for the Notion he in the main drives, not for his way of handling of it, which I think scarce de­serves such a character. As for Mr. Humfry, I per­ceived him sailing in his last Book at a lower rate, and I was loth by an answer to serve him with a wind, which might have tempted him to have spread his sails to their former wideness (I remember the ill influence, learned Spanhemius his Answer to Amiraldus had upon him to this purpose.) Besides that, I saw I must have differed with him in more momentous matter then that of the Sa­crament, if I had given him a strist answer: and I was not willing to raise more dust of Controversie then is al­ready raised in the world. As for Theoph. Brabourne, as I could finde nothing in his Book besides error and non-sense: so I perceive the world had no better opinion of it; the Stationer returning him his Printed Copies for New-years-gifts for his Friends, because he could sell none of them, or but exceeding few, and though I have often met the Books at my Friends Houses, where he had given them, yet (that I know of) I never found any of them made fit to read, or otherwise used than to kindle Tobacco. Besides that, immediatly after his publicati­on of that Rapsody of impertinence, I saw some Papers he had scattered up and down this City, to prove there were three distinct Gods, and to the will of which of them he had calculated his Book I could not tell. The GOD whom I serve is but one, he that can blaspheme the Living GOD, may be excused for that crime towards [Page] his Truths and Servants, and deserves not to be menti­oned in a Christians mouth.

As for this last Book, called The Preacher Sent, I finde it written by grave and sober persons, with a good shew of Argument (indeed as much as their Cause would bear I think) and dictated by a sober composed and gentle Spirit, and the concernment of the Book to be of exceeding Moment, especially in relation to this Coun­ty, which (I believe) hath more of that sort of Preach­ers then any three Counties in England have: I have therefore thought it worth the while to examine their Book, so far as I am concerned in it; with what suc­cess (Reader) thou must be Judge, and the Lord guide thee in Judgement, both as to this, and every truth: So prays,

Thy Faithfull Servant in the Lord Jesus, J. C.

The Printer to the Reader.

READER,

I Would desire thee (by reason of the Authors dwelling so far off that he could not Correct his Book himself) that thou wouldst mend with thy Pen the Errors of the Press.

Farewell.

CHAP. I. Containing an answer to the three first Chapters of our Brethrens Book, Concerning Preaching without Ordination. In which, the terms Minister, Ministry, and Office are conside­red and explaned, and three Questions discussed: 1. Whether gifted men not ordained can be cal­led Ministers, and in what sense. 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the work or no. 3. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Universal Church; The Ne­gative part of the first, The Affirmative part of the two latter is defended; And whatsoever our Brethren have offered on the contrary is fully an­swered and proved fallacies; their description of Office proved faulty, &c.

1. THat two of the Books lately Pub­lished, against the Preaching of per­sons meerly gifted, and for Ordina­tion (as that which gives the call unto the work of the Ministry) should (as our Brethren say) con­tain the substance of all the rest, is no great wonder, considering that (I trust) they were all wrote by the same Spirit, and (for the most part) [Page 2] made use of the same Scripture for the Sedes of their Arguments: But that our Brethren should take my Vindiciae ministerii Evangelioi to be one of them, either speaks their (too much) respect for me; or their policy to magnifie that Enemy whom they conceive they have conquered.

2. For my Pamphlet; it was written seven years since, commanded (almost) to the Press by an holy and emi­nent servant of God (now with God) Mr. Jeremy Whi­taker, who was with me, when I was writing; and argu­ing the need, or expedience of such a Pamphlet, he told me he was of Augustine's mind, who would have every body write against Pelagius. It was occasioned at first, by the troublesomness of a gifted man (as himself judged) in communion with me, who had a great am­bition to be expounding Scripture; and (in a teach) be­cause we would not allow it, afterwards left us, and joynd himself, with a Congregational Church, who had no better opinion of his gifts than we had before, & re­strained his lust in that ambition too; and in a like teach, he left them and turned Quaker. For the satisfaction of those Christians in communion with me, upon the trou­ble given us by this person, I first (at private meetings of Christians in communion with me) discoursed the things in my Book; afterwards Printed them. It plea­sed God so far to bless my indeavours, that since that time, none of those committed to my charge have pre­sumed to attempt any such practice; and it hath pleased God so far to give my Printed Book success, that I think it hath been twice Printed, and several persons (some of quality) have returned me thanks, for my poor labours in it. And our Brethren having singled me out for a combatant once more in this quarrel; I shall indeavour to discharge the duty they have imposed upon me, and to do it with the same moderation, and spirit of meek­ness, which they profess, and (for ought I observe yet) have practised.

[Page 3]3. Our Brethren in the first Chapter do two things. 1. They Open the term Ministry. 2. The term Office. 3. They raise two Questions:

1. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth corre­late to the work, or to the Church? If our Brethren would have been content, that it should have been in its relati­on divided, we should not have opposed it: But affir­ming it is no relate to the work, but only to the Church, I must profess my self dissatisfied.

2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth corre­late to the Church Ʋniversal, or only to the particular Church? Our Brethren say, Only to the particular Church; If our Brethren would have been content with a division again, that the Minister should be related to both, we should have granted it; or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church, as had constant standing Ca­tholick Officers, we know no such Church, and should not have disputed de or pro non ente: But (as they state it) I must profess my self also in this of another mind, viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church: And therefore to triall we must go.

‘In the opening of the term Ministry, Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly do­mination, Mat. 20.25, 26, 27. that those who do acts of ministration, are Ministers; that [...] & [...] and the words used in Scripture to express Mini­sters and Ministry, are applied, in Scripture, to others beside Ministers in Office: that their constant perfor­ming acts of ministration, entituleth them to the denomi­nation of Ministers; and their work should be called Preaching, as we usually call them, Bruers, or Bakers, who brew, or bake constantly; and therefore Christians should so call them.’ This is the sum of what they have, p. 2. & 3. To all which, I shall crave leave to [Page 4] answer. For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distin­ction, which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him

1. That the terms Minister, Ministry, and Office, are of various interpretations both in civil, and sacred usage, is unquestionable. These terms therefore fal­ling into the questions, the explication, and limitation of them, to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary. An accurate discourse of a question, requires, that no signification of the terms in it be o­mitted in the Explication. In plenâ tractatione, vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda (say Logicians.)

2. For the first term therefore [Minister] that it is a Latine word, none can doubt, nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant, one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master; so called, either be­cause he is to his Master a manibus, an hand servant, quasi manister (as Perottus will have it) or because he is less than his Master, quia minor in statione; (which is Isio­dore's notion, and preferred by learned Martinius.) In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors, Infimi homines ministros se praebent, saith Tully. l. 1. de Orat: and again, lib. de Amicitiâ, —Libidinis ministri, so Ovid

—illo dicunt Mactata Ministro
Corpora—

3. The holy Penmen of Scripture, (either moved, from the congruity of the native signification of the word, or the notion of it accrewing by general usage) have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the great work of Preaching the Gospel; at lest our translators (interpreting what they wrote in another language) have done so. The original words which they have so interpreted are [...]; which are of as various sig­nification, [Page 5] and two of them (at least) as variously appli­ed, by those holy Penmen, as the word Minister is by other Authours.

The first word, [...]. [...] (which from [...] properly signifies, one who roweth in a Boat, or Ship, under ano­ther, and thence any one who is servant to another) is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testa­ment; and I think, but two of those Texts can be in­terpreted of Preachers, they are Acts 26.16. 1 Cor. 24.1. In the first Paul saith, God raised him to be a Mi­nister; in the latter, they are called Ministers of Christ: for I cannot believe that the phrase, Lu. 1.2. can be in­terpreted of Preaching Ministers (for I think they had no Text before that time) but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions, and so were Servants to the holy Penmen, in communicating what they saw, and heard, to them. There are indeed two other Texts, which some may mistake into this sense, Lu. 4.20. Acts 13.5. In the first, it is said Christ clozed up the Book, and gave it to the Mini­ster; in the latter, John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas. Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer, belonging to the Temple (something I think akin to our Parish Clerks) who was wont, to bring, and carry away the Book of the Law, to or from the Priest or Levite, or other person that ex­pounded. In all other Texts of the New Testament, where the word [...] is used, Mat. 26.58. Mar. 14.54. it signifieth Civil Offi­cers, either domestick, as Servants; or Politick state Officers, such as jailers, pursevants, or the like; in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament.

The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other; [...]. In its native force, it signifies no more than a servant, call'd so either [...] (as some would have it) or which pleaseth Eustathius better, [...] (a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect.) It is in [Page 6] Scripture applied to Christ, Ro. 15.8. and the Apostle (u­sing this word) saith of him, Is he the Minister of sin? 2. To Magistrates, Rom. 13.4. To ordinary Servants in a Family, Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11. Mark 9.35.10.43. Jo. 2.5.9. To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ, John 12.26. Phoebe is call'd thus, Ro. 16.1. Deacons by Ossice, in the Church, have their name from this word, and it is ap­plied to express those Officers, Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.8.12. It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel. To Paul, and Apollo, 1 Cor. 3.5. To Tychicus, Eph. 6.21. Col. 4.7. To Timothy, 1 Thes. 3.2. These again are called Ministers of God, 2 Cor. 6.4. Of the New Covenant, 2 Cor. 3.6. Of Righteous­ness, 2 Cor. 11.15. Of Christ, 2 Cor. 11.33. Of the Church, 0.0.0.0. Our Brethren, p. 2. tell us, that [...] is often applied to Saints no Officers. But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1. for that: so they may con­sider, that no Preaching Saint, in Scripture, who was no Officer, was ever so called; though if he had, it had not signified much as to the present question; for any one that served but his Masters Table, was called [...]. And if our Brethren do only urge the com­mon usage of the word, then they do but play with an Equivocal term.

[...]. What it signi­fies in Scrip­ture.The third word used is [...]. The most restrained word of the three, both in civil, and also in sacred writ: yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate, Rom. 13.6. To the Minister of the Gospel, Rom. 15.16. to a publick Person, but ministring in a private manner, Phil. 2.25. To Angels, Heb. 1.7.14. To Christ himself, Heb. 8.2. Some note, that it is alwayes a title of publick perfor­mance, but Philip. 2.25. It is otherwise used. Yet there are that think, that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office, and in that ministration to Paul so acted; if any credit may be given to civil Authors, for the proper usage of [Page 7] this word, it signifieth, both a publick office, and a sacred Service. So Suidas and Scapula assure me; and the E­tymology of the word as much: It is true, in civil Au­thors, it is sometimes used otherwise, but Suidas saith it is abusively. I think, we may say there is this difference betwixt this word, and the other; that whereas other words primarily signifie, ordinary, private, civil Service, this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service; and in all holy writ, is not applied to a private person; Sure I am, that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services.

5. But, though both Minister in the Latine, and [...], and [...] in the Greek, and Minister in our English tongue, are equivocal terms; Yet we must cum vulgo loqui, speak according to vulgar usage, not accor­ding to equivocal notions of the word. Gifted men cannot in pro­priety of Speech be called Mini­sters. We will grant to our Brethren, that the persons they plead for, may be called Ministers, if they do but wait at their Ma­sters Table, or be but under-Commissioners to the State, or the like, though they should never Preach (accor­ding to the signification of the words) but as the Church of God, hath in all late ages used the term Mini­ster, we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be cal­led a Minister; we do not deny, but that every General of an army may be called Imperator; and was so; but as the term hath lately been used, and is used, we deny he can be called an Emperour; we do not deny, but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading, may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer, but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer; we do not say, but our Brethren though not ordained, may be such Ministers as you read of, Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5. but not such as you read of, 1 Cor. 4.1. Acts 26.16. And (by vulgar usage) such only (for a long time) have been so called; to di­stinguish persons in office, from such as only do acts of Service Civil, or Sacted. I must confess, I must com­mend [Page 8] people, for keeping that term still as distinctive; if every one should be called Sir John, or Sir Thomas such a one, in time, there would be no difference be­twixt a Knight, and a begger, and names are given for distinction sake. If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers, should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers, or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench, should say, there sit a dozen Ministers, people would not understand what they said, and according to vulgar speech, it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment; yet if our Brethrens Argument were good, that gifted men should be called Ministers, because they are called [...], it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this. For Magistrates are called Ministers, and Magi­strates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called [...]. I am much against this removing of the Anti­ent Land-Marks, which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with; and think it a very ill design, which would produce nothing but confusion. Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture, where a gif­ted man (not ordained) is called a Minister of the Go­spel; a Minister of Christ, &c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much. Preaching without ordi­nation. p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting, (as they would hint) entitle them to that name. It is true, constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker; for neither of them are titles of office. But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince, and for seven years together, exercise the Acts of his place, he would not yet by bare acting, be entituled to the name of a Prince or King. The Conclusion is, that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense, according to later ages re­striction and constant usage of the word Minister, be called Ministers; they may be called Speakers if you please.

Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister, and of the Greek words so translated; Second Term, Ministry. let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry im­ports. And this also we shall find Homonymous.

1. Every one will conclude, that if [...], signifie a Minister; [...], must needs signifie their service or ministration; and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to ex­press that in Scripture, which we translate Ministry, I mean two of them, [...] & [...], the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple, the latter very often, Eph. 4.12. Col. 4.17. 2 Tim. 4.5, &c.

And indeed I think, this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture, to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers, Acts 1.17, 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19. 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18. Eph. 4.12. Col. 4.17. 2 Tim. 4.5, 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Go­spel perform in Preaching, administring Sacraments, &c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church, who more strictly are called Deacons, Rom. 12.7. 1 Cor. 16.15. (though there be some question upon that Text:) So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry. And the old service of the Priests and Levites, is called a Ministry, Heb. 9.21. But in this sense, I take not Ministry in the Question: yet if our Brethren contend for words, I can state the question so, viz. Whether that work of the Ministry, which the Scripture mentioneth, eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel, be the work of persons meerly gifted.

2. But there is another usage of the word, which use at least hath procured it, according to which, we call the Ministry, A certain order of persons, set apart according to the will of God, for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances. In Analogy to the description of the High [Page 10] Priest, described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the descrip­tion thus. The Minister is one taken from amongst men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, for the dispensation of Publick Ordinances; and ministerium is but a collective term, as we call the company of Magi­states, the Magistracy of a Nation; So we call the com­pany of Ministers, the Ministry. So Aretius, Bucanus, Ʋrsin, &c. So Martinius, ministerium est ipse quoque mi­nister. So Ravanella, Munus vel functio vocatur mini­sterium, for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture; and so interpreteth many of those I before cited; the 2 Cor. 6.3. and that in 1 Tim. 12. seem very inclina­ble to this interpretation.

And here again, our Brethren seem to play with an equivocall term, when they tell us, that the speaking of gifted Brethren may be called Ministry, for there is mi­nistration in their service; so there is too in their Ser­vants waiting upon them at their Tables; yet I hope, they will allow common people, not to call the work of their Servants, waiting at their Trenchers, the Work of the Ministry; which yet follows by the same argument. If our Brethren say, that the gifted persons minister un­to the Church, so doth he that sweeps the Church; yet his work is not the work of the Ministry, as we have learned to speak. If they say, they minister unto Christ, Sub judice lis est; That question is yet to dispute upon the Apostles maxim, His Servants you are whom you o­bey; and it is still to be argued betwixt them and us, whether in their ministration, they obey the commands of Jesus Christ, yea or no.

Third Term.The third and last term is that of Office; A term as ambiguous as any other, it comes from the Latine word Officium. Hee that will look that word in Martinius his Lexicon Philologicum, will find at least eight signifi­cations of it. Our Brethren of London, in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici, p. 3. have given us a de­scription [Page 11] of it, so far as to limit it from homonymie, and to give the sense of it in the present question, which description, our other dissenting Brethren have faithfully transcribed thus.

The Office of the Ministry is a spirtual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry, in a person qualified, founded upon a speciall and regular call.

Our Brethren, p. 3. apprehend this to be faulty, and they declare their dissent, and the grounds of it, because (as they rightly apprehend) much of the controversie hangs upon this hinge.

They grant that Office is a relation with respect to an employment as its end.

‘But that it is a relation to the employment of the Mi­nistry as its Correlate they deny; the Church they say is the Correlate; and they say, the London Ministers confess this, p. 151. where they say the Minister hath a relation to the Catholick, as well as to the particu-Church, so that they seem to contradict themselves.’ This is the substance of what they say, p. 4. Whence they propound to speak to two questions.

‘ 1. Whether Office be a relation, to the work of the Ministry, or to the Church.’

‘ 2. Whether Office hath relation, to the Church uni­versal, or to the particular Church.’

They are (both of them) very important questions. To the first of them our Brethren speak, Chap. 1. where they undertake to prove, That the Office of the Mini­stry, is not a Correlate to the work of the Ministry, But to the Church; and this they endeavour by four Argu­ments.

That the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the persons towards whom it is to be executed, is most free­ly on our parts confessed: But that it should be no cor­relate to the work, is (I confess) such an absurdity in [Page 12] my ears, as will offer too much injury (I think) to com­mon sense. Officium est re­latio personae, ad certi operis necessariam effectionem. Martinii Lex. Philol. ad verbum Offici­um. Learned Martinius, (if this be an errour) is in the same mistake with our Brethren in London; he sayes in terminis, that an Office is the relation of a person to the doing of a certain work. If I remember my Logick right, those things are Relations, which either have their whole being in their respect to another, or any other way referred to it; this I learned out of Aristotle, Burgef­decius, &c. now Cui convenit definitio, ei convenit defini­tum, if the definition of Relations will agree to the Of­fice of the Ministry and the work, they must be Relati­ons, or else we understand not our Brethrens meaning. I then thus argue for our Brethren of London (to main­tain their skill in Logick.)

Arg. 1 If the Office of the Ministry either hath its whole be­ing in 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.

If our Brethren deny the Major, they deny the Logi­cal description of Relations; and so can build no argu­ments from the Canons of Logicians about them.

If they say the Office neither hath its whole being in the work, nor is any other way related to it, I think they deny common sense.

Arg. 2 Again, The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated: But the Office of the Ministry is terminated in the work; Therefore the work is its Cor­relate. If our Brethren deny the Major, they again deny all Logick. If they deny the minor, it is that which every one apprehends; and it is all one, as to deny the Sun shineth at noon day.

But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments, it is fit we should examine them. For the first they say, the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office, ‘Because [Page 13] Relations cannot be separated; they are simul naturâ, take away one, and you must take away the other: but the work of the Ministry, by the sickness, death, im­prisonment, or rejection of the Minister may cease; and yet according to our principles, the office doth not cease, a man is a Minister in office, though he can­not do the work. Hence they observe, that whereas our Brethren of London, thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office (because, a Minister may be separated from his Church) they had secured the permanency of the office. These Bre­thren think, that they have deeply fallen into the same pit, because the work may cease.’ This is the sub­stance of p. 5. which in form, is thus.

Relations and Correlations, exist and perish toge­ther.

But (according to your principle) so do not the of­fice and work of the Ministry. Therefore they are no relations.—

The major they say, is the Certain rule of Relations, (in Logick.)

The minor they prove, because we will not say, the office of the Ministry in a man ceaseth, when he is kept from doing his work by sickness, imprisonment, banish­ment, rejection, &c. I answer,

1. They call the major, the Certain rule of Relations. But neither tell us of what Relations, nor in what sense, Logicians understand that rule and reason will enforce for the understanding. I will therefore tell them, we know our Brethren are not to learn, that Relations are of two sorts. The first Logicians call Relata secundum es­se, real relations. Such, whose whole being (as relations) lye in their relation; such are the Relations of Father and Son, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant. The Father (as a Father) hath no other being, but in his re­lation to a Son, and so of the rest; this is called Relatio [Page 14] praedicamentalis, of these Relations, their rule (rightly understood) is true.

2. But secondly, there are other Relations too, cal­led in Logick, Relata secundum dici, nominal relations, yet such as have a reality of Relation, but not such a one, that all the being of the Relations (as such) is wrapt up in their relation; this relation they call Rela­tio transcendentalis: As now, Scibile & Scientia, A thing to be known, and the knowledge of this thing are relations; and instanced in as such by most Logicians.

Yet neither the one, nor the other of these relations, have all their being in their relations. Of these Relati­ons, we say (and all say) the Rule is false, and reason will enforce it. For example. This 20 th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse, but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not ex­istent. The knowledge of the nature of thunder is ex­istent: But it doth not thunder. So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition, that we say, the of­fice and the work are Relata secundum esse, Relations of the first sort, but we are not of that mind; for we think, the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Rela­tion; But in that authority, wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination, which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it.

2. In eodem enti­talis gradu vel ut Ens in actu, vel ut Ens in potestate. Zabarel.Secondly, saith Zabarel, the Rule is true, that 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 in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it. The Mayor of Norwich, is my Lord Protectors Officer, for the Government of the City; and none in their sober mind, but will say, he is Mayor, and the government of the City are related each to other. Suppose the Mayor now sick, or in prison, is he not an officer, be­cause at present he cannot execute his Office? Accor­ding [Page 15] to the first answer, we deny the major; and by vertue of the second, we deny the minor. And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion.

Hence (Christian Reader) thou mayest see our Bre­thren deal not kindly with thee, when they tell thee, ‘As well may you affirm a man to be a Father, who hath no Son, nor child; or a man to be an husband, who hath no wife, as you may affirm a man to be a Minister, who hath no employment.’ For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work. A Father, (as he is a Father) is a thing hath no being without a child; and so cannot be: but an officer, if at present he hath no work, yet hath (as an officer) an authority and power to do such a work, when he hath opportunity. I would fain know of our Brethren, whe­ther a man may not be in the office of a Colonel, though at present, he hath neither men to make up a Regiment, nor consequently the government of them: It is his Commission makes him an Officer, and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment, and execute his authority, as soon as he hath opportunity. Neither do we say, a man can be no officer, who hath no employment, but we say, a man may be an officer, who at present may want oppor­tunity to do what is his employment, and he is by his office authorized unto. And now I suppose, every Rea­der will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument, which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto se­cundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter: Their second Argu­ment is in sum this.

‘Relations and Correlations exist together; but the of­fice Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work; because it is a means in order to the end. Therefore the office of the Mi­nistry and the work cannot be Correlates.’

The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argu­ment is the same Canon in Logick, which was the foun­dation of the other Argument. We grant that the of­fice [Page 16] is a means, in order to the work as its end; and we say, that the office must be before, the work. But we say, these are no such relations as must necessarily be Si­mul Naturâ, and exist together; except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu, and so sunt simul, they are toge­ther, though they do not exist together; consider them as Entia in potestate, they are Simul Natura, and so it is not necessary, that the means should be before the End; In short the very same answer serveth as before.

Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus.

That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office, that is the Correlate.

But the Gospel owns the Church, not the work, as Cor­relate to the office. — Ergo.

The major we confess, but say there wants a word in it. That which [alone] the Gospel owns, is the only Correlate.

The minor we deny, we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry, Acts 20.27. But we say, it owns the work too, Eph. 4.11, 12. he gave some Apostles, —some Pastors and Teachers. — For the work of the Ministry; and I hope, Eph. 4. is as much Gospel, as Acts 20.17. Our Brethren say here again, That Officers are not related to the Em­ployment of the Ministry. Christian Reader, it must sure­ly offend thy Eares, surely we would not much desire such Officers. The truth is, they do Dividere componen­da, which is a fallacy in Logick. Officers are related to Church, and work too; and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire, to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logici­ans, they would have acknowledged it with half this stir.

Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form, lyes thus.

If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture, be such as proclume them relates, to the Church, not to the work, then they are so related.

But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scrip­ture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are re­lates, not officer and imployment. —Ergo.

To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pa­stors, Teachers, &c.

1. To all which we answer, 1. That it is a feeble ar­gumentation which is drawn from names and titles, de­finitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis, not the question quid rei; the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a thing, Notatio saepe est inadaequata, modo latior, modo an­gusti [...]r (saith the Logician.) But,

2. Except our Brethren will have their major under­stood universally, viz. All the titles, and all the names, we conceive their Argument very faulty: for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City, it doth not follow, but that his title of Justice of the Peace, hath the keeping of the Peace, and the Sta­tutes concerning Justices, for the Correlate; or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magi­strate, intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate.

3. If our Brethren do say, that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate; we shall desire by the next to know, whether their title of [...] & [...] Criers or Preachers, in the following Texts, have the Church only for their Correlate, 1 Tim. 2.7. 2 Tim. 1.11. 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14. Philip. 1.15. Nor will it serve our Brethrens turn, to say, that if the Question be asked, To whom are they Officers? the answer must be, to the Church 1. For first the answer may be most pro­perly to Jesus Christ 2. Suppose the question be asked, what is their office? for what work is the office ordained? The answer must be, for the Preaching of the Gospel, for the work of the Ministry. The truth is, The work is objectum quod, the Church is objectum cui, Both the Church, and the imployment are the Correlates to this [Page 18] Relation, the Church are the Correlated persons, the work of the Ministry, is the Correlated thing. So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Re­verend Brethren of London; for both the Church, and the Employment are Correlates.

Nay (under favour) not the Church alone, but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the of­fice of the Ministry, as to Preaching. The office of the Ministry was instituted, as well for the gathering of the Saints, as for the edifying of them; as well for the per­fecting of their number, as for the perfecting of their graces. Till we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, &c. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13.

We can never believe, that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens, that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother, but as an officer of the Gospel: Nay more, God himself is the Correlate to this office; and therefore they are called the Ministers of God; the Ministers of Christ; not Elders of the Church only, or Ministers of the Church; they are Gods Ministers in the Church, and the Ministers of the Gospel, in, and for the Church, and world too. Let our Brethren shew us but one Scripture, where a Prea­ching Minister is called [...]; or [...] or [...], The Minister of the Church. We can shew them many, where they are called the Ministers of Christ, of righteousness, of the Gospel of Christ. Now it is a rule, Relata reciprocantur, a Father is called the Father of such a Son, and the Son is called the Son of such a Father. But I say, our Brethren speak no Scrip­ture phrase, when they call Ministers (i. e. Preaching Ministers) Ministers of such a Church; they are the Ministers of God, and his Gospel in such a Church; and they have some relation to the Church, but not a more relation than they have to the work; they are call'd Ministers of the Gospel, and the Gospel is called [Page 19] their Gospel; My Gospel, saith Paul twice; here is a plain reciprocation; let them shew us the like, if they can, for their assertion; otherwise we hope, our Christi­an friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argu­mentation as this is, to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry, but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern.

And I earnestly beseech our Brethren, that they would not indeavour to abuse simple soules with these wofull fallacies, which have not (as you see) the least foundation; either in Scripture, reason, or usage of any approved Authors.

In the mean time, we will grant them, that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office.

But if we would grant our Brethren, that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate, not to the work, but to the Church, I perceive this would not give them satisfa­ction; unless we would also yield them, that it is a Cor­relate only to a particular Church, In opposition, not only to the Church Catholick invisible, viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad; But to the Church Catholick visible, in any notion. The Preacher sent chap. 2. This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Dia­na-Notion, but we can by no meanes bow down unto it. And therefore, that's the next thing we must bring to trial. Only before we do it, Give me leave to inform our Brethren, in our notion of a Church; though I shall better do it, when I shall return to answer their Epistle.

The word, which we translate Church, is [...]; Coetus evoca­tus voce prae­conis.— of which our Brethren can make no advantage, either from the Etymologie, or from the usage of it in Scrip­ture; according to the first, it signifies no more, than a company called out; it is both used by the Seventy inter­preters, to express the congregation of evil doers, Psal. 26.5. And by the Evangelist Luke, to express a rout, [Page 20] neither lawfully assembled, nor yet united, Acts 19.32. This word (in it self as unhallowed as any other) the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers, company, or Companies, of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven, Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel, Eph. 4.11, 12. Or out of a state of dark­ness into a marvelous light

Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into

  • Invisible.
  • Visible.

The invisible Church is either

  • Triumphant in heaven,
  • or Militant here upon the Earth.

The Visible Church is either

  • Universal, or
  • Particular.

By the Church universal, quatenus visible, we mean The whole number of people, over the face of the Earth, called out of the Paganish world, to the owning of the gos­pel of Christ; which being an integral Body, cons sting of homogeneous members, or parts, each part beareth the denomination of the whole; hence that part of this bo­dy which is in a Nation, Province, parish, &c. is properly called the Church of God, in such a Region, Nation, Province, parish, &c. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church, Acts. 8.3. Gal. 1.13. that is, all that ownned the gospel, whether in Jerusalem, or in Damascus, or the strange Cities, Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11. all that called on Christs name, whom he could come near, Acts 9.14.

Now besides these more general distributions of a Church, the Church as Visible, is capable of several states, from whence arise 3 other notions of it.

1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers, this Divines call an Entitive or Mate­rial Church, which is nothing else, but any particular number, any part of that company before mentioned, [Page 21] who are found in any Nation, Province, City, Parish, so called out of the paganish world, agreeing in the profession of the Gospel. In this sense I allwaies thought, that we and our brethren of the congregatio­nal perswasion had been agreed, that there are National, Provincial, and Parochial Churches.

2. There is a second notion of the Church, resulting from the consideration of this body, as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, authorized as his embassadours to preach the Gospel, and to Baptize, &c.

To open this notion a little. We consider, that it seemed good to the wisdome of God, to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel, that by it the peo­ple of God might be gathered together in one; Hence Christ when hee ascended up on high, gave gifts unto men, Eph. 4.11, 12. He gave some Apostles, these were to lay the foundation, and then Prophets, these were to be Instrumental in the building. And by the Apostles, he constituted Evangelists (who were as to power) little less than Provincial Apostles, and by these Pastors and tea­chers: Hence the Apostles created Evangelists, Philip, Timothy, Titus; and both the Apostles, and these Evan­gelists, ordained Pastors, and Teachers, Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. by fasting, prayer and imposition of hands, and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (containing the standing rules, for the settling of Churchs, in their per­manent state) Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease) rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world; now when in any place, God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel, and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospell, we say there is in such a Nation, Province, City, Parish, a Ministerial Church, which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former, and diffe­ring [Page 22] from it, we (I say) for distinction sake) call it a Mi­nisterial Church.

That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ, among whom also, are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ, for the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments. According to that commission, Go Preach and Baptize. Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine them­selves, and the steward of Christs mysteries must be faith­full, in order to which, there must be an act of Judg­ment pass upon the Receiver, which is jurisdiction; and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is no where committed to a [...]ingle person, it seems that in such a Church (according to perfect rules) it cannot be administred, except there be more than one officer, nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concurr in this judgment; yet Number making a Church, in case Ruling Elders cannot be had, I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church (who all­so are ruling) or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite, they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance. Nay farther, in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day, I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed, rather than people should want that Ordinance, as in Hezekiah's passeover, the Levites for every one not clean killed the passeover, which else had been against Gods order. 2 Chron. 30.17. Exod. 12.3, 4, 5, 6.

3. But lastly, the most perfect notion of a particular Church, is when it is perfectly Organized. A particular [...]hurch considered in relation to the Universal, is any [...]r [...] of it, whether that in a Nation, Province, Parish, or [...]he like, each of these is but a particular, because no [Page 23] more than a part of the wh le. But we usually take par­ticular in a more restrained notion, For that part of this universal company which can, or may, or doth, ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical admini­strations; or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen, or submitted to the same officers, as those whom God hath set over their souls, and this is a Church perfe­ctly Organized, and the most perfect notion of a parti­cular Church. This Church either without officers, or with, is the onely Church our Brethren can see (wee hope the fault is in their eyes)

Now the question is, whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church, or indeed, rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world, have any farther relation, or be in any office, to any but that particular company, o­ver which they are (respectively) more especially set, be­cause they cannot watch over all, &c. We affirm they have, and in this sense we assert, not onely a Church Catholike Visible, but a Church Catholike Visible Or­ganical too. By which we mean not, (what our bre­thren dream of) viz. An Ʋniversal visible society of Christians, actually subjected to one or more Ʋniversal Pastors, or guides, from whom subordinates must derive their office, and power, and with whom they must some­times meet, and communicate in some general sacred things, which may make them as the Jewes one Church, and which same general acts, or sacred services, can only be performed by that Ʋniversal head, or those Ʋni­versal officers. No Nor, that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erect­ed and constantly sitting: Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing. Our Brethren indeed, dress up some in this dress to the world, and shew them for Presbyterians. But we defie their notion of a Church Catholike in this sense; and say [Page 24] that it is but an odious representation, nothing corre­sponding to our principles. Our Brethren do, or may know, we are equally (with themselves) engaged, a­gainst Popes, Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives; And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren, that by Church Catholick visible Organical we mean no other than,

An habitual, Politico-Ecclesiastical society, body, flock, in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church; in uniform subjection to the same Lord, the same lawes, united in the same Faith, and under the same Baptism, performing the same worship▪ and ser­vice, Mr. Hudsons vindicati­on, &c. p. 127. &c. in kind, concerning which body we say, that al­though the members of it be dispersed far and wide, and divided into several parts, places, societies, and secondary combinations of vicinities, or Parishes, for actual, constant enjoyment of Ordinances, (as parti­cular Corporations, in a Kingdom are) yet still, those Ordinances, administrations, admissions, ejections, have influence upon and into the whole body, as it is a polity, and the members of any part, indefinitely, may, of right communicate one with another, yea, a­ny company of Christians may, though every person so meeting (and that but occasionally) may be of a several particular Church; and the Minister dispen­sing a particular Pastor to none of them all: yea, though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation; nor the Minister dispensing fixed in any particular congregation. And this by vertue of their general membership, and of the habi­tual indefiniteness of the Ministers office, And the common donation of the ordinances to Christs whole visible Kingdom.

Ibid.Now the tru [...]h is, there is no Civil Society, or King­dom, that in every thing correspondeth with this; [Page 25] but there use in the Kingdoms of the world to be some general officers, and offices; And some officers inferiour, and subordinate, receiving from them pow­er, and authority, by derivation, and subordination. And the inferiour are of less extent as to place, and power, than the superior. As the Lord Chief Justice of England is above other inferiour Justices.

And this is it (as Mr. Hudson hath noted) which hath made so many stumble at the notion of a Church Catholick Or­ganical; and upon this stone, our Brethren have stum­bled in their Epistle. First, making a man of Clouts; and then writing over his head, This is the Presbyterians Catholick Church; and then crucifying him with Argu­ments, which we are not concerned in.

‘But (as Mr. Hudson proceedeth) as in other things Christs Kingdom is not of this world, nor like unto world­ly polities, so neither in this: But every Minister of the Church, in his particular place, serveth the Church Catholick, admitting of members into a general free­dom in it; ejecting from general communion with it; he prayeth publickly for the whole body; and mana­geth his particular charge in reference to, & so as may stand with the good of the whole body (of which his Congregation is but a member) The Ordinances there administred, are the Ordinances given to the whole, not as a genus, (which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it) but as unto a spiritu­al kind, of an habitual body, and Organical polity. As to a sort of men, so, and so qualified, bound up in an union, and unity, of the same head, laws, seals, worship, communion.’

Thus had we discovered our minds, before our Bre­thren published this Boook; and it had been fair for them, to have disputed against this, not to deceive their Readers with fallacies, Ex ignoratione Elenchi, as Logi­cians speak; disputing against what their adversaries do▪ [Page 26] not say. In this sense we say, the office of the Ministry correlateth to the Ʋniversal Church. And what ever our Brethren say, in practice they will own this; for,

1. I would fain know of our Brethren, whether one Church may according to Gospel rules, receive into her bosome one whiom another Church hath cast out? if not, the officers that cast out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church, but of all particular Churches, and so consequently from the uni­versal Church, which is but a whole made up of those parts.

2. While our Bretheren baptize into their par­ticular Church, I wonder whether they do not also Bap­tize into any other particular Church? if not, when any person so baptized, is translated into another Church, why is he not again Baptized? his relation to the former Church ceasing.

3. I would fain know with what consistency of prin­ciples, our Brethren say a minister or pastor is in office only to a particular Church, and yet say, he that is in office to this Church, may administer the Sacrament of the Supper to the members of another Church? Oh but they do this (they tell us) by a communion of Chur­ches, by a communion of membership only, or of offices and officers only; the first alone may give the member a right to take, but not the officer a right to give, except there be also a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers, and Acts of office.

4. Although these 2 or 3 Brethren some-where in­deed say, that when the pastors of our Brethrens chur­ches preach out of their particular Church, they preach but as gifted men, yet I am sure others of our Bre­thren, and those (to speak modestly) no way inferior to our Brethren, will own no such thing: for who should be then obliged to hear them, or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance, a publike ordinance of [Page 27] Christ, I am yet to learn. So that in practice our bre­thren do every day own, what in words they deny. But to come close to the question stated by our Brethren thus. p. 8.

What Church office hath relation to? Preacher sent eap. 2. p. 8. whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only, or whether they be officers of an universal Church. I observe our Brethren in the same page altering their phrase, instead of saying, We deny office to be a correlate to the Ʋniversal Church: they say, We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an Ʋniversal Church.

We hope our brethren have no design to play at so small a game with us, as that must be which is only won by the homonomy of a term, however we will indeavour to prevent it.

For those new terms Pastors, and Teachers, in ecclesiastical use they have obtained a double significa­tion.

1. In Scripture the terms are taken more largely for any such as have authority to feed people with spiritual food, whether it be occasionally or constantly, so pastors is to be understood Eph. 4.11. (the only place where it is used in all the New Testament) so also Jer. 3.15. so Paul is called a Teacher of the Gentiles, and 1 Tim. 2.7. so Teachers is used Isa. 30.20. and Acts 13.1. 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. yea that term is used sometimes to express the Private duties of private persons. Heb. 5.12.

2. By a modern usage these terms are used to express persons chosen or accepted by particular churches for the work of the ministry amongst them, and restrained to that sense (by what warrant I cannot tell.) If our Brethren state the question in the latter sense concer­ning Pastors and Teachers qua tales, as such, they have no adversaries, for he that is pastor, or teacher, of a particular Church (as he is such a pastor or teacher) un­doutedly hath not the Church universal for his corre­late.

But our Brethren of the Province of London say true­ly, that a Regular Pastor or Teacher of a particular Church, hath (besides a particular relation to them as their pastor and teacher, (which their election or sub­mission to him or both have made them) a relation also to the Church Universal, as he is the minister of Jesus Christ, set apart and ordained for the preaching of the gospel, &c. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world. We do not say he is bound to do it in all places, that is impossible, nor to travel up and down (as the Apostles were) for that work is ceased, at least as to those places where people have received the gospel. But we say he may do it as opportunity is offe­red. And we believe, that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England, The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands, set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry, without a particular designation of them to this or that place, but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians, and to baptize such as should receive the Gospel; and (though not by their single Act as the Apostles) yet by the advice of the Church, and with their assistance, these might ordain Elders in their Cities, and form them up into complete Gospel order; yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles, both in regard of their mission being more ordinary, and also in regatd of their power being more limitted.

These things being premised, let us consider our Bre­threns Arguments: their first reduced into form is this,

"What the Gospel knoweth not, no Gospel offi­cers can be correlates unto. Of Preaching without ordi­nation. cap. 2 p. 8.

"But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Poli­tical Church. Ergo

1. At the first dash, our Brethren here take away the [Page 29] subject, or at least the suppositum of the question: The suppositum of the question is, That there is a Church Particular and Ʋniversal. The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related? They say to the Church Particular, we say to the Church Ʋniversal: to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Ʋni­versal. This is foul disputing.

2. But secondly, The whole may be granted, and yet nothing proved by it: for whether the Gospel knowes a Church universal under a political form or no, is not the question, it is enough if it knowes a Church Ʋniversal under any notion.

3. Thirdly the minor is false, as Mr. Hudson abun­dantly proves: the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body; it is called a Kingdom, a City, & Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens; it is called an Army terrible with Banners, Cant. 6.10. see Mr. Hudson more p. 133, 134, 135, &c. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question, as I said before.

Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers, viz. Pastors, teachers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Overseers, Acts. 20.28. 1 Tim 3.2. Titus 1.7.

Themselves form their argument thus, or at least should have formed it thus. Arg. 2

That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed, teach, and oversee, is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate.

But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed, teach, and oversee,— Ergo,

I am sure that the Argument must run thus, if it con­cludes the question, which at present is not, whether a particular minister, but whether the office of the ministry (residing in all ministers) be a correlate to the particular, [Page 30] or to the Universal Church. And therefore our Bre­thren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves.

Now to the argument thus formed I answer, By de­nying both the propositions. I deny that, That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed, teach, and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate.

For I suppose that our Brethren mean, which is more especially committed to his charge, as pastor thereof, in a restrained sense; if they do so, I say that Church a­lone is not correlate to his office, or to the office of the ministry, because another Church, viz. the catholike Church, is also in some sense committed to his charge, viz. so far as pro re natâ (as occasion serveth) he may and ought to feed others besides that Church, yea such as are of no Church, but may (for ought he knowes) be mem­bers of the invisible Church of Gods elect, and so his office doth relate to them.

But secondly the Minor is apparently false, viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is commit­ted to a ministers eharge, to feed, teach, and oversee. Go preach the gospel to every creature, is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office. And although (as our Brethren of London say right) that no minister is an Actual Mini­ster to the Ʋniversal Church, viz. in these two senses, 1 None can be here and there and every where, thus the Spi­rit of God is only an Universal actual teacher. Nor secondly is any Minister (set in a particular Church) bound, as the Apostles, to an itinerant Execution of his office: yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens, the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands con­fer the office of the Ministry uppon some persons with a [Page 31] special designation of them as Christs officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation; or over the world. Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church, wherever he preacheth, preacheth as an officer of Christ in the worke of the Gospel, whom people are bound to hear; nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by vertue of his ministerial office (so far as his opportunity, strength, and finite nature gives him leave) feed and teach by the word, and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church, Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust, care, and oversight.

But I observe that our Brethrens argument, though put into the best form I could, and cured of one fault, yet is sick of another; and indeed the Argument should have run thus.

That Church, or those Churches alone which are com­mitted to all ministers respectively to feed, teach, and oversee, respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate.

But those Churches are only particular Churches.— Ergo.

As they put it, there [...]s a great fallacy in it; for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do, but onely in his particular Church, and so the office of the Ministry, as it resided in that single man, were only a Correlate to his particular Church; Yet it would not follow, That the office of the Ministry, as it resides in every particular Minister in the world, had no other Correlate; for all the particu­lar Churches in the world, make up the universal Church.

Though the office of a Justice of Peace, as it resides in this, or that particular person, is limited by his Com­mission [Page 32] to such a County, is only a Correlate to the people of such a County: Yet surely the office of a Ju­stice of Peace, as it resides in the whole number of Justi­ces of the Peace in England, is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate, because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties, and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County, must needs relate to the whole. It is true, this is not all which we assert; for we say, that in Gods Commonwealth, Ministers (though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding, care and oversight of that part) yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also, to the whole, or to act in any part, not that they must act in all cases, but that they may act, at lest in some cases. But there was enough said before to the Argument; this on­ly to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us.

I find nothing more in their 10, 11, 12, and 13. pages to prove their minor, save only one Text, Acts 20.28. Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, bids them to take heed unto them­selves, Nor is it gran­ted, that the Church of E­phesus was a particular Church. See the Assemblies Propos. and Reasons, &c. and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers. This Text indeed proves what none denies, viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul, over whom God hath given him a special charge; but I cannot see how this Text proves, that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation. If God should say to a Minister (as in effect he doth in his word,) Take heed to every soul, in this Parish, which is thy flock; would it follow, that he need not take heed to any other? The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed; but that it was their du­to feed all them, as being more specially committed to them. If the words indeed had been thus, The peo­ple of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath gi­ven [Page 33] you any oversight, they had been something to our Brethrens purpose: This is all our Brethren have argu­mentative in this case. Let me now try in a few words, if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church, but to the Catholick Church, viz. That they may do acts of office and authority, beyond the bounds of that particu­lar Church over which they are more especially set.

Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the bo­dy Arg. 1 of Christ, are related to the Ʋniversal Church.

But God hath given Pastors and Teachers, for the edi­fying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4.12, 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture, the major I prove.

If the Ʋniversal Church be the body of Christ; and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it; Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the bo­dy of Christ, are related to the Ʋniversal Church.

But the Ʋniversal Church is the body of Christ; and those who are of God given for it, are related to it. —Ergo.

The Consequence is unquestionable. The Assumpti­on consists of two assertions; one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata, will deny, viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it. If any deny, That the Ʋniversal Church is the Body of Christ (there meant) I prove it. Either the Ʋniversal Church, or the particular Church is there meant. But not the particular Church—Ergo.

I prove the assumption. If Christ hath but one my­stical body, then particular Churches (which are many) cannot be there meant.

But Christ hath but one mystical body? I prove the minor.

If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ, and sayes Christ is not divided, then we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one, or that he is di­vided.

But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ, and saith Christ is not divided, Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body.

Besides, it is plain from this argument, that the Apostle speaks, in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church. From this argument.

That Church for which God gave Apostles and Pro­phet for, he also gave pastors and teachers for, Eph. 4.12.

But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church— Ergo.

I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church: for then according to our Brethrens principles, their work must have been terminated there.

Arg. 2 A second argument is this.

Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptize all Nations, are not related only to a particu­lar Church, but to the Catholike Church, yea to the whole world.

But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptize all Nations. Ergo.

The major is Evident, for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church. The minor only can be de­nied.

In proof of which we bring that known text, Matth. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations—&c. I am with you to the End of the world. If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles, they shake hands with Socinus, Smalcius, and Theophilus Nicolaides; who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia, and could have no successors: and desert all protestant writers, and are confuted by the promise annexed, for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment. What [Page 35] else our Brtheren say to this text, shall in due place be considered.

A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo.

That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Mini­ster out of his particular Church, & makes it impossible for any people (not of that Ministers Church) to go in faith to hear any such Sermon, and makes it sinfull for any Chri­stian to receive the Sacrament, otherwhere than in his own Church, or of his own pastor, and dischargeth all people (save members of particular formed Churches) from hea­ring the word publikely preached, and makes private rea­ding equivalent to it as to any institution, and denies pub­like ordinances to any people but such as are fixed mem­bers of particular Churches, that opinion is absurd, schis­matical, and false.

But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this. —Ergo

I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major, I will prove the Minor. —Ergo.

The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles.

1. That the authority of him who preacheth, is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty. This is so rational that none can deny it; for sin is the trans­gression of a law, and all duty must be an act of obedi­ence to some law natural, divine, positive or humane: now this is certain, that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse, or reads a chapter, he must be specially authorized to preach, or I shall not be specially obliged to hear.

2. The second principle is this, That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer. I think that none in their right wits will deny this; hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow, from this princi­ple.

[Page 36]1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed, let who will preach none are bound to come to hear, but they may all stay at home, and read a good book if they please; for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach, and so none under an obligation to hear.

2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts, ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait up­on any publike Ordinance, which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls, than reading a chapter at home doth. The reason, is because no parti­cular Churches are formed, and there can be none in office. It is not the place, or company, but the person administring, who makes the ordinance publike.

3. Where there is a particular Church formed, it is true, the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer, but for all others, if they do stay at home and read a chapter, or a good book, they sin not: for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them, than they have to preach at home one to another.

4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach, if he be not a member of his particular Church, he cannot come in faith, believing upon the account of any pre­cept or promise, that the word heard shall profit him; any more than if he had staid at home, and heard his servant read a chapter: for he that preacheth stands in no office, is clothed with no more authority toward him. No he is only in office to the members of his own Church.

5. If any pastor of any particular Church, at any time, uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one per­son, who is not an actual member of his Church, he sinneth against God, doing an act of office, to a person to whom he is in no office, and hath no authority. And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of.

And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren, to consider to what Athei [...]m and confusion this one prin­ciple improved, would in a short time bring us. And I am verily perswaded, that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion, are of another mind from these three in this point: for so wise, and learned men can never (surely) think, that when at any time, they preach in any place, or to any people saving to their par­ticular respective Churches, they preach but as gifted brethren, so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom, is under as much appointment of Gods, for the salvation of souls, as theirs, is, yet this is a true conclusion from this principle; up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct, as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be perfor­med by an officer: which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world.

As for their third chapter, I might spare my pains in answering of it, for it is but a conclusion from their pre­mises, in the first, and second chapter, and it is too much to deny the premises, and conclusion too. In this third chapter, they give us the description of office, then indeavour to prove it, and lastly draw two conclusions from it; their description is this.

Office is a spiritual Relation between a par­ticular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified,
Preaching without Ordi­nation p. 14.
founded upon a special and regular call.

1 This definition offends two logick rules (say we) which are these. Aristot. l. 6. top. cap. 5.

That all definitions should be adequate. That is, nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition w ch is essential-to the thing defined. A particular Church is not necessa­ry to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel (as I [Page 38] proved before, yet that is put into the definition; se­condly, Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted (unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified, or in the notion of a regular call, which I suppose our brethren will not grant.) Arist. top. l. 6. a p 1.

2. A second rule is this, That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species. The ministerial office is a Genus, here defined, but there are diverss ministers (say we) that have no such particular Church, for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work, though at present he hath no place: the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo (without a title to a place) was no divine order, but prudential; to avoid the scan­dal of a Vagrant Ministery, and therefore Hierom re­fused Ordination from Paulinus; because he insisted up­on the ordaining him to his particular Church: we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense, doth relate to a particular Church, but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense, and as it is used in Scripture, both in Je­remy 3.15. & Eph. 4.13. Our Brethren expound their description.

For the Genus, we allow what they say. Office is a Relation. Their terms of relation we deny, we say the particular Church is not the only correlate, but the Ʋ ­niversal Church is also a correlate to the office, yea and the work, yea God himself, and all Nations (of which before.) Here's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered, besides that term Angel of the Church, used Rev. 2.1.8, &c. To which I answer, that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est, it is very disputable whether a single person, or the Presbytery be meant by that term. 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Chur­ches.

The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord, and the [Page 39] Church. But not the flock, as our Brethren say. The A­postles ordained the Deacons, not the flock. It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch, Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barna­bas; Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy, Acts. 6. and Ti­tus was to ordain ministers in Crete.

As to the formal cause, we cannot agree with our bre­thren, that a special regular call is it (in the sense they understand (all), we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External, and the Apostle proveth it, How shall they preach except they be sent? that is, they cannot, Rom 10.10. Now, Forma dat esse.

Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Ele­ction and Acceptation, and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5. where they argue thus, If the Church should chuse a Deacon, much more their pastor. Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis, from the lesser to the greater, and they argue affirmatively, See more as to these texts in [...]y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer, then they ought to chuse the greater. But this is false Logick, our brethren will easily see it in other things: will these things follow? If a man can carry an hundred pound weight, then much more a thousand. If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant, then much more a Colonel. Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater, but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all ca­ses affirmatively: those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Mini­ster for the work of preaching. Besides, did the peoples choice there make them officers? surely the text sayes no such thing, the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves, ver. 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23. [...], &c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained, not chose, as our Brethren do. The word sig­nifies to stretch out the hand; and by that sign to chuse, [Page 40] 2 Cor. 8.19. but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen (in verbo [...] as it doth here: Not alwayes, witness, Acts 10.41. Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining,) and so it signifies (saith Stephen) when it governs an accusative case.

But allow it to signify chuse, they were Paul and Barnabas that chose, not the Church in our brethrens sense. Let any one one compare v. 20, 21, 22, 23, and ell me of whom that word is predicated. So that both [...]ur Brethrens texts fail, with all that is built upon them in their book —As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general, That the work of the Ministry is the End, and so far allow their proof, Eph. 4.11, 12. But wonder with what reason our Bre­thren there say the particular Church is meant. I am sure the text sayes no such thing, nor any thing like it: except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches.

Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corol­laries, or inferences. First.

That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister, p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church: The second is this.

That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono, by office and by gift, is founded on Scripture.

2 Conc.As to the first, I have already proved the contrary, for it standeth upon no other foundation than the con­ceit that Office relates not to the worke, but to the Church: Nor to the Ʋniversal Church, but to the particular Church: which foundations (I think) I have shaken so, that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure.

As to the second, we allow it in two cases, first for Trial sake, for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons, 1 Tim: 3.10. and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè, If the lowest officer of the Church must [Page 41] be first proved; then much more the higher officer, I mean ordinary officers, for Apostles, &c. were not the same species of officers.

2. In cases of Necessity. In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had, which was the case, Acts 9. Necessity we say, hath no law; In such a case as I said before, the Levites killed the sacrifice, at Heze­kiahs passeover, which else they ought not to have done. We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono, by vertue of gifts only. Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us.

CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say, by way of Limitation or Explication of the question, is summed up; their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no va­lue: their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr. Authoritative preaching describ­ed in three things differenced; from precarious prea­ching and the question concerning the former fixed, and stated.

IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question: and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains, from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us. ‘In which they distinguish both concer­ning the Subject, and the Predicate. For the Subject, they tell us, it is not every Christian, but every one that hath gifts. 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts, but who really hath, and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no, according to Acts 6.3.’ but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach (especially in some cases) without such approbation. As to the Predicate. ‘ By preaching they understand any publishing [Page 41] opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to, be it in publike, or in private, to a Christian, or to an idolatrous assembly; thus they con­tend the two words in the Greek translated preaching sig­nify, Lu. 16.16. 1 Cor. 9.16. Acts 13.32. Rom. 20.15. Acts. 5.42. Acts. 8.35. Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching, Jus divinum p. 77. & much they say to them (who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves) &c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively, they say authority is taken for a right, and lawfull power, Lu. 20.2. Secondly, for majesty and gravity, Mar. 1.22. Tit. 2 15. Thirdly, for office-power. In the last sense they grant it, in the two first, they say gifted men may preach authoritatively, this is the substance of what they say in many words.’ To all which I answer.

1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the sub­ject of the question (if I mistake not) it amounts to no more than this, Every private Christian may not preach, but every one that can or will may, for what should hin­der him? who shall be judges of his aptness to teach? shall the Church? but by what rule? Secondly suppose he will not submit, shall the gifted man sin? no say our Brethren. It is inexpedient and may have ill con­sequents, but for ought we know it is lawfull. So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak. Our Brethren tell us, the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 4.31. A Church of which the twelve Apo­stles were members: In short, all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time; and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities; will it follow that every particular Church is? so that our Brethren, by [Page 42] their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter.

2. Secondly for the predicate, we will easily grant to our Brethren, that the Apostles and holy men in Scrip­ture (wanting proper words) made use of words to ex­press the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses, and that [...] signifies no more than to declare good tidings, and [...] signifies no more than to cry as an herald, in their native signification.

And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both; who ever denied to our Brethren, but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour, or to his child? But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term, Our brethren may call this preaching if they please, and in that sense their question is granted them, a M [...] [...]te may in this sense preach to his people, a Colone [...] [...] [...]is Regiment, &c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching, by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words, we mean, that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people, to which all people are bound in conscience to attend, and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules. If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description.

Authoritative preaching, is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel, to be dispensed in the pub­like assemblies of people, by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God, which he hath appointed, as the ordinary means of faith and salvation, to which all peo­ple are in Conscience bound to attend. Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator, whether it be every one that hath gifts, or onely such as are ordain­ed; we contend for the latter, we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach, nor ought to undertake it [Page 44] in this notion. We say this is office-preaching, for none can thus preach but who is in office. The Authority of this preacher doth two things. 1. It obligeth him to preach. Woe to me (saith Paul) if I do not preach the Gospel. 2. It obligeth people to hear; for the preacher is to that purpose sent; we say then,

1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice, and it may be Vox & praeterea nihil

2 He may as to the matter [...], speak of the good things of the Gospel, either more publikely, or more privately—But we say,

1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth, for who hath required his service at his hands? Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach, much less imme­diately said it.

2. He may preach, But he may preach to the walls too if people please; no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him; they may go if they please, but Gods word requireth them not to go, nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go, any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter: nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such, when they may hear others, it is a sin unto their souls, as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters; for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul, as my pri­vate reading is.

3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please (if no scandal be in it, nor other circumstan­ces make it unlawfull) but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God, for the saving of their souls. On the contrary, he that preacheth authoritatively, 1. Is bound to preach, if God gives him opportunity.

2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear, he may shake off the dust of his feet against [Page 45] them, and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people.

3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith, Lu. 10.11, 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordi­nance of Christ for the saving of their souls.

We say, and say again, that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon. And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authorita­tive preaching; it is not so directly opposite to charita­tive preaching, as to precarious preaching, in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either audito­ry or attention.

If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated, Let them speak on; what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi, not knowing, or not willing to own what we understand by preaching.

And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part, I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers, or particular persons, to send men to places, to take heed whom they send, and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day, and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such, as the Lord never sent, never promised his presence with, and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear, viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eter­nal Salvation. My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account. But not to digress.

Let us come in the next place, to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach.

CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments, for Non-ordained persons preaching, wherein the neces­sity of a particular Churches Election, as antecedane­ous to Ordination, is examined, and denied, and dis­proved; the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10. is enquired, and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text, and their Agrument from it proved insufficient.

OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments, for the Preaching of gifted persons without Or­dination, p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his. Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60.

If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers, then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach.

But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Or­dination.— Ergo.

Both propositions in this argument may safely be de­nyed. ‘They prove the Consequence from the reaso­nableness that good experience should precede Electi­on, for they must be perswaded that he is gifted, and qualified, or they cannot in faith Elect, now this perswasion cannot be wrought in them without a mans frequent preaching, to give them this experi­ence.’This is the sum of p. 30. To which I answer.

1. Surposing that Election is necessary to precede Or­dination, we deny that ordinary preaching is necessary in order to Election. I know no need of any preaching at all, but only to try his utterance; his soundness in [Page 46] the faith, and other qualifications are better tried by ordinary converse than by many Sermons. Those who chose the Deacons had not 6 monthes experience of them, as is plain from the Chronology of the Scripture; twice or thrice preaching is enough to try that single gift of utterance surely.

2. Secondly we deny the Minor, such Election, viz. the Election of a particular Church is not necessary to precede Ordination, nor have our Brethren a title of plain Scripture for it, they only quote, Acts 6. v. 5, 6. See more Ch. 6. of this trea­tise. To which I said enough before; but let me add, Do our Brethren think that the election there was by the whole multitude? let any one in reason judge whether 8000 people & odd (for so many was the number at that time, and those of different languages too, Acts 2.41. Acts 4.4. Acts 2.6.) can reasonably be supposed (being also divided amongst themselves Acts 6.1.) to have agreed in that choice; the Apostles indeed spake to some (proba­bly the most judicious of them) to commend persons to them, whereas our Brethren say I grant, Ordination is but Actus ultimus; he that looks the place [ Vindiciae ministerii p. 18.] will see my sense. I say 1. In case he be pastor of a Church. 2. I say examination, &c. must precede. Our Brethren here desire one text to prove Ordination antecedent to, or without Election. On the contrary we want one Scripture to prove Election ne­cessary: we grant it indeed upon parity of reason, for the Pastor of this or that Church, and judge it highly con­venient, but I must profess I see not one clear Scripture for it. Doth Paul give any such instructions to Timothy or Titus to be observed before their Ordinations? If there was any, Acts 14.23. Paul and Barnabas made them; what election do we read of upon the Ordinati­on of Paul and Barnabas? Acts 13. Weigh these things (Christian Reader) and judge how much this first argu­ment is worth.

Our Brethrens second argument is this.

All that by Gospel commands are required to preach, they may & ought to preach. But some men meerly gifted are so required. Ergo.

The Major we grant the Minor we deny. They proceed.

"All that have preaching gifts, and graces, or are apt to teach, are required by Gospel-commands to preach.

‘But some men meerly gifted, not ordained, are apt to teach, &c. Ergo.’

The Minor we grant, the Major we deny. Our Bre­thren instance in two texts to prove it: the first (upon which they most enlarge) is 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. I will crave leave to transcribe the 9. too.

v. 9. Ʋse hospitality one to another without grudging.

v. 10. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the ma­nifold grace of God.

v. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever. Amen.

Here our Brethren observe several things.

"1. That the text is to be meant of any spiritual gift.

"2. That v. 11. There is a particularizing of that special gift of speaking to others for Edification in the things of Christ.

"They say p. 33. ‘That the nature of the direction how to speak, and the reference the 11. v. hath to the 10. argue it is not common speaking here meant, but some special gift of Scripture-interpretation, and so it is usually carried by interpreters.’And it followeth the 10. v. so immediately, that it must needs be an expli­cation of it.

"3. There is a divine command to exercise such gift, ‘ [Page 47]"This commvnd is universal. Every man.’

This is the Sum of what they say. To all which I an­swer. 1. If it be not plainly proved that the gift here is preaching parts, a spirituul gift, and that spiritual gift, and 2. That the term every man must be understood in the latitude. I say in case any of these fail, every one seeth that our Brethrens argument falls to the ground.

As to the first question then.

Quest. 1. What is meant by gift there.

The word is [...], which is used in the New Testa­ment 16 times, (of which this is one) the learned observe it is a word that is not to be found in any hea­then Author, so that from the Scripture alone we must understand the import of it, where (as by com­paring all the texts will most evidently appear) it signi­fies,

Any good thing which is freely given us of God; whe­ther in a way of special providence or common or special grace.

1. It is used to express gifts of special grace. Justifi­cation, Rom. 5.15, 16. Election, Rom. 11.28. Eter­nal life. Any experiences which may be imparted for Edification, Rom. 1.11.

2. It is used to express extraordinary gifts, 1 Cor. 12.9. 1 Cor. 12.28, 30.

3. To express any gifts common or special, 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4.

4. To express common gifts. The gift of continency, 1 Cor. 7.7. Pauls deliverance from danger is called a gift, and expressed by this word, 1 Cor. 1.11.

5. To express office, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. as appears by the distribution, v. 7, 8. So 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. (for the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery did not conferr other gifts ordinary or extraordinary) [Page 48] The question is now, in which of these senses this word is to be taken, 1 Pet. 4.10.

It is plain that it cannot be meant of those gifts of God which we cannot Minister to others, so that it cannot be understood of Election, as Rom. 11.28. nor of Iustification, as Rom. 5.15, 16. nor eternal Life, as Rom. 6 23. These are indeed Free-gifts, bestowed on the Elect, but not to be by them ministred to others; but of any of the rest (except that 1 Cor. 7.7.) it may be un­derstood, that is,

1 Either of extraordinary gifts, such as those of hea­ling, called by this name, 1 Cor. 12.9, 29 30.

2. Or of Experiences of Gods goodness to us, in a way of common providence or special grace, or of outward good things, or inward, which by our hand, or tongue we may administer, as Rom. 1.11. 1 Cor. 1.11.

3. Or of Acts of office, as Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.

4. Or of the gifts of knowledge and utterance or any o­ther, 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4.

If it be to be understood here in any of three former senses, it will not serve our brethrens turn; for extra­ordinary gifts are ceased: For telling one another what God hath done for us, or distributing to those in want, we allow it to private persons. If by gift, Office is meant, then none but those in office have received the gift.

As to the last, we grant that he who hath received the gift of utterance and knowlege, may impart it, and ought to do it in his place, and station, but this may be done, by private conference, admonitions, exhortations, &c. But this lies upon our Brethren to prove.

1. That the gift here meant, must needs be the gift of preaching in the publike Assemblies of people, and that they may do this without Ordination.

We have told them it may be understood,

1 Of Office. As any one hath received any office, [Page 49] so let him minister in it, as Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6.

Or of common gifts of providence. The good things relating to this life, 2 Cor 1 11. then it is a command for alms, according to the connexion, v. 10, 11. Our Brethren must shew us good reason why it must be un­derstood of spiritual gifts, and this gift of preaching.

3 Or if he be understood of the gift of opening Scripture, 4 it may be understood of the extraordinary gifts of prophe­cy, or at least must be limited to a due time place & man­ner. Or lastly, it may be understood by the gifts called by this name, 1 Cor. 12.9, 28, 30. We do not say it can be understood of all these, as our Brethren seem to hint out of a fondness to find a contradiction in mee: not of Alms, and office too, this is but a childish reply of theirs in their first answer to my first objection. p. 35. of their book, it is enough for us if it be understood of one of these. For if I understand any thing of sense or reason, those who affirm this text to be a precept for the exercise of preaching gifts (as our Brethren do) must prove either,

1. That that gift is specially meant here, or, Secondly

2. That the precept is general, and not to be limited to this or that gift, but understood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others.

Now which of these our Brethren will stand to by their answer, I cannot learn; for one while they tell us the next words are Exegetical of the former, another while they tell us Preaching is one of those gifts. But let them take which they please. Is this then our Brethrens sense, That the import of that text is

That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift [that is any ability to do good to his brother] should do it?

1. Why then p. 32, 33. do our Brethren come in with their [i. e. Spirituul gift] by the same rule they restrain the text to spiritual gifts, we restrain it to [Page 50] Office, as Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.16. Or to outward good things, the word is so used in Scripture; the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren: ver. 10. Ʋse hospitali­ty one to another, & that is out of question meant ver. 11. If any man minister, let him do it of the ability God giveth.

Object. But this say our Brethren, is not the manifold grace of God; Charity is but one Grace,

Answ. Though Charity be but one grace, yet there be manifold Free gifts of God, by the distribution of which we may exercise Charity: The gift of Miracles was but one gift, yet Heb. 2.4. you have [...], various or manifold miracles. The body of lust is but one body of death, yet there are many lusts, 2 Tim. 3.6. A man may minister from the grace of charity, by gi­ving money, meat, cloaths, &c. and every one of these is [...] a free gift of God to him.

2. If any one who hath ability may dispense the gift, then gifted. Brethren may administer Baptism, and the Lords Supper too (by vertue of this Text) for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in those acts; but this our Brethren will not allow: And why? Be­cause these are Acts of Office (say our Brethren) so say we is the Preaching we contend about. Our Brethren may see by this, a necessity of restraining this Text: Ei­ther as we contend,

1. To such Gifts as other Scriptures authorize them to administer: Or,

2. To an Administration of this Gift, according to due Gospel Order, which (we say) cannot be without preceding Ordination.

Will our Brethren take the Second, and say, That an ability to Preach, is the Gift here only meant: and this Text will warrant a Ministring of that gift without any more ado?

1. Then we ask them by what authority they impose [Page 51] this upon us; why may it not as well be expounded by the words immediatly going before, as those immediatly fol­lowing after? then the Gift is the good things of this world: The sense of the coherence will not constrain this interpretation, it makes as much for us, as it doth for them, nay more.

2. For the next words limit him that speaks, to a speak­ing as the Oracles of God; but he who never had the Oracles of God committed to him, is not like to speak the word as the Oracles of God; he may speak the Ora­cles of God, but he cannot speak them as the Oracles of God, because not sent by God.

3. Suppose we should allow this, that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant, How doth this Text prove, either a Liberty for, or a duty to d [...] this in publike Assemblies? otherwise our Brethren know we allow it.

4. Lastly, to whom doth Peter speak this? read ch. 1. v. 1. To the strangers scattered through Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Bythinia. Our dispute is not, what may be Lawfully done in the scattred state of the Church, where no Ministers are at hand, but what may be done in ordinary Cases, to which this Scripture speaks nothing (If it be so to be understood) we do not doubt but in such a persecuted state of the Church, a pri­vate person Gifted may Preach, and people ought to hear, as well as the Levites might kill the Paschal Lamb at Hezekiahs passeover: but (blessed be God) that's not our Case. Thus the Reader may see how inconclusive our Brethrens Argument is from this Text, upon more accounts than one.

Our Brethren have entred exceptions against two material things which we insist upon, for the interpretation of this Text.

1. Against what we say, that if this Text may be un­derstood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking, yet it may be done privately.

[Page 52]2. Against what we say, That by Gift, very probably is meant Office.

Let us consider what our Brethren say to either of these.

They say first, that private exercising cannot sa­tisfie this precept, nor can this exercise be just­ly so limited.

1. Because as a Church member, he may admonish and exhort severally, and then why not when they are met together?

2. Because a publike Gift, cannot be fully impro­ved in a private way: A man in such a case hideth his talent.

3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office, they say.

4. Charity binds men s [...]metimes to go out of their callings to help others.

Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach.

5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach. And then he goeth not out of his Calling.

6. "They have a Divine allowance, Heb. 10.25. there­fore they go not out of their Callings.

"This is the summ of what they say to the first, à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer.

1. We will not contend with our Brethren, that it is unlawfull for a private gifted person to speak in the pub­like Assemblies of the Church, provided it be not on the Lords day, which ought to be spent in peoples attend­ance upon publike Ordinances, of which nature their Preaching cannot be: but we deny, that any are bound to hear them, or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching, which lyes under the great appointment of God, to save peoples souls. And we say, the Church of God hath had no such custom.

As to the Second, We do not understand our Brethrens [Page 53] notion of a publick Gift, it may be taken in a double sense. 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men, wil­ling them to use it publikely. 2. For a Gift which if used publikely might be of publike service. If our Brethren understand it in the first sense, we deny any not ordain­ed have any such publike Gift: if (as they must) they understand it in the latter sense, we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin, in not improving it, without publike exercise: How many hundred men in England, have gifts for the Magistracy, that might be of publike use (were they so employed) yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text, to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publikely: Why? Be­cause God hath required another Order, and a special regular Call for the exercise of those publike Gifts; and we say the like for the Ministry.

To the Third, We grant that all publike a [...]ings are not peculiar to Office; but we say, the administration of publike Ordinances, is peculiar to publike Officers; and t is scarce sense, to say a private person may administer [...] publike Ordinance,

To the Fourth, we say, That we grant that Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another, and so Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach, in case of necessity; but this is not Ordinary preaching, of which the question is stated.

To the Fifth, We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling, but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling: the Church, say our Brethren, must choose him too, he must be ordained (say we.)

To the Sixth, Our Brethren say, they have a divine allowance, Heb. 10.25. But to do what? Is it said to Preach publikely and ordinarily? But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men; they indeed must not forsake assembling together: but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort? however our bre­thren [Page 54] make that Text a warrant for private meetings, and then it is nothing to the question.

But to the Second, whereas we have told our Bre­thren, that by [...] probably is meant Of­fice, as in Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.16. 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here, for these Reasons.

1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained; the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety, watchfulness unto prayer, ver. 7. to charity, ver. 8. to hospitality, ver. 9. These ex­hortations concern private Christians, and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same.

2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely [a gift] now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to univer­sals (they say.)

3. The word [...] will not restrain it unto Office, be­cause it is oft used otherwise; nor doth the term Stewards limit it, nor the terms exhorting and ministring.

4. "The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter, ver. 2, 3.

To all which I again answer.

1. We do not peremptorily determine that by [...] is meant Office there; it is enough for us to say, it may be so; for our Brethren must prove it cannot, or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence.

2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here, is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said. The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant, ver. 11. Why may not the Apostle, after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties, subjoyn this to Officers? he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter? Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them? How do our Brethren prove, that the persons spoken to ver. 9. and spoken to ver. 11. [...]elthe same in­dividuals? [Page 55] and why may not the gift then be the same too, and so neither office, nor gifts of this nature meant?

3. Our brethren must not tell us, that indefinite pro­positions are most usually equipollent to universals, because it is no Logick.

Their Logical Rule is this.

Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universali­bus, interdum particularibus, Keckerman, Syst. Log. c. 5. illis quide in materiâ neces­sariâ, his vero in contingenti: nay with that restriction (saith Keckerman) it will not always hold true. A living crea­ture is not a man; turn this into an universal negative, No living creature is a man, and it is false. Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely, as every one hath received a gift, so let him minister; it doth not fol­low he must understand every gift; for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Na­tions, Armies, &c. or to abilities to Baptize and admini­ster the Lords Supper? But to come to an issue.

I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the la­titude, and to think this the sense. As any man hath re­ceived any communicable gift; so let him minister it unto others, in that due way and order, and upon that regular Call, which God in his word hath required for those to exer­cise gifts that have them: If it be a gift of Govern­ment (when God hath called him to Magistracy) let him use his gift; if it be a gift for opening and applying Scri­pture, for administring Baptism or the Lords Supper, let him first be duly ordained, and set apart for the work of the Ministry, and so let him use his Gift. When our Brethren have said their utmost, this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utter­ance may forthwith Preach, than it will prove, that by the authority of this Text, he who hath a gift of wis­dom may use it in the Magistratical service, or that he who hath a gift of knowledge, or zeal, may administer [Page 56] the two Sacraments, meerly by authority of his gifts, without any more ado. And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter.

CHAP. IV. Containing a short Answer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted mens Preaching, in their Sixth Chapter, from a (pretended) promise an­nexed to it: The preaching of Apollo, and the scatter­ed Saints; and the prophecying, and Prophets mention­ed in 1 Cor. ch. 12. ch. 14.

OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter, produce three Arguments, to prove the Lawfulness of per­sons Preaching (if Gifted) though not Ordained. Their first is this.

The Preacher sent, chap. 6.

That practice which hath a Gospel Promise annex­ed, is warrantable.

But the Preaching of some such, hath a Gospel Promise annexed:

Ergo.

The Major we grant, the Minor we deny. They prove it from Mat. 25.29.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance.

Let us put it into Form.

What the Gospel promiseth unto him that hath a talent, i. e. that improves it, That it pro­miseth to Gifted mens Preaching without Or­dination.

Here's enough: Let me have the same Liberty, and our Brethren will quickly see the vanity of this Argu­ment.

[Page 57]

What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a ta­lent, i. e. that improves his talent; that it promi­seth to every one that will (having a gift of wis­dom and justice) execute justice, though not any other way called to it than by his gifts. But the Gospel promiseth, &c. Or thus.

What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a ta­lent or ability, i. e. that by practice improves it, that it promiseth to gifted persons that have ability to bap­tize and administer the Supper, and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them. Therefore gifted men, not Commissionated for the Magistracy, nor ordained to the Ministry, may execute justice, and administer Sacraments.

I believe my Lord Protector will hardly allow the first, and I think our bre­thren will not allow the latter; and when our Brethren have found out a distinction to help themselves, we hope it will help us. Our Brethren, pag. 63. say plainly, they restrain not the Text to preaching Gifts. But they must do it, or else our Arguments from it are as good as theirs: and if they do restrain it, we shall hardly rest in their sense without good reason to justifie their restricti­on. And this is enough for their third Argument, to which the same answer may be applied which was given before, to that drawn from 1 Pet. 4.10.

Let us see if they be more happy at a fourth.

Their fourth Argument is drawn from Gospel Presi­dents, thus formed. The Preacher sent, or preaching without Or­dination, p. 66.

What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents with Divine allowance may be practised. But the ordinary exercise of preaching Gifts in publick Assemblies, &c. Is so holden forth. Ergo.

I can neither allow the Major nor the Minor: I can­not allow the Major (in the terms our Brethren have put it) for they might as well assume.

But Apostleship, or an universal inspection and govern­ment [Page 58] of all Churches, is holden forth by Gospel Presi­dents, Paul and Peter. Therefore we may have Popes, Archbishops, and Bishops. Or thus, ‘But the Holy kiss, and anointing with oyl, are held forth by Gospel Presidents with divine allowance. Ergo, Mr. Tilham, and Mr. Pooly are in the right.’

If our Brethren understand the Major thus (I shal [...] allow it.)

What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents, to be in or­dinary Cases a standing practice, may be lawfully practised.

Then we deny the Assumption, viz. That the preach­ing of Gifted persons (in the sense before expressed) is by any Gospel Presidents held forth as a standing practice to be continued in the Church of Christ. Our Brethren prove it.

1. By the instance of Apollo, upon which they des­cant à p. 66. ad p. 73.

2. By the instance of the scattered Saints, Acts 8. & 11. upon which they descant ad p. 88. It must be granted, that the Scriptures say, that Apollo spake, and taught diligently, Acts 11.24, 25. and that some of the scattered brethren preached. But to answer all in short, Every understanding Reader will grant, the Argument being ab exemplo pari, If these examples prove not (paria) matches, the Argument falls to the ground: If either there were not a parity of species, in their gifts, or in their acts, or not a parity, in the state of the Church at that time, with that which is the present state of it; now we say, that in some, if not in all these their argument from hence halteth.

1 First, I say, there must be a parity in the species of their gifts: for I hope our brethren have no design to put this fallacy upon their Readers; if those who were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, [Page 59] suited to the first plantation of the Church, might preach, then those who have but very ordinary gifts, according to the size of these times, and the opportunities of that little leisure they could get from their Trades, may do the like; this were just such an Argument, as if one should con­clude, that because one who had the gifts of healing, might go to a sick person, and anoint him with oyl, and lay hands on him, and pray, and by a faith of miracles, believe he should upon this recover; therefore one may do so now: So that if it appear that Apollo, or those Acts 8. or 11. had gifts of another species; either Of­fice, or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which all grant to be now ceased, our brethrens Argument sinks. Now let us examine the instances by this rule, Accord­ing to which our brethren have been told concerning Apollo.

1. ‘That he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1.12. called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3.5.’

2. ‘That it is very probable his gifts were of ano­ther species, from that which our gifted men now a­days have; it is said he was mighty in the Scriptures.’

Our brethren say nothing to this: but let those who say it prove it; but as I take it they assert, and should prove; however we have proved, that he is called a Mi­nister, and ranked with Paul and Peter. But say our brethren, this was afterward. A very little time it seems; for the Text saith, he went soon into Achaia; and in the first verse of the next chapter, he is reported in Co­rinth. So that it is plain that he preached only in order to Office, that he might be proved; in which case our bre­thren know we allow preaching ex dono.

But Secondly, for the scattered Christians, they have 2 been told,

1. ‘That it is the opinion of some, these were some of the 70. whose Office-gift was of another species, being an extraordinary Mission.’

[Page 60]2. ‘That the Sctipture saith expresly of one of these, Philip, he was an Evangelist, Acts 21.8. and he is the only Preacher named.’

3. "That those were members of the Church of Jerusalem, some of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, and might speak the word with boldness, Acts 4.31. If our brethren have any indued with gifts of that species, God forbid we should deny them liberty; but we conceive them ceased, and with them the strength of this Argument too.

Now what say our brethren to take off these An­swers?

I shall not meddle with what they say to the first; it being an answer not to be rested upon, and supernume­rary. As to the second, they tell us p. 81. The conse­quence is feeble, because one was an Officer: Ergo, all were. It is an easie thing our brethren know to break a mans legs, and then say he is lame: This Argument was not brought as demonstrative, Pag. 81. but as a good topick; but the strength lay here, Every one of them whom the Scri­pture names was an Officer; and therefore it is not pro­bable any preached but Officers, and what ever Office Philip was ordained to, Acts 6. certain it is he was an Officer, and so our brethren grant. As to the last Answer (which alone is sufficient) they have said nothing. So then upon this enquiry, our brethrens Argument lyes thus.

If Apollo who was soon after to be made an Officer of the Church at Corinth, preached in order to Ordination, and some scattered Members of the Church of Jerusalem, who had received the ex­traordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost preached, a­mongst whom (we think) there were some no Of­ficers, then private persons, who have but very ordinary gifts, and intend no such Ordination, may preach too.

To which we must crave leave to answer. — Non sequitur.

But our Brethrens Argument is sick of more Non sequiturs than one. To proceed therefore.

Secondly, In case there were no parity in their acts, 2 then our Brethrens Argument is naught, for I hope our brethren have no design to serve us with such a fallacy as this. If the scattered Christians, wherever they became in pri­vate houses commended the Gospel to people, then gifted men may in the publick Assemblies of the Church, or any people, perform that Ordinance of Christ called preaching. That were just such an Argument as this. If John a Nokes may turn a servant out of communion with his Family, then he may excommunicate him out of the Church. Our Brethren in that Text, Acts 8. have found the word preach; but nothing to evidence it was in publick Assemblies, nor will Gods blessing their labours prove it; God may, and oft doth bless private means when publick cannot be had. The case was otherwise indeed concerning Apollo, it is said, he preached in the Syna­gogues; but so might any one, according to the corrupt state of the Jewish Church at that time; and besides (as I said before) he was to be proved in order to office, which our Brethren grant he afterward had.

But thirdly, There must be a parity in the State of the Church too, or else their Argument will not hold: but 3 this there is not. 1. It was an infant state, and is is a true observation of Didoclavius, that many things may be lawfull in the infancy of a Church, which are not to be imitated nor induced in a setled Church. 2. It was a per­secuted State. This is indeed the best answer, and there­fore our Brethren spend most pains in trying to answer it, pag. 85, 86, 87, 88. Let us consider what they say.

1. They grant that necessity may legitimate an action otherwise not lawfull.

[Page 62]2. ‘ They say, though they were necessitated to traevel, yet they were not necessitated to preach.’ What do our brethren think we mean by necessity? or how comes necessity into the question, which is whether it be not law­full for private persons to do something in a persecuted State of the Church, which is not lawfull in a setled state of it? But to take our Brethren at their own re­bound.

Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest; there is a natural necessity, and there is a moral necessity: We never thought this necessity was natural; and yet against that our bre­thren argue. There is an absolute necessity, and an hypo­thetical necessity. In short, we say, they might be under a manifold necessity.

1. A necessity of the precept; they were filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and those extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive im­pression, Acts 4.31.

2. There was necessit as medii; there was no other or­dinary means of salvation for those people where they came, than that extraordinary course of theirs, the A­postles being yet left at Jerusalem.

3. Upon this supposition, that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people, it was necessary; for there were no others in of­fice to do it.

‘ Thirdly, Our Brethren question whether necessity can legitimate an action, in it self unlawfull: but grant, it may legitimate an action unlawfull at this or that time.’ Not to dispute the first, which yet we might by our Sa­viours instance of the Shew-bread taken by David, &c. The later part granted, is enough for us, if our Bre­thren mean ingenuously: We do not say it is against the light of nature to preach without Ordination.

But it is unlawfull at such a time when the Church hath plenty of Ministers, and there is no need of [Page 63] their extraordinary actings, being calm and setled. Now that which is unlawfull at such and such a time, our Brethren grant necessity may make lawfull; we ask no more at their hands at this time.

3. ‘Our Brethren enquire when is there such a case of necessity? and conclude, when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way.—And they can finde no lawfull Ordi­nation without a preceding election to a particular Church: And therefore all Gifted men lye under such a necessity.’ Let us put this loose discourse into form; It must be thus:

If Gifted men may Preach in a case of necessity, and it be a case of necessity when they cannot have Ordination in Gods way, and this cannot be till they be chosen Officers to a particular Church, then till that time their Preaching is justified by necessity. But, &c. Ergo.

But our brethren know, that although they say they cannot, yet we can see regular Ordination, without a Call to a particular Church; we are at a loss to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Or­dination of Paul and Barnabas, of Timothy, of any one preaching Elder in Scripture.—Our Brethren go on.

‘ They that preach in such cases of necessity, are ei­ther officers, or no officers. If no officers, then preaching is not a peculiar act of office; then there is a difference betwixt Preaching by Office and by Gift.— If they be Officers, then Ordination is not essential to office: Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination; then Baptism is valid without Ordination, &c.’

To answer to all this. Those who preach in such Cases of necessity, where people can have no ordained Mini­sters to hear, may be said to, Preach by an extraordinary authority, which the word of the Lord hath in such cases given them, which may be called a Mission, and they may be Officers, as to that time, and state; yet it [Page 64] will not follow but in another state of the Church Or­dination is essential to an ordinary Minister, that is, to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach. All this arguing is nothing to the purpose: for our brethren are to prove, that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil, and setled state of the Church, where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place, or at least to ordain and authorize them. Their Argument à pari here, is no Argument, be­cause of the disparity of the Churches State. If our bre­thren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to setled Churches, requiring, commanding, or allowing such a practice for persons not in office, nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly, and ordina­rily, they say something; all this is no better than [...], or go round about the bush, but never strike one blow at it.

I come therefore to their fifth Argument, p. 88.

All that are Prophets may publickly (they should have put in ordinarily too) preach.

But some men [they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now] who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; Ergo.

If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions, I will deny the Conclusion, because the question is not in it.

If they will allow my corrections, I deny their As­sumption, and say, ‘No such Gifted men as now live (for whom our Bre­thren must plead) are Prophets.’

They prove it, p. 89. All that have the gifts of pro­phecie, are Prophets.

But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie; Ergo.

The Major I grant; The Minor I deny.

Three things our Brethren undertake to prove; p. 90.

  • [Page 65]1. That prophecie is a Gift, not an Office.
  • 2. That some have the gift of prophecie, and that gift still continueth.
  • 3. That some persons not ordained have it.

I shall only premise this, that I hope our Brethren un­derstand by prophecie, such prophecie as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word; and then I deny all three of their Positions, and shall proceed to examine their proof of them.

1. That prophecie is a gift, not an office, they prove,

1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain pro­phets.

2. Because they cannot be ordained, till they be discern­ed to have the gift of prophecie.

3. Because some have this gift, who are no officers. This last I deny, they pretend to prove it hereafter.

As to the two first, our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi, against what none deny; who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers? We say they were ex­traordinary Officers, who were furnished with an ex­traordinary Gift, either to foretell things to come, or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit, without the use of such means as we now must use; and being thus furnished, were made Officers at that time by an imme­diate Mission, to which Ordination was not neces­sary.

So then two things we insist upon. 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers. 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost. The first is enough for this place: That they were officers, appears from 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, 12. Acts 13.1, 2. And that they were extraordinary, appears in that they are set before Evangelists, Eph. 4.11, 12. and from their extraordinary gifts, Acts 11.27, 28. 1 Cor. 12.9, 10, 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26. from which text it is plain, that they spake [Page 66] from revelation, this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London, Jus Divinum, pag. 97, 98. Vindiciae mini­ste [...]ii, p. 50, 51, &c. & by my self. Now for our Brethren to argue against this, because they were not ordained, is a pitifull Non sequitur; for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an A­postle, or any extraordinary Officer.

But our Brethren judge that they can prove, that prophecying was not an office, but a gift, p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments, p. 91. &c.

Their first Argument in form is this,

If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets, then prophecie is a gift, not an office.

But all who have the gift of prophecie are Pro­phets; Ergo.

We deny the Consequence, and say our Brethren have not proved it; for this it all they say,

‘They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets.’ We deny that. God in the same moment clo­thed them with an extraordinary Authority, & furnished them with an extraordinary gift. So he did Jeremy, A­mos, and all the Prophets of old. I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecie one mo­ment before they were Prophets by Office too? this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi; to extraordinary Officers, no such thing was needfull.

Our brethrens second Argument is this,

That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Co­rinth, was a gift only, not an office.

But Prophecying might so be coveted; Ergo.

Before I give a direct answer to the Argument, I con­ceive prophecying (to speak properly) to be neither a gift nor office, but an act by which either is exercised, which act we say none could exercise, but he who had the gift for it, and also the extraordinary authority [Page 67] which impowred him to it; and that prophecying is in no sense to be called a gift, but as an office is a gift, being constituted for the good of the Church, and an honour to them that have it. But to speak to their Argument.

In the first place, I deny the Major. That which ought in those times to be coveted, and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth, might be an extraordinary office. But say our Brethren.

The Lord had no where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer, therefore it could not be an office.

1. Our Brethren did not consider, that the same Argu­ment will prove it was no gift, except they can shew us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie, 1 Cor. 12.29. Are all Prophets? The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles, or to speak with tongues, yet surely, they might covet it, as it is plain from the next words, where though prophecying be preferred before tongues, yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted.

2. God hath no where promised that John a Stiles should recover of his sickness; doth it therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith? We use to teach our People, that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation, should be prayed for with submission to Gods will, and the prayer is in Faith, while he that prays believes, God will do that which is most good for him; so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift, that he might be able to prophesie; but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will, and wisdom of God; and doing so he might pray in faith, though there were no such particular promise.

Object. But say our Brethren, this was impossible to be obtained, 1 Cor. 12.17.

If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?

If I should tell our Brethren here, To God nothing is impossible, they would think I equivocated with them, yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me; but where lyes the impossibility, in respect of Gods re­vealed will? they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17. If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?

That Text indeed proves, that all the Members of a particular Church, cannot be officers to that Church (and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text, who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word, ears to hear, and heads to govern, whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage) But surely it will not follow, but that all those who are mem­bers in this particular Church, may yet be in time Offi­cers to other Churches, there is no impossibility in this at all: yea and they ought to labour after such a per­fection.

Besides, universal holiness (our Brethren know) may and ought to be laboured for, yet it is not promised, nor can be attained.

We allow also that Text, to prove that all the Mem­bers of the universal Church, should not be ordinary Officers.

But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers: Much less doth any thing they have said, prove that all Christians in that Church, might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office, when God should set them in such re­lations. Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound, which our Brethren hint, pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts, as (if God pleased so to imploy him) he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an uner­ring Spirit, and speak with tongues, or be able to heal the sick, provided his End were right in desiring. For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by [Page 69] Joel, and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for, them they might pray for: but 1 Cor. 14.5. I would that you all spake with tongues. They proceed to the proof of the Minor: viz.

‘That the prophecying spoken of, ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth; this they prove from the terms, ye, and all, v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer:’

1. Having denyed the Major, and made good our denial of it: I need not trouble my self with denying this.

2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not in­clude every individual always. Are all Prophets? 1 Cor. 12.29. Let us hear what they say to our Arguments, to prove that these prophets were Officers.

1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. Eph. 4.11, 12. Where they stand distinguish­ed from the people, and enumerated amongst officers, pla­ced before Evangelists, and next to the Apostles. To this they answer, p. 93, 94, 95.

1. "That priority of order is no infallible Argument.

2. "That some not Officers are enumerated, 1 Cor. 12.28. and prophecie is called a gift, Rom. 12.6.

3. ‘Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Pro­phets, such as Acts 11.27, 28.’

To all which I shall give a short answer.

1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argu­men, where there is any other Scripture, or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men, to express the Order; but we say our brethren have no such Text, nor reason neither, and that the Apostle in that Text, Eph. 4.11, 12. seems to rank Preaching Of­ficers, according to their dignity, beginning with A­postles, then reckoning Evangelists, Thirdly, Pro­phets, Fourthly, Pastors, Fifthly, Teachers: And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints, [Page 80] and the common Members of the Body of Christ.

2. We say, there are none but Officers mentioned, Eph. 4.11, 12. Nor any, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But such as were either officers, or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, from whence we conclude, That Pro­phets were either extraordinary officers, or ordinary offi­cers, or gifted with extraordinary gifts (peculiar to that state of the Church.) Now it is indifferent to us (as to the present controversie) of which it be understood; So our Brethren will grant, that one of them must be meant, and so much that Text will evince. If Gifted men be meant, I wonder who are the Church in which they are set? ver. 29. Our Brethren say, prophecie is called a Gift, Rom. 12.6. but there is nothing plainer, than that by gift, is meant office, to him that readeth ver. 7.8.

3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets, Pag. 96. we take them at their word; and say it is all we have been contending for; only then it lies upon our brethren to prove, that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28. we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case.

In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church.

1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it: So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops, and Bishops; where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office? We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches, and committing government to them, was enough, and the cessation of their extraordina­ry Mission was enough. So we say for these Prophets, the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experi­ence, is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased, where is there any now that can without study and me­ditation, infallibly give the sense of Scriptures, from re­velation, or can foretell things to come? we have pitifull [Page 71] experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first, and the year 1657. being come and gone, and the Jews not converted, proves that John Tillinghast (though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for) prove they cannot do the later. As we say to the Prelatical party, so we say to our Brethren, St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate, &c. was a cer­tain proof, that this prophecying is ceased.

Secondly, "Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift, and therefore it continues; the gift of tongues, and heal­ing in those days were ordinary, yet none of them is con­tinuing, I hope.

What else our Brethren mean by ordinary, I cannot tell; for if they mean it was given by God for a stand­ing Ordinance, it is yet to be proved; for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford, (a man whom I honour, but am not of his minde in this thing.) It was indeed his opini­on, that the Apostle by prophecying, 1 Cor. 14.1. means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers, though from an extraordinary principle and faculty; so that still he thought, the gift was extraordinary, which they by their prophecying did exercise. For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford, recited by our brethren, p. 99, 100. we say they were no other than rules of order, which extraordinary officers, as well as ordinary were to be limited by. But I wonder our bre­thren should quote Mr. Rutherford, and set down his words too, which plainly say, he thought the gift ex­traordinary, though their acts were but the acts of or­dinary Officers. These are his words as quoted by our Brethren.

Only the internal principle, to wit the infused gift of prophecying, made them extraordinary pro­phets in fieri, as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry; but in facto esse, and according to the substance of [Page 72] the acts of prophecying, these extraordinary Pro­phets, and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie, &c.

Let any Reader, who understands English, judge whe­ther Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecie was ordinary; he indeed thought the Act was, viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediatly gifted the Mini­sters of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth; but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary; if they re­member what they undertook, pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness: The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man; and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana, John 2. (which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon) were both extraordinary, though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred, his seeing was but ordinary as other men, and when the Wine was made, it tasted like other Wine.

Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of argu­ing from the Act to the Gift, or rather of putting in Act, where they should have put in Gift, pag. 100.

1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary, what is this to prove the gift is so? the Act may be ordinary, and yet the Gift not so; as in the case of the blind man before mentioned. The work of ex­traordinary officers and gifts were to come under gene­ral Rules of order, I hope.

2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordi­nary: What if it be? The question is what the descripti­on of the Gift would be: the description of the Gift of seeing, and the Act of seeing are two things, I hope, so in this case; but where is that description? They tell us, 1 Cor. 14.3. ‘He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort.’ Hete they tell us is the Act, Exhortation, 2. The Ends of it, exhortation [Page 73] and comfort. Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say; the Text is,

[...]. He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edifi­cation, and exhortation, and comfort.

1. (So far as it is a description) It is a description of the Act not of the gift.

Secondly, Our Brethren if they had pleased, might as well have said edification, or comfort was the Act, as they say exhortation is; for the Text proves the one as well as the other.

The truth is, the Apostle by these words only expres­seth the end of prophecying, and such ends as were common to that, with other ordinances & duties too. If I should say, Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers; would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel?

In the third place they tell us, ‘That one great end of extraordinary prophecying, and their main and proper act, viz. foretelling future events, is denyed to this prophe­cying:’ This they say, but they have not told us where that denial is to be found, and I cannot find it. All that I can find them saying is this, 1 Cor. 14.22. It is said, Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not; but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not, but for those that believe. Hence they observe, That the ‘antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets, that tongues were for a sign, but not prophecie, proves, that prophecy could not be for a sign.’ But this is wofully fallacious.

1. The Antithesis lyes not there, that Tongues were for a sign, but prophecie not so: but here, That tongues were for a sign to heathens that bel [...]eved not; but prophe­cying was a sign only for such as believed; viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church; this text only proves, that prophecie was no sign to them that believed not.

[Page 74]2. Though the foretelling of things to come, might bear the nature of a sign; yet this was not the only end of it; but the faith, and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecie was directed; neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any, till they saw them accomplished.

3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses, 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture, by an extraordinary gift, which indeed to them that be­lieved not the Scriptures, would be of no use; but was to such as did believe them.

Fourthly, ‘Our Brethren say, Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. But wo­men Prophetesses might prophesie things to come, Luke 2.38.’

1. I answer, that our Brethren do not find women pro­phetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34. only women.

2. Secondly, our Brethren do not finde that Anna, Luke 2.36. spake things to come; the Text only saith, She gave thanks unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel: She spake of a Christ already born. She was called a Prophetess (in all probability) because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Seripture: So that our Brethren see this kinde of publike prophecying (by their own instance) belonged to women; and there­fore by their own Argument was extraordinary. But the truth is, this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.37. But this is enough to shew the weakness of our Brethrens Argument.

Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us, come at last to receive a volly from us; to prove prophecie an extraordinary gift, we had told our Brethren,

1. That ver. 26. it was evident. When therefore you come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, a doctrine, [Page 75] a revelation, an interpretation, (I have put in the word doctrine now, though I think it will not much serve our Brethrens turn.)

2. That proph [...]s are mentioned with a note of singu­larity, denying it to be a gift common to all, 1 Cor. 12. 29, 30. Are all prophets?

3. That prophets in all the Old Testament, and new too, signified extraordinary officers, who acted from immediate revelation.

4. That prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had, 1 Cor. 13.2. 1 Cor. 14.16. pre­ferred before Tongues, 1 Cor. 14.1, 2. Paul compared himself with them, 1 Cor. 14.37.

5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge.

6. That it is said prophecyes shall fail, 1 Cor. 13.8.

7. That prophecying is said not to serve for those that believe not, 1 Cor. 14.22.

To the first our Brethren answer, that we left out the word doctrine, 1 Cor. 14.26. The charge falls not on me, but now it is put in, let us see what our brethren get by it. The sense of the text must be, Either that every in­dividual member of the Church of Corinth had all these, and then they all had extraordinary gifts; for surely the gift of composing Psalms, and the gift of Revelation, &c. must be no ordinary gifts. If this be the sense, the prophecying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted, infallibly inspired, and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails, because they argue à pari, where is no parity in the spe­cies of Gifts. Or else the sense must be, one of you hath a doctrine, another a Psalm, another a Revelation, &c. If this be the sense, how do our Brethren prove, that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets? Other Scri­ptures quoted by our Brethren, 1 Tim. 5.17. Tit. 1.9. make labouring in Doctrine, the work of Pastors and [Page 76] Teachers, & if the Doctrine were the Pastors & Teachers part, either the Psalm, or the Revelation must be the Prophets work; for the interpretation clearly belonged [...]o tongues, or at least related to it, 1 Cor. 14.13. 1 Cron. [...]hren take which they will, the Gift was extraordinary. Our Brethren say, that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy, ver. 6. but they did not consider that in the same words, it is distinguished from Doctrine too. What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by prophecying, or by doctrine? From whence we easily conclude, that the prophecying meant, 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine, and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren.

Object. But say our brethren, It may be meant of or­dinary revelation, Eph. 1.16, 17, 18.

Answ. Let what revelation will be meant, It is not doctrine; these Prophets spake not by Doctrine, that was another thing, ver. 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine. And that is it to justifie which we say no proof can be produced from this Text.

Secondly, We grant an ordinary revelation (sano sen­su) that is, That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people, in the use of due means, such a know­ledge of his written word, as is necessary for their sal­vation; yea, as may be for their consolation, that they may as to their own souls, know the hope of his Calling (as in that text, Eph. 1.16, 17, 18. quoted by our bre­thren) and know their own grace, and right unto glory, 1 Cor. 2.9, 10, 11, 12. Phil. 3.15. That they may be re­solved in their doubts, and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness. But all this as to their own private use. Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture, to prove that God hath promised ordina­rily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures, as they may publikely and ordinarily commu­nicate it in Church Assemblies.

[Page 77]Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity, 1 Cor. 12.29, 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching, yet it is an ordinary office.

Every Reader will consider, that it was enough for us to prove, either that these Prophets were Officers, or that they had an extraordinary gift. It is true, the note of singularity affixed (or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather) will not prove the gift was extraordina­ry; but it will prove that either the Prophets were Offi­cers, or the gift was extraordinary; for no others are there enumerated, but extraordinary, or ordinary offi­cers, or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Ho­ly Ghost.

To our third Allegation, That the title Prophets, and the term prophecying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Offi­cers, and extraordinarily gifted, and generally so in the New Testament;

Our Brethren answer,

1. ‘That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers, nor persons extra­ordinarily gifted are meant; and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the subject is most fit to interpret it.’ But their several Reasons being answered, no more need be added.

2. It is questionable they say, whether in some of the places mentioned, the word prophecying be taken, either for an act of Office; or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift; and to this purpose they mention, Acts 13.1. Rev. 10.11. Mat. 7.22. Mat. 13.57. Luke 4.24. Mat. 10.41. Acts 15.32. To which I answer.

Indeed our Brethren of London, p. 94. and my self (from others) p. 50. did say, that we conceive, where ever Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture, some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood. It had [Page 78] been enough for us to have said that generally it is so. But being the word is out, let it go, and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary.

1. For that Text, Matth. 7.22. Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, we have prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have we cast out devils, and done many miracles: We grant, that it cannot be from hence de­monstratively proved, that the prophecying here menti­oned was an extraordinary Gift; because the other two things mentioned were; but we appeal to all the world, whether this be not a strong presumption on our side, and such as our Brethren can never disprove. For that text, Acts 13.1. There were certain Prophets and Tea­chers in the Church at Antioch. These were such Pro­phets as were joyned with Teachers. 2. Preferred before them, according to the order also used, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. Eph. 4.11, 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas: Let any reasonably judge, whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church; for Rev. 10.11. John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel, and did eat it—And then the Angel said to him, Thou mayest prophesie again, &c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we? Their next is, Matth. 13.57. A prophet is not without honour, but in his own Country; this Rule they say, is true of all faith­full Teachers. Saint Paul, 2 Tim. 4.5. commands Timo­thy to watch in all things, to endure afflictions, to do the work of an Evangelist, and to make proof of his Mi­nistry; these things are the duties also of Ordinary Mi­nisters: doth it therefore follow, that Evangelists were no extraordinary officers? For their two other Texts both to the same sense, Luke 4.24. Matth. 10.41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall re­ceive a Prophets reward. What though the promise here by analogy concerneth all such as shall entertain Mini­sters, [Page 79] &c. So doth the promise made to Joshuah Josh. 1.5. I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee (wit­ness the Apostle, Heb. 13.6.) belong to all Christians, yet it will not follow, that therefore Joshuah was no ex­traordinary person, but a meer private person, nor yet that the promise did not primarily concern Joshuah, as to his extraordinary service in subduing the Canaanites. For the Text, Acts 15.32. Judas and Silas being pro­phets also themselves, exhorted the brethren, and with ma­ny words confirmed them. Hence our Brethren conclude, the work of Prophets was exhorting, and say, they ex­horted because they were Prophets. Page 109.

Two things, or three must here be enquired: 1. Whe­ther Judas and Silas were not furnished with extraordi­nary gifts, or clothed with an extraordinary office or authority. 2. Whether they preached or no. 3. Whether what they did, was done by them as Prophets.

1. As to the first, it is plain from ver. 22. that both Judas and Silas were no ordinary persons, there the Holy Ghost calls them, [...], we translate it chief men amongst the Brethren. The word sig­nifies men in some office amongst their Brethren; compare the usage of it in other texts, Matth. 2.6. A Governour: Luke 22.26. Where it is opposed to [...] one that serveth, Acts 7.10. Heb. 13.7, 24. Those that have the rule over you: But this is not all, if it were the same Judas mentioned, Acts 1.13. he was one of the Apostles, and yet (might have the gift of prophecie too) we read of no other Judas (but he that was the Traitor) For Si­las, Acts 15.40. he was Pauls fellow labourer, and acting in equal work with him, Acts 16.29. they were un­doubtedly two of the hundred and twenty, who were all filled with the holy Ghost, Acts 2.4.

2. But another question is, Whether this text proves they preached, the text says they exhorted, but all exhort­ing is not preaching: The truth is, they were sent with [Page 80] the Synods Letters, and perswaded them to an unity in obedience to them.

3. But yet thirdly, Suppose they (being Prophets) preached; how doth it prove that this act was perform­ed by them as Prophets? we may say Stephen being a Deacon preached, yet it will not follow preaching is an act of the Deacons office. Pag. 109. Our Brethren add to the Scripture, when they say, their exhorting is said to be because they were Prophets. The text says no such thing, [...] doth not signifie because. The mention of their being Prophets, 1. distinguished them from ordinary Brethren. 2. It was made to let us know the dignity of the persons sent as Messengers from the Synod; they were no ordinaty persons, no, they were Prophets. For their last Text, Rev. 11.8. concerning the prophesying of the two witnesses, Our brethren grant that they cannot determine what act is meant by it: No more can we, only I observe there were to be but two of them, so that the gift or office was no ordinary gift or office, and that is enough for us: We do not say, but to some single Christian since the Apostles times, yea even in our times, God may have given to know and foretell things to come. Our brethren know there are several rare instances in several Ages to prove it. For our Brethrens last instance, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. We have also a more sure word of prophe­cie, ver. 20. No prophecie of the Scripture is of private interpretation, I cannot conceive the force of any thing in that Text: That the Scripture is partly a word of Prophecie, every one knows; and our Brethren hnow the whole is oft denominated from the name of the part, by an easie trope. We think that text rather fights against our Brethren than for them; for it says, no pro­phecie of the Scripture (i. e. which is found in the Scri­pture) is of private interpretation.

4. As to our fourth presumption that prophecie was no ordinary but extraordinary Gift, because it [Page 81] is reckoned among the rarest gifts of the Apostles.

‘Our Brethren answer, 1 Cor. 14.20. Pag. 111. that the reason why it is preferred before tongues, is expressed, there because it is of more publike use for edification.’

We say that was one reason, but according to the A­postle (in case he that spake with tongues did interpret) that reason failed, 1 Cor. 14.5. and then another must be found. And as to this reason, though the Prophet were greater in one respect, yet he was less in another; for he could shew no sign for the confirmation of the truths he spake.

5. We had told our Brethren, that the formal effect of ‘ publike edifying, comforting, edifying, convincing, converting souls, are ascribed to these Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. and therefore some thought they were officers.’ To this our Brethren answer, Pastors and Teachers are or­dinary Officers, and their gifts ordinary, yet they are use­full to these ends: What doth this prove? Ergo, If Pro­phets be officers, their gifts also may be so usefull: I think that is all. If these Prophets were any species of officers, it is enough for our turn.

6. ‘We told our brethren, prophecying is distinguish­ed from the word of wisdom, and from the word of know­ledge, 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10, 11. To this our brethren an­swer three things. 1 So exhortation is distinguished from prophecy, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. yet the Prophets ex­horted, 1 Cor. 14.3. Acts 15.32. 2. It is hard to de­termine the special reason, why the Apostles sometimes distinguished those things each from other, which in themselves seem alike, as 1 Cor. 14.6. 3. If because prophecying is distinguished from the word of know­ledge, and the word of wisdom, we will conclude, that by prophecying must be meant foretelling things to come, then we must conclude two sorts of Prophets, one whose proper work should be to foretell things to come; Another whose proper distinctive act should be [Page 82] to exhort, convince and comfort, 1 Corinth. 14.’

To all which I Reply.

1. That there is nothing more clear, than that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. is speaking of a diversity of Gifts, divided (as he saith) ver. 11. to every man severally; from whence it will follow, that pro­phecy is neither the word of wisdom, nor knowledge, nor faith, nor the gift of healing, nor the gift of working miracles, nor the gift of discerning spirits, nor the gift of tongues, nor the interpretation of tongues; but the for­mal gift of prophecy, must be some ninth thing, distinct from all these.

But Secondly, it will not follow, but some persons might have more than one of these gifts, though every one had not more than one, yet some might, as Paul had the word of knowledge, and wisdom, and tongues, and mi­racles, and interpretation of tongues: So I see nothing to hinder, but he that had the special gift of prophecie, might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge.

3. Supposing prophecie to have been a gift of fore­telling things to come, or explication of Scripture by an in­fallible Spirit, without use of means; yet they might speak edification, exhortation, and comfort, which is all menti­oned, 1 Cor. 14.3. the Prophets of old, Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c. did all; but the nature of their gift, and the speci­fical difference of it did not lye in the thing spoken, or the End, but in the principle, enabling them so to speak.

4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove, that exhortation, &c. was the distinctive act of the Prophet (as they would insinuate) for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers with them, and this is an answer to their third thing. For what they say before, that prophecie, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. is distinguished from exhortation, it signifies nothing, because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets.

It was told our Brethren, that 1 Cor. 13.8. the A­postle saith: ‘Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, that shall vanish away. Our Bre­thren answer, ver. 9, 10. it shall be, Page 114. when that which is in part is done away: 2. Not till the ceasing of know­ledge in part.’

1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased; for they also are mentioned, ver. 8. as things which should fail, and we know they are failed, and so (we judge) are prophecies too: nor will it help our Brethren (which they say) that ver. 9. it is not said tongues are in part; for the reason is, because they were perfect in their kinde, and so need not be done away, when that which is perfect should come; but if we take perfect in a true sense, for a perfection of the Saints in glory, then indeed they were imperfect things, serving only as means in order to that end: Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect, as the moving cause, or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part; he doth not say, that which is in part shall be done away, by the coming of that which is perfect; but he speaks of it as a consequent. The true sense is this, Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven; we conceive by tongues, and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary; By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices, these shall all fail at that day, but some of these shall fail before others. We lay no great stress upon this Text, I have only said thus much to prevent our Brethrens using of it, as they here do, though without any just ground; for the truth is, it will serve neither party.

It was told our Brethren, that prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not, and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches. If any [Page 84] thing can be clear in Scripture; surely this is from that Text,
1 Cor. 14.22.

To this our Brethren Answer,

1. " That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies.

2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be, but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers, and to serve onely for Believers to edifie them; but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be usefull to unbelievers to convert them.

To which I answer,

1. If there were any Prophets indeed, this would war­rant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies; but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent.

But Secondly, It is well our Brethren say no more, than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent; for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words.

Wherefore tongues are for a sign,
1 Cor. 14.22.
not to them that be­lieve, but to them that believe not, but prophecy­ing, not for them that believe not, but for them that believe.

Our Brethren would make us believe, that the sense is only, that prophecie was not for a sign to them that be­lieved not, but for their conversion it might be. Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little, and judge be­twixt us.

1. It is plain, that if prophecying were for any sign, it must be for unbelievers, for believers needed no sign, they had already received the Gospel: but the Apostle plainly says, it was not for unbelievers.

2. Let any Reader judge, whether those words— But prophecying not for those who believe not—do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to un­believers; if it were a sign at all, it must be for them who believed not: but say our Brethren, it is denied to [Page 85] be a sign for them; and the words are plain enough, it is not for them.

Object. Oh! But though it be not a sign for them, yet it might be to convert them,

Answ. Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion; now that prophecy should be for their con­version, and not a sign for it, seems very harsh, consi­dering, that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies. For what our Brethren say, that ver 25, 26. prove that prophecy is usefull for the conversion of unbelievers, We grant it, but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly, not when the Prophet goes out to them, ver. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place,—and ver. 24. There come in one that believeth not, or is unlearn­ed, he is convinced [or reproved] of all [ i. e. those that prophesie] he is judged of all, &c. Mark, the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place: If our Brethrens Brethren be of this sort of Prophets, what do they travelling up and down Countreys? (whom they think unbelievers) or intruding upon Congregati­ons that are vacant? where there is no Assembly, our Brethren will own as a Church? these Prophets were not (by vertue of this Text) to be sent out of the Church, only to be heard in it.

This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets, and although I really think their Argument from this Text, the most probable of any they have; yet I hope an equi­table Reader will from what I have said, judge it not conclusive in the case. I wonder at the reverend opini­on our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this. But let the Reader judge. Only led me add one text more to prove this prophecying an extraordinary gift, not ordinary; it is that,

Acts 19.6. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied,

Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text, and con­ [...]ider, whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.

CHAP. V. Containing a Vindication of all my Arguments, brought in my Vindiciae against the ordinary preaching of Per­sons meerly gifted, from whatsoever our Brethren have said to infringe them, either in the seventh, or in the tenth Chapters of their Book.

OUr Brethren in their tenth Chapter pretend to Answer my Arguments against the licentious pre­sumption of the ordinary Preaching of private per­sons. My first Argument I laid thus,

Not to observe Gospel-order in acts of instituted wor­ship is sinfull.

But for private Christians (how well gifted soever) to preach ordinarily, i. e. to open and apply Scri­ptures, in publike Church-Assemblies, is for them in acts of instituted worship, not to observe Gospel-Order— Ergo,

I presumed our Brethren would only deny the Mi­nor, which I thus proved.

To adventure upon an administration of a Gospel-Ordi­nance, without such a Mission, as Gospel-precepts require, and Gospel-Presidents hold forth such should have as so administer, is not to observe Go­spel-Order in Gospel-Worship.

But for such to open and apply Scriptures is to do so: Ergo.

I proved the Minor, because all the precepts we have for the constitution of Elders in Churches constituting, or constituted, required that besides their gifts, they should, likewise be set apart by Ordination; and all the Presidents we have of persons Preaching in a setled state of the Church ordinarily, were of persons so set apart by Ordination.

Now what say our Brethren to all this?

1. They doubt whether I would have my Major Proposition understood universally. Pag. 194.

2. But anon, they suppose it, and they deny my Mi­nor, and say, that neither do Gospel-Precepts require, nor Gospel-Presidents hold forth, that all those that preach the Gospel should be solemnly set apart to the work. Then they review the Texts quoted by me: as to the Text, Titus 1.5. they say, it only concerns El­ders. The same they answer to Acts 14.23. Acts 13.3, 4, 5. only as to 1 Tim. 5.22. they doubt whether by laying on of hands be not meant, conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost (because laying on of hands was used in that case too) and Timothy was an Evangelist, and as for Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13.3. they were officers and preachers before; this is all they have, pag. 193, 194, 195. as to my first Argument I answer,

1. That according to our Brethrens Logick deliver­ed to us before, That indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals: Our Brethren needed not have doubted, but that I understood the Proposition univer­sally. However, I do not love to trouble my Readers with such fallacies, as arguing from particulars to gene­rals; but I still maintain, that no precept, no president in the Gospel allows the ordinary publike preaching of per­sons meerly gifted, in a setled state of the Church, un­less they were such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; or such (as according to Scripture-direction) preached only probationis Ergo.

Secondly (this being a negative) I had no way to make a strict proof, unless we had come to an argument vivâ vo­ce, then our Brethren know I should have argued thus,

If the Gospel-hath any Precepts, or Presidents, they must be found in the Gospels, Epistles, Acts, or Revelations: And so have followed on the Argument, till I had brought them to assign the Place, or the President. If they had instanced in the scattered Christians, Acts 9.11. all would have seen it had been nothing to the pur­pose; for they were some of those upon whom the Holy Ghost fell; and the Church was under persecution. If they had instanced in Apollo, he was either an officer, or at least a probationer; if they had told us of the Pro­phets at Corinth, if they were not ordinary officers (as Mr. Rutherford thinks) yet it is plain they had extraor­dinary gifts (as I have proved) if they had brought that general Text, 1 Pet. 4.10. I had told them (what I have now said) that if they will understand that Text in the general of any gift to be exercised, without any more ado, then the gifted men may command States and Ar­mies, and administer Sacraments; if they restrain it, we have as much warrant to restrain it to Hospitality, exe­cuted in the distribution of the gifts of Providence. So that considering the nature of my Argument, it was enough for me (till they had assigned precepts, or pre­sidents) to instance in such precepts and presidents as the Scripture afforded, laying most stress upon what I found in Timothy and Titus (those Epistles containing the standing Rules for the Government of the Churches planted and setled.)

Thirdly, It was enough for me, who knew no other ordinary Preachers than teaching Elders (besides extra­ordinary officers) that the Scripture owns; to prove they were ordained; they are those only that were to la­bour in the word and Doctrine, that was their work, 1 Tim. 5.17. and they have their denomination from it, [Page 89] from feeding called Pastors, and from Teaching called Teachers, and if every one might ordinarily, and pub­lickly feed and teach; I know not for what use their names served, which usually are given to persons and things to distinguish them from others.

Fourthly, as to what they say, that 1 Tim. 5.22. may be meant of conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost, They should first have proved that Timothy had any such power, his being an Evangelist proves no such thing, but only that he was left at Ephesus, to put the newly planted Churches into order; the Apostles in regard of their travelling, not being able to stay so long, nor do I finde any thing to perswade me Timothy himself had re­ceived those extraordinary gifts; however, the caution had bin needless; for it is plain, there was no long trial of any who received those gifts, Act. 2.4.4.31. Act. 8.17. Neither do I believe those gifts were by the Apostles hands con­veyed to any, but upon extraordinary revelation made first to them, directing upon whom they should lay their hands: Hence they prayed, Acts 8.15. That the people might receive the Holy Ghost, and yet laid no hands on Simon, though he believed, and was baptized, Acts 8.13. Besides, I hope our Brethren will not say, the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie, 1 Tim. 4.14. was the conferring those Gifts.

Fifthly, As to that instance, Acts 13.3. I made no further use of than to conclude the great honour God put upon this Ordinance; I granted Paul was an extra­ordinary Officer, and Preacher before: yet that the Lord may let us know his everlasting will, concerning such as should be mediately sent out by the Church, Paul and Barnabas (though extraordinarily Commissiona­ted) yet being to be sent out by the Church, are (to shew what all Churches should do) sent out by solemn fasting, and prayer, and laying on of hands; how much more should others, who can pretend no such extraor­dinary [Page 90] gifts or office. And this is I think enough to set my first Argument on its legs again.

My second Argument I stated thus.

Vindiciae pag. 33. For any who are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is sinfull.

But for persons meerly gifted; to preach ordinarily in publike Assemblies in the setled state of the Church, is for persons who are no officers, to take upon them to do Acts of office.

Not to multiply words needlesly; by Acts of Office I meant Acts peculiar to office; then (say our Brethren) they deny my assumption. Preaching (they say) is not an act peculiar to office; I foresaw this, and therefore laid in some proof for it.

‘The proper acts of Pastors and Teachers, &c. are acts peculiar to office.’

‘But ordinary preaching in publike Church-Assem­blies, in a setled state of the Church, is the proper act of Pastors and Teachers, &c.’

By proper Acts our Brethren might have concluded, that I meant proper quarto modo, such as are peculiar to them: Then (they tell me) they deny the Minor; and (Reader) this is it that they affirm, That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder, teaching the truth is not the peculiar work of a Teacher; but although Pastors and Teachers be standing Officers in the Church of Christ, who must and ought to Preach, yet others may preach as well as they. Our Brethren do allow, that Pastors and Teachers are needfull to feed the flock of Christ; but yet that this flock may feed it self; that Christ hath appointed some, whose ordinary work should be to teach, and whose office it should be, to the performance of which they must be set apart; but yet there are others who may do the same thing without being set apart; this is clearly our Brethrens sense, but how consistent with reason, let the Reader judge. As to the making of my Argument good.

[Page 91]2. My former discourse will make it appear, that i [...] will lye upon our Brethren to give an instance of any one in Scripture, except extraordinary persons (in respect of extraordinary gifts and offices) who (not in order to Ordination) in a setled state of the Church, did ordina­rily preach, or any precept to warrant such for the fu­ture. We have proof enough in Scripture that the El­ders, and Officers of the Church did it. I can yield it our Brethren, that the name Teacher is to distinguish from him that exhorteth; but the name of Teacher and Pastor too, must have teaching and exhorting, as their proper acts, by the force of the same Text, Rom. 12.7, 8. That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait, that is his peculiar work: but preaching is that work upon which Pastors and Teachers are to wait, Rom. 12.7, 8. That by Gods appointment it should be the work and charge of some, to wait upon the performance of an action, which any others may do as well, and as ordi­narily as they, is a strange piece of sense: Pag. 199. Our Bre­thren, p. 199. argue fallaciously, when they say, Distri­bution is an act of the Deacons office, and yet every one may distribute: Distribution of the Churches stock is indeed an act of the Deacons Office, and this none but they may distribute: They might as well have said, speaking is the act of a man: Ergo, Preaching the word is not peculiar to office: He that breaks Bread, and gives it to another, doth materially (in our Brethrens sense) the Acts of him that administreth the Lords Sup­per: Yet our Brethren will grant, that the Sacra­mental breaking of Bread is an act of Office; Di­stribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office; but distribution of the Churches stock is, and that none may do (if the Church have Deacons) but they.

I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Of­fice, thus;

[Page 92]

If Baptizing be an act peculiar to office, then is preaching such.

But baptizing is: Ergo.

I proved the consequence,

  • 1. Because they are both in the same Commission.
  • 2. The Apostle makes preaching the greater Act, 2 Cor. 1.17.

Our Brethren of London had used the same Argu­ment, and brought the same Text in justification of it, to which these Brethren endeavoured an answer, ch. 9. pag. 165, 166, &c. To which here they refer me, yet withall, pag. 200. they give me a repetition. I will fair­ly sum up what they say in both places.

First, Our Brethren say, 1. That the Argument falleth as heavy upon us; for we will allow Probationers to preach, yet not to Baptize.

Secondly, Some (they say) think the Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. is given to the Apostles as Officers; and that there is another Commission for gifted men.

But (Thirdly) they tell us it is a mistake; for the Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. is not that which impower­eth men to preach. It was only an enlarging of a former Commission, and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto. For the Apostles preached, and bapti­zed before, Mark 10. ver. 5, 6, 7.—The Apostles (they say) received as much power by this Commission, as any others their Successors could, but they received no Office-power by it.—It can, they say, only be concluded from hence, that those who were in office before, might go and preach to the Gentiles.—Hence they deny, that the joyn­ing those two acts together in that Commission doth con­clude that all who may do the one may do the other.

Fourthly (they say) some deny that preaching is a greater work than baptizing: Here they quote (a great Friend of theirs) Dr. Homes.

Fifthly, page 170. they suppose preaching the grea­ter [Page 93] work; (else where our Brethren ingenuously grant they think it is, pag. 233.) yet it doth not follow, that those who do the greater may do the less, because the less may be more limited.

Sixtly, and lastly, They finde, that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts, which have the de­nomination of preaching, and for the same end, Preaching without Ordi­nation, p. 165, &c. Matth. 18.15. Heb. 3.13. Heb. 10.25. Now they cannot finde the Gospel allowing men out of Office, to perform that act called Baptizing, and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Baptism is instituted for. This is the sum of all said in many more words, page 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 199, 200.

Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove, That those who may preach, may not baptize, when as Christ with the same breath said, Go preach and baptize, and Saint Paul saith, he was not sent to baptize, i. e. that was not his main act, but to preach. I shall shortly an­swer to all our Brethren say.

1. Under favour, our Brethren are mistaken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us, who allow Probationers to preach: For 1. They were excepted out of the question, as being by a special rule in Gods word dispensed with. Our Brethren can shew no such Rule for their gifted men. 2. Neither do we allow them to preach ordinarily.

2. As to the second thing they say, to make their asserti­on good, they must bring forth that same other Com­mission for gifted men, before we shall believe it: if it be that Matth. 10. ver. 5, 6, 7. Our Brethren acknow­ledge they baptized too, the Text proves they had power to work miracles, ver. 1.

3. As to what they say next, viz. that the Commissi­on, Matth. 28.19, 20. is not that Commission which au­thorizeth any to preach, we must crave leave to deny it. Their Argument is this.

[Page 94]

That Commission which did not give authority to the Apostles themselves to Preach and Baptize, did not give others authority, claiming by and under the same Commission.

But that Commission did not give them Authority: Ergo.

The Major we confess (as to the present Commissi­on) The Minor we deny. All they have to prove it is this:

What authority they had before, that Commission did not give.

But they had authority before to Preach, and Bap­tize: Ergo,

The Minor we grant, the Major we deny.

1. I say, that if a man hath two Commissions to the same work, he is by both of them impowered, and au­thorized, and made in Office. Suppose an act of Par­liament constituteth some as Commissioners for ejection of scandalous Ministers in the County of Norfolk: and afterwards, another Act passeth to the same purpose, en­larging also their power, to the City and County of Nor­wich, doth not the later Commission authorize and im­power them as well as the first? It is true, that Commissi­on, Matth. 28.19, 20. was not the first Commission that impowered them to Preach, but it did impower them surely; for the same authority is in the latter as in the former.

Secondly, our Brethren grant they were in no office to the Gentiles without that Commission; therefore I think that Commission impowred them.

Thirdly, our Saviour saw, that after his Ascension, there might be some question, whether they might Preach, and Baptize, as they had done (during his Life) and whether any others might in that work succeed them, by authority from Christ, he therefore reneweth, and en­largeth their Commission, and by making an everlast­ing [Page 95] promise to those who should succeed them in that work, he doth establish a constant office of the Mini­stry, to the worlds end.

As to their fourth Allegation, it being that which our Brethren refuse to own, or insist upon, I shall spend no time about it.

For what they say fifthly, that supposing Preaching the greater work, yet it may be that Baptizing, which is the less, may be limited to Officers, and yet not that; I [...] may be so indeed, but it is not very likely.

And I suppose our Brethren must produce a very plain Scripture to prove the limitation, before they will make any endued with a competency of reason believe tha [...] God hath by his will in his word authorized Ministers in office, to Preach, and to Baptize, and in the same word declared, that Preaching is the great, and chief act, to which he hath sent them, and rather sent them for that than for the other, viz. Baptizing, and yet it is his will, that any ordinary gifted persons may perform that greater act, but none but those Officers may do the less: He that hath so much, credulity as to afford any to such an assertion may; in the mean time our Brethren have not brought us one title of Scripture, to prove the limitation of Baptism: Some thing of rea­son they pretend to, in what they say in the sixth place, that they finde in Scripture, that other persons besides Officers may do the acts of Preaching, and for the ends; the acts, viz. admonition, exhortation, Mat. 18.15. Heb. 3.13.10.25. for the ends, viz. to prevent sin, build up in grace, &c.

To which I Answer.

Sixthly, Admonition and Exhorting, simply consider­ed without reference to the persons or manner, are not the acts of Preaching; ordinary Admonishing, and ex­horting in the publick Assemblies of the Church, are in­deed. The pronouncing of the words, which the Judge pro­nounceth [Page 96] in passing Sentence upon a Malefactor, is not the act of his Office, unless pronounced in due manner, upon the Arraignment, and condemnation of a Male­factor in an open Court after Trial.

Object. Oh but it serveth to the same end.

Resp. This is not enough to make it the same act. An Highway-man may pronounce the same Sentence the Judge doth, and to the same end, yet his act is not the same: But it is they say, materially the same.

2. Our Brethren in this say nothing, for this doth not Legitimate the action; our Brethren may do actions materially the same with such as are commanded, and yet sin in doing of them, in this or that place, or man­ner; it is therefore no consequence, that because our Brethren no where read in Scripture that any but Offi­cers did materially the acts of Baptism, &c. But do read that they did the material acts of Preaching, Ergo They may Preach but not Baptize.

But Thirdly, Our Brethren need no Scripture to prove, that any man may do the material acts of Bap­tism, and administring the Supper: The material act of the one is sprinkling or powering water upon a face; of the other, a breaking of bread, and giving it to others. None ever questioned but every one may do these acts, and our Brethren oft do it to their children: There­fore this is no ground of restraining those from Admi­nistring the Sacraments whose authority to preach we implead. And so much shall serve for the vindication of my second Argument.

My third Argument was: ‘From the uselesness of the great Ordinance of the Ministerial Office, as to its chief act, viz. Preaching, if this practice be allowed.’

‘Now the word of God cannot be so contrary to it self, as, first to set up an Office, and then to make it useless as to its chief work.’

To make this good, I had but two things to prove: 1. That Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial Office. 2. That if every one who hath gifts may preach, there were no need of the Ministerial Office (as to its chiefest act.)

To prove it to be the chief Act of the Ministerial Of­fice, I urged,

1. That it is the first Act mentioned in the Ministeri­al Commission.

2. That St. Paul makes it his chief act, 1 Cor. 1.17. Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach.

3. Either this is the chief act of the Ministerial Of­fice, or a Minister hath no act proper to him, but that of administring Baptism, and the Lords Supper. But no Scripture shews these more peculiar to him.

To all this our Brethren answer.

1. ‘That the order of words doth not prove preaching the chief act, in that Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. Neither did I bring it as a demonstrative Argument: but I do not think Dr. Homes his assertion true, that Preaching is but a preparation to Baptism; for he will find it must follow Baptism as well as go before it, Teaching them to observe, &c. That same But there­fore is a but of the Doctors own setting up, which all Scripture, and right reason will throw down.’

2. ‘But to make my work short, our Brethren, p. 203. at last do grant that Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial office, and that Text, 1 Cor. 1.17. doth evidently prove it: So doth that Rom. 12.7, 8.’ Take from those two Texts these two Arguments.

Arg. 1. That piece of the Ministerial work, for the discharge of which God especially designs his Mi­nisters when he sends them, that is their chief work.

But Preaching is such, 1 Cor. 1.17. Ergo.

Arg. 2. That piece of the Ministerial working, upon [Page 98] which the Minister is most especially to wait, and ra­ther to neglect other parts than that, that is their chief work.

But Preaching is that piece of the Ministerial work upon which Ministers of the Gospel are especially to wait, Rom. 12.7, 8. to which they are especially ordained, 1 Tim. 2.7. 1 Tim. 1.11. to which they are in special manner to give attendance, both to be prepared for it, and to do it, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and to do it well, 2 Tim. 2.15. 2 Tim. 4.2. they are rather to neglect others than that, as Paul did Baptizing, 1 Cor. 1.14, 15, 16, 17. And the Apostles judged it not meet they should leave the word of God to serve Tables, Acts 6.2.— Ergo.

Therefore I think our Brethren have but done them­selves right, in judging Preaching the chief and main work of the Ministerial Office, p. 203. But (say they)

Pag. 203. ‘Yet we do not finde any Scripture Rule to evidence, that Preaching in it self, is either an act of Office, or peculiar to the distinctive act of Office; to make it so, there is required a being over them in the Lord, who are preached to, 1 Thes. 5.12. —and this they conceive doth make Preaehing an act of Office, — &c.’

What this serveth for, more than to blinde the Rea­der that he may not see the strength of our Argument, I cannot tell. Our Argument was this.

That which is the main Act of the Ministerial Of­fice, for the performance of which God especially designed it, that is not lawfully to be performed, by such as are in no Office; for it is the peculiar act of Office.

But Preaching is the main and chief act for the per­formance of which God hath set up an Office of the Ministry, and designed it, &c. Ergo.

The Minor our Brethren have granted; so that they must deny the Major or nothing; we prove it,

God doth nothing in vain.

[Page 99]

But in case he had set up an Office in his Church chiefly for the performance of an act, which many out of Office might do; he had as to that act set it up in vain.— Ergo, It is false that any other may do it.

The Minor is evident to common sense or reason; were it not a vain thing for a Prince to establish an Or­der of Officers (suppose Justices of the Peace, Colonels, and Captains of Armies, Constables in Parishes) if by the Law every man, though in no such office might do the main work that belonged to such an Office?

Hence we say, that the Lords establishing a stand­ing office of Pastors and Teachers, and declaring in his Word, that the main end of his establishing them, is for the Preaching of the Gospel, doth clearly reveal his will, that this should not be the work of any but such Officers. Now what say our Brethren?

The Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office.

This is the sum of what they say. If it be sense, I am sure it is nothing to the question, which is plainly beg­ged in the answer. For what is the Question but this?

Whether any but such as are in Office may ordinarily Preach?

We say no, because Preaching is an act peculiar to Office: this we prove, because it is the main and chief act and end, for which God set up the Office. Our Bre­thren grant it to be the main and chief act, for the exer­cise of which God set up the Office; and yet tell us, by and by, that Preaching is not so. But the Preaching of one in Office is so. Reader, if thou canst pick out the sense of this, I cannot.

Our Brethten should have done well to have given us the difference between simple Preaching, as it is an Or­dinance of Christ, and Office-Preaching as they call it.

If they mean by Preaching, An act of a person clo­thed with the authority of Jesus Christ, by which in obe­dience to his Command, the Agent openeth and applyeth Scriptures in order to the conversion and edification of souls, and that in the publick Assemblies, and to which people ought to attend.

We say, this must be an act of Office, and all such Preaching is Office-Preaching, his authority puts him in Office. If they mean by Preaching,

Any persons discoursing of the Scripture, either pri­vately, or publickly, in such a way, as that none is by Gods command obliged to hear him, nor can hear him looking upon what he does as the publick appointment of Christ, for the salvation of his soul; we allow gift­ed men may Preach in this sense: But we say, that (strictly) this is no Preaching; it is no more than a pri­vate persons reading a good Book, to whom people are not bound to resort to hear, nor ought they so to do upon the Lords days, which should be spent in the du­ties of publick worship.

Our Brethren, p. 203. justly think, that in the hearts of some serious Christians, there may be some such workings as these.

If this Doctrine be true, that all gifted men may by the command of Christ Preach ordinarily, as well as Pastors, and Teachers; and all the Brethren have as much to do in ruling tne Church, as ruling Elders, surely both Preaching and Ruling Elders are useless: for to what purpose are they set a part for a work, which they might do without such a setting apart, or any others do as well as they, when made Of­ficers.

And therefore surely these principles have too much absurdity in them, and bear too much con­tradiction to the revealed will of God to be true.

But say our Brethren,

[Page 101]

If all acts which Officers might put forth, Pag. 204. might be performed by members not in Office, yet there would be enough to speak Officers necessary, and of great use.

1. Though they put forth the same Acts, yet it is not under the same relation: A man provideth for his children as a Father, for the poor under another noti­on: A Christian friend occasionally gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance; so doth the Parent of these children; yet the manner is different, the one is under a standing Obligation, the other not. The Bayliffs are needfull in Corporations, where the major part carry it without the Bayliffs sometimes, pag. 205. Church-Officers have a special oversight over the flock, pag. 206. they are under a special desig­nation.—If a Church hath Officers, they by their place, are to go before the Church, in directing, and exe­cuting determinations.—But the Church may cen­sure without Officers, p. 207.

2. They say, that we allow such an Office as hath no act peculiar to it, viz. Ruling Elders.

3. They do not say all may preach, but such as are really gifted.

4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted mens Preaching, it is needfull, whether we can see it or no.

5. The Preaching of Apostles, and Evangelists did not make the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless; nor è contra, because every Church-member may di­stribute to the poor, it will not follow the Office of Dea­con was needless.

This is the sum of what our Brethren say, pag. 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209.

in many more words: To all which I shall give a short answer:

1. As to the present debate, I have nothing to do with arguing the needlesness of Officers, as to the Go­vernment [Page 102] of the Church, of Officers; if others, besides such Officers, may act with them: Acts of Jurisdiction in the Church were never by Christ committed to the single hand of any person, nor yet to any single Office; I think neither the Minister alone, nor the Ruling El­ders alone, nor the multitude alone are the Church, to which offences should be told, or who can singly act in any formal censure (except in a very high Case of Ne­cessity.) The work of Preaching is of another nature, it is by Christs Order to be performed by this or that single hand. It will not therefore follow, that because there is a need of a Pastor, though ruling Elders (as we say) and the multitude as our Brethren say, ought to concur with them in acts of Censure and Discipline; [...]herefore there is a need of Teaching Elders, though others may teach as well as they; for the work of teach­ing may be (as I said before) performed by single hands, without a concurrence to the act of any others, whe­ther Officers or Members, so may not acts of Govern­ment.

2. As to what our Brethren say, That Pastors and Teachers, act under another relation, as set over people in the Lord, this amounts to no more than a notion, and makes no real difference: Let us examine what this sig­nifies. Will our Brethren say these Preach as appoint­ed by Christ, others not so? pag. 209. No say our Bre­thren, the gifted men are also by Divine appointment to preach, so their authority is the same; Christ appoint­eth both the one, and the other (they say:) What then, do they not do the same material acts? That they do our Brethren told us, p. 200. they had found that in Scri­pture: What then? Is not the end the same, to con­vince, convert, exhort, edifie? Our Brethren told us, pag. 112. They knew not wherefore they should prophesie, if there were no hope of such effects. So then, our Bre­thren say, that gifted men have the same authority to [Page 103] preach, that teaching Elders; and teach the same things, & to the same end. Now I wonder what this different rela­tion, which they here tell us of, signifies more then an empty notion: let us see if their similitudes will help us: A man they say provideth for his children, as a father; for the poor under another notion. But the quest. is quite ano­ther thing, viz. Whether it would be necessary, that there should be a special order of persons, called fathers, to provide for the poor, if every one were bound to pro­vide for them; and to do the same acts, in the same order, and to the same end that they should do. A Christian Friend, they say, occasionaelly gives wholsom instructions to the children of his acquaintance, so doth the parents of those children, yet the manner is different; the one is under a standing Obligation, the other not.

If this similitude runs on four feet, our Brethrens sense is this, That there is a need of Pastors and Tea­chers, though gifted men may Preach, because gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only, may do it occasionally.

So then the sense is this, gifted men may Preach, & shall not need, except they list; they may preach, & they may let it alone; but Pastors and Teachers, they must do it.

That they may let it aelone, I most freely grant: But that they may either do it, or let it alone, I can never grant: All the precepts our Brethren pretended to for this Preaching of gifted men, do not only (if they were to their purpose) assert their Liberty, but enjoyn it as their duty. See 1 Pet. 4.10. He that hath received the gift is commanded to Minister; he that hath the gift of Prophecy must Prophecy. Our Brethren, say they, preach by Divine appointment, pag. 209. Now those that are appointed to Preach, are not at their liberty, whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore ex­ceeding vain: besides, it gives the gifted man a superi­ority over the Officer: for Greater is he that sitteth at [Page 104] the Table, and may choose whether he will serve, or no, than he who serveth, and must serve.

For our Brethrens other instance, viz. that Bayliffs in a Corporation may be usefull, though the Common Coun­cell may act with them, it concerns not the present case; it may have something in it to prove, that although the Members of the Church have a joynt power with the Officers of the Church, as to the executing some act of censure; yet there is a need of them as to other acts (and that is all it will do too in that Case) but here it signi­fies nothing, because Preaching is an act which may be done by a single person, and we argue that there is no need of a special order of single persons, to be in Com­mission for a work for which all were commissioned, and in which others may act.

3. It is true that our Brethren say, we do allow such an Office as we say, hath no act peculiar to it, viz. that of Ruling Elders, their work is rule, and in that work they are joynt Commissioners with the Teaching El­ders: But the question is, whether we allow such as are not Officers to act in it. We say the office of ruling is a partible Office, divided betwixt the Teaching and Rule­ing Elder; who (as to that work) make but one office, to the execution of which a double Species of Officers is (ordinarily) necessary. These two (as heretofore the King, Lords, and Commons of England made up the three Estates, all necessary to enact a Law) do make up the two States as it were in the Church, without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth, in ordinary cases. But the case is quite another, as to the work of Preach­ing, which may be performed by a single person. If in­deed we had said, that the Ruling Elder might alone without the Teaching Elder, have (in ordinary cases) exercised acts of Rule, Our Brethren had said some­thing, and we should have thought the Pastors Com­mission, as to ruling needless, and so è contra we should [Page 105] have thought the ruling Elder needless, and should so judge it, if we could see that the Pastor (in ordinary case) without them might rule, which is the thing our Brethren plead for, the Preaching of Gifted men.

Fourthly, Our Brethren say they do not say all may preach, only those who are gifted. But our Brethren dare not say, who shall judge that (as I noted before) there­fore it is all that will.

Fifthly, Our Brethren say true, our reason must vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture. But when the question is, whether there be any ground in Scripture for this liberty or no, and our Brethren have no plain Scri­pture to prove it, no particular Precept, no Presidents but of persons qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, that ever ordinarily preached, We hope our Friends will judge, that it is no light Argu­ment to prove our Brethren mistaken in the Scriptures they pretend, because their sense of them being grant­ed, a standing Sacred Office of the Gospel, plainly con­firmed by many Scriptures, would be made frustraneous, and of no use.

Sixthly, But Lastly (say our Brethren) we do grant that Apostles and Evangelists might Preach, yet was not the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless. I Answer.

1. This is no consequence; for Apostles and Evan­gelists were Officers.

2. They were virtually Pastors and Teachers, they differed in nothing from them but the extent of their power.

3. There was a plain need of Pastors and Teachers, notwithstanding these extraordinary Officers: for 1. They were to endure but for a time. 2. They were not to be confined to a place; it had been sin for them to have always staid in one place. So that notwithstanding [Page 106] them, there was an apparent use of Pastors & Teachers.

4. We say as to such times as they were resident in this or that particular Church, there was no need of any Pastors or Teachers, because they could do all their acts: But we hope our Brethren will not say so for their gifted men.

And thus much may serve to have answered all they say against my third Argument.

My fourth Argument, I laid thus,

Vindiciae Ministerii, pag. 38, 39.

What things (by Scripture-warrant) are in publick Assemblies to be communicated unto others by faith­full men, who shall be able to teach others, and to whom such things shall first be committed by Gods Timothies, those things private persons, to whom they are not so committed,may not so communicate.

"But of this nature are Gospel-Truths, 2 Tim. 2.2. Ergo.

I granted our Brethren that the Greek word, tran­slated Commit, did sometimes signifie to propound a thing to others: But most properly such a committing as is of a thing which is committed in trust to one, not to another, as Luk. 12.48. Luk. 23.46. Act 13.43. Act. 20.32. 1 Tim. 1.18. 1 Pet. 4.19. I told them it could not be understood in the former sense here; for so Timothy was to preach to unfaithfull men, as well as faithfull; but he is commanded only to commit these things to faithfull men; and it was not enough that these men were [...] faithful, but notwithstanding that they must have these things committed to them, before they taught others.

Now let us hear our Brethren.

1. They grant that none but such as are faithfull and able may teach others; and such as are learned in Gospel mysteries: This will go a great way; for I hope our Bre­thren will not judge him able to interpret the Gospel; that is not able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into his own Tongue. I wonder how he shall distinguish be­twixt [Page 107] the Jus Divinum of the Doway Bible, translated into English, and the Bible of our English translation; as much may be said for the Old Testament; So that the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, will be necessary to understand Gospel-Mysteries, so far as to communicate them to others, viz. Revealing the whole Counsel of God to them (indeed in cases of absolute necessity, where enough such men cannot be found) something may be abated, not because they are able, but because none are to be found more able: For other Learning, as much might be said, but this is not directly to our present pur­pose; our question supposeth them able, yet we say they are not Commissionated.

2. Our Brethren tell us, that the word translated Com­mit, is to be taken here for a propounding of those things doctrinally. ‘ 1. Because the end is to make them able. 2. Because it doth not appear from any other Scripture, that any other committing of Gospel-Truths ( viz. such as I speak of) is required unto a Call, no not to Office.’

1. But our Brethren have nothing in the Text to prove [...]hat the end of the Committing of those things to them was to make them able, it says no such thing.

2. Our Brethren know the Enallage of Tenses is very ordinary in Scripture; the future used for the present, and the present for the future tense.

3. If Timothy were to commit those things only to them that should be able to teach others, his Rule was ve­ry incertain; for how could he know who they should be?

4. That there is an ordination necessary, was elsewhere proved by me, and more sufficiently by the London Brethren.

‘ I told our Brethren, That Timothy is commanded to commit these to faithfull men only, and such as should be able to teach others; therefore it could not be meerly doctrinally, for so they should be committed to all.’

‘To this I can finde no answer, only our Brethren say, that this is to shew unconverted men are not to be Preachers.2. Nor all that are converted, but such as are able:’ But how this answers my Argument, I cannot guess; for if as our Brethren assert, the committing [...]ere but doctrinal that is here meant, it is sure enough, they were thus to be communicated to the uncon­verted.

Again, whereas our Brethren say, that it is the com­mitting these things to them makes them able. We grant it in the sense of that known Maxime, ‘Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus.’ We say the Moral ability of the Preacher is created by his being authorized to the work, by a solemn separation to the performance of it, without which, though ma­ny be naturally able, yet none is morally able, as it is the Judges Commission that makes him able to relieve the fatherless and oppressed Widow in Judgement.

Our Brethren therefore (as their safest refuge) flie to the old [...], that this was a Precept concerning Preachers by Office. The Text saith no such thing, however, we own no others: whereas they say we must restrain it to publick Preaching: We say there is reason for it; for the Apostles business is to direct Timothy in the setling of Gospel Churches, as to publick Officers and Administrations. And besides Reason will tell us, that those need not to have Timothy commit the Scri­ptures to them, who exhort from the obligation of Na­tural and Oeconomical duty. But we say, that all such publick Teachers of others are here meant, as Preach with authority, obliging the Publick Assemblies of the Church to hear them, & all such as administer that glo­rious publick Ordinance of God, which we call Preach­ing, and is the ordinary means of saving souls.

And this is enough for the vindication of this Argu­ment. My fifth Argument was this.

[Page 109]

Whosoever may lawfully Preach, may lawfully require a maintenance of the Church, to which they preach, 1 Tim. 5.18▪ Mat. 10.10. Gal. 6.6.

But all the Gifted Members of a Church cannot re­quire a Maintenance of the Church, wherein they are— Ergo.

Our Brethren deny the Major, and say, The Scri­ptures alledged speak of a constant preaching: they say it, but they do not prove it; neither doth Matth. 10.10. nor Gal. 6.6. hint the least of such a thing; the Scri­pture saith, he that laboureth, he that teacheth; our Brethren add constantly, by what authority I cannot tell.

But our Brethren have much fault to finde with my Minor, it is neither true in matter nor form: A little matter will make it true in both. It is true (by a slip of my Pen) instead of the Church to which they Preach, I put in the Church in which they are: but it is the same thing; for admit that they may prophesie, I proved be­fore from 1 Cor. 14.23. that they had no warrant to go out of their Church to do it. If unbelieves come in thi­ther, well and good, but they have no rule to go out to them.

Our Brethren here spend many words not to prove, but to speak the same thing over again, viz. That for occasional Preaching, wages, or maintenance can­not be required. But where nothing is proved, no­thing need be answered; and all that our Brethren preach upon this subject, is both beside the Texts quo­ted by me, and without a Text produced by them.

My sixth Argument was from Rom. 10.15. This they say, they answered before, indeed their whole Se­venth chapter was spent in an endeavour to that pur­pose. It is too large to describe; for it reacheth from pag. 116. to pag. 138. of their Book: I will therefore only lay before my Reader, the Sum of my Argument, [Page 110] and then give a summary of what they answer. I ar­gued thus,

Vindiciae Ministerii, Pag. 43, 44. ‘What none may ordinarily do, but those that are sent, that persons meerly gifted may not do.’

But none may (ordinarily) Preach, but those who are sent, Rom. 10.15.—Ergo.

I proved the Major thus,

What none may do, but those who are sent, that none may do who are not sent.

"But persons meerly gifted are not sent—Ergo.

The proof of the Minor, brought me to examine, what it was to be sent.

Reason told me, Sending was the Act of another, or others, none can send himself.

Those who send, are either God, Angels, or Men; to the second none pretends; of the first, the Text must be understood.

Gods sends either immediatly, or mediately: im­mediately by a voice from heaven; of this the Text can­not be meant; for then farewell preaching, yea, and believing too, according to the force of that Text.

God sends mediatly by his Church, either by his Church electing, or ordaining: Let it be which way it will, meer gifts will not serve the turn. This was the substance of what I said.

Now let us hear what our Brethren say.

1. They grant Mission is of ordinary Teachers, pag. 118.

2 That it continues in all Ages, but deny it essential to the constitution of a Minister by that Text; but say it is necessary to the Act of preaching, p. 119.

3. They deny the major of my first Syllogism, and the minor of my second, and say, gifted persons are sent.

4. They say the sending there is not an act, constitu­ting an Officer: 1. Because some who were Officers before had Mission afterwards, Matth. 28.19. 2. Because it [Page 111] may be repeated without losing the office, Matth. 10.5, 6.7. Chap. 28. v 19. 3. Because some had Mission, who were no officers, Luk. 10.1. Because all that are instrumen­tal to Conversion would then be judged Officers, Rom. 10.14.

5. They say Mission is not ordination. 1. Because no Scripture saith it. 2. Because then Deacons are sent, Acts 6.6. 3. Because Mission may be iterated, but not ordination; Matth. 10.5.28.19. 4. Because a Church may Ordain its own Minister, but cannot send to it self.

6. They grant, bare gifting, is not sending, Matth. 10.1.56.7. Sending doth not make, but suppose them Preachers.

7. Sending (they say) is Christs commanding by his word, or assigning Preachers to go and publish the Gospel. 2. Or a providential disposing them to this or that people: Upon this they Comment largely; that this is sending, they prove, p. 129. by Isa. 6.8, 9. Jer. 14.14, 15, 23, 21. Matth. 10.5.

8. They judge the sense of the Text to be a provi­dential sending, p. 136. except they be ordered by Provi­dence to go to such a people.

I never love to throw a needle into a bottle of Hay, it is so hard to find it again; in these 22. pages, our little Argument is almost lost; in short, the Question is this, whether gifted men, as gifted, be sent, or no; if they be not they cannot actually (at least) Preach. Let it be naturally or Morally, impossible. They cannot preach, except sent: Our Brethren must say they are sent, and so deny the Minor of my second Syllogism: I proceed.

If they be sent it must either be by Christ or by Anti­christ.

But we say they are not sent by Christ; I hope our Bre­thren will say they are not sent by Antichrist.—

Ergo, not at all. We prove the Minor,

If they be sent by Christ it is either immediately or me­diately.

But neither immediately nor mediatly — Ergo, not at all.

Our Brethren must deny the Minor, and say they are sent immediately, for if they be sent mediately, it must be by his Church, commanding, electing, or ordaining; which soever of these it is, it is more than gifted: The last our Brethren deny; the second is non-sense, viz. to say the Church sends by electing, choosing, and sending, are two things; as to the first, our Brethren judge it not necessary, though convenient.

If their Mission be immediate, We always thought it must have been by Christs own voice, as he sent the 70. and the 12. or by a sign from heaven of his will as in the case of Matthias, or by extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost inabling them, to which was added a power of miracles, to confirm their Mission, and give them credit in the world: But our Brethren have found out two other ways.

  • 1. By his revealed will in his word.
  • 2. By his Providence.

1. As to the first, our Bre [...]hren have not proved it by one Text; for all their Texts quoted concerning such Missions as were made, or should have been made by an extraordinary voice, either from God in heaven, in a Prophetical vision, Isaiah 6.8, 9. Jer. 14.14, 15. Jer. 23.21. Or from God incarnate on the earth, Mat. 10.5, 6. But that Gods revealed will in his word, is called sending (as his word is now written) is not proved, nor can be proved. God commands men in his written word, to believe, repent, to do good to all, and to distribute; but we no where find that this is called sending; and we should think this strange language to say, God sends men t [...] relieve the poor: But be it so at present, We say the [Page 113] written word, commands none to Preach, but such as are ordained. Our Brethren only say, gifted men are allowed, and they may do it occasionally; no more there­fore say they, they are not to be maintained.

2. Besides, sending makes them Officers, who ever I send is my Officer, the Kings Ambassador is his Officer; and so by this Rule they are all Gods Officers: no man can send another, but he is in office, as to that where­about he is sent, nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary: If a man be an Officer before, another Mission makes him still an Officer; those sent, Luke 10.1. were Officers by their Mission; though Mission may be repealed, and yet the Office not lost, yet Mission makes an Officer: My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer, as to that business, and if I send him a second time, my se­cond sending makes him my Officer too: I see no con­tradiction in that, when the work is enlarged, as in those instances, Matth. 10.5, 6, 7. Matth. 28.19. Nor will it follow, that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers, because it is said, How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard; or how can they hear without a Preacher, &c. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases; else a man may believe with­out hearing: suppose a man be deaf, and hear without a Preacher too, &c.

3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Provi­dential sending, and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach, if God doth not by his providence direct, or permit them to Preach, if God doth not give them legs to stand, and a tongue to speak. Hence it follows,

"That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is de­nied, as if a man should say, How can a man see if his eyes be out?

And this our Brethren own, pag. 137. for they say all [Page 114] the other interrogations deny a natural possibility. Chri­stian Reader, doest not thou think this had been a great Gospel-Mysterie (worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans) none could preach if they had no tongue to speak, or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where. But to evince this to be a va­nity.

1. If this notion of sending be true, then none can run before they are sent; for all motions are under the providence of God. But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent.

2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned, 1 Tim. 3.6. were sent, for they could never creep into houses, but by divine providence.

Object. But say our Brethren, Gods command in his word must concur with his providence.

Answ. What command is that? 1 Pet. 4.10. (say our Brethren) As every one hath received the gift let him minister. But say these men, we have received the gift; therefore we are sent; who shall judge now? Not the Presbyterie (say our Brethren) nor is it necessary the Church should (say they) Ergo, tis enough they say they have, and you ought to believe them, and look upon them as sent, till the great day comes, which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order (can any one think?) which Jesus Christ hath ta­ken for his Church?

But I need not multiply words here, our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending, unless the Person [...]o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word; and they can shew no command conclusive in the case; but for such as are otherwise sent, then meer­ly gifted, and providentially disposed: Only I must exa­mine their reasons, why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended, though we on­ly contend it to be the ordinary Mission, and that alone [Page 115] which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased, as our Brethren easily will grant they be. They say:

1. " They no where finde Ordination called Mission. But this falls as heavily on our Brethren, for they cannot finde us any Text, where the Command of God in his written word is called sending. 2. We find, Acts 13.3. Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas. They fast­ed and prayed, and laid their hands on th [...]m, and sent them away; if the last words be not exegetical of the former, our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth, in sending them, that is called by that name.

2. Because our Brethren finde Deacons were ordained; but they do not finde they were sent. It doth not fol­low, that because the Ordination of Officers, by a Church to it self cannot strictly be called sending (on the Churches part) therefore no Ordination is, or may, where the persons are ordained Officers to more then those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them.

3. " Because Mission may be repealed, but not Ordi­nation: According to our Brethrens principles, Ordi­nation also may. But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned, Matth. 10.5, 6, 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission, we do not say Ordination is so. There was a new work to do, but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do, which shall need require a new ordination.

4. Our Brethren say, ‘None can send to themselves, But a Church which hath a Presbyterie, may Ordain its own Officers.’ Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers, no more will I, if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Chur­ches have (excepting onely Cases of necessity) [Page 117] but although a Church cannot send to its self, yet it may send one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member: a Citizen of Norwich may proper­ly enough send a Message to the Corporation, though himself be a Member of that Corporation, and the per­son thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholick Church, to all which he is sent. And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren, to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15.

My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a to­pick. From the contrary practise and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches, and all Reformed Churches. Our Brethren make light of this: But in cases where the Scripture speaks (at best) but so darkly on our Bre­threns side, and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty, we think it very much, if we can say with the Apostle,

If any list to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither we, nor the Churches of Christ.

And in cases which are dark, we follow the guidance of Christ, while we walk by the footsteps of the flock, and feed our kidds by the shepherds tents, Cant. 1.8.

CHAP. VI. Containing a review of some passages in our Brethrens Book, and in my answer, where is examined, whether the Baptism of Christ and John, are (according to our Brethrens sense) to be distinguished. Our Brethrens three Texts for Election, by a particular Church, ar [...] found to conclude nothing; and the ability of every par­ticular Church to judge of Ministers abilities, is confuted.

THe remainder of our Brethrens Book, concerning our Reverend Brethren of the Province of London, I take not my self concerned to give a strict answer to it, I will only spend this Chapter in reviewing a passage which I before slipped, and answering some things I finde in their eleventh Chapter, which may seem to take of my answer, to their greatest proofs, for popular Elections.

The passage which I slipped, is that which my Rea­der shall finde in our Brethrens Book, pag. 68, 69, 70. where (to prove Apollo was at that time no Officer) they fight us with a weapon drawn out of the Popish and So­cinian Armory; and tell us, that Apollo, could at that time be no Officer, because he knew only the Baptism of John, Acts 18.25. and p. 69. they tell us, that the Bap­tism of John, and the Baptism of Christ, are distinguish­ed each from other. This Argument (as to the matter of it) is purely Popish, and false, as to the form of it, and its usage in this case is primarily Socinian, as to both false, and no way conclusive.

Bellarmine indeed, and other Jesuits and Papists say, Bellarm. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 20. 21. Council. Trid. S [...]s. 8. Can. 1. that the Baptism of Christ and John were distinguished, & different kinds of Baptism: so saith the Council of Trent, [Page 118] But I cannot tell that any Protestants said so, before our Brethren. If our Brethren had consulted their Friend Dr. Ames, Ames. Bell. Ener t. 3 l. 2. cap. 5. he would have told them another thing, so would Dr. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 583. in his answer to the seventh Qu. of the 12. general controversie, or Dr. Whitaker in his praelect. de Sacram. cap. 5. which is whol­ly spent to prove the contrary: Of the same minde are Calvin, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Chemnitius Sa­deel, Rivet, Scharpius, Chamier. Chamier. p. 4. l. 5. cap. 12. 13. Let our Brethren weigh their Arguments.

Arg. 1. All washing of water for repentance and remissi­ [...]n of sins, appointed by Christ was the Baptism of Christ: But such was Johns Baptism, Matth. 3. Joh. 1. who sent me to Baptize.

Arg. 2. Our Baptism and Christs are the same: But Christ was Baptized with Johns Baptism. It is the sweet­est comfort of a Christian, saith Dr. Ames, that he was baptized with the same Baptism Christ was baptized with; Chamier. Willet, Ames, Whitaker, &c. all insist upon this Argument.

Arg. 3. If the Doctrine, off [...]r of grace, and Rites w [...]re the same, in the one, and the other Baptism, then the Bap­tisms were the same. But the Doctrine, Rites, and of­fer of grace was the same (saith Dr. Whitaker. Whitakerus, prael. de Sac. cap. 5.

Arg. 4. If the same presence of the Spirit was in Johns Baptism, which is in ours, though in a different manner, then the Baptism is the same.

Ibid. p 324. But there was the same presence—Ergo.

Arg. 5. Else there is no Institution of Christs Bap­tism upon Record; for the Disciples of Christ, Baptized before Christs Resurrection.

Arg. 6. It doth not appear, that either the Apostles or Apollo had any other Baptism. But surely they were baptized with Christs Baptism.

That Text quoted by our Brethren, Acts 19.3, 4, 5. proves nothing to the purpose; for they were not bap­tized [Page 121] again (as some vainly gather from the fifth verse) which is only a continuation of Pauls Narration of Johns Baptism, when they [i. e. those who heard John Preach] heard what he said, they were Baptized [viz. of him in Jordan] in the name of the Lord Jesus: And thus Dr. Willet answereth Bellarmine, using the same wea­pon to the same end.

Our Brethren will easily judge, that their foundati­on being thus destroyed, their Argument built upon this hay and stubble must fall. But that our brethren may be ashamed ever to bring this Argument into the field again, I must tell them, that as the Papist laid the foun­dation; so the blasphemous Socinian was the first I ever met with, who built upon it.

Valentinus Smalcius, answering Franzius, Smalcius disp. 4. contra The­ses Franzii. who thought Apollo, no ordinarily gifted Brother, says thus. Firmum enim manet, quod tantum sciverit Baptisma Johannis, &c. It is strongly proved (saith he) For he had only the Baptism of John, and in that Aquila and Priscilla instructed him more perfectly, &c. I hope we shall hear no more of this Argument, to prove Apollo was no Officer. It is no great matter to our case if he were not; for (as I have said) he was certainly a proba­tioner to office, and in that notion might preach, espe­cially in a Jewish Synagogue, and in that state of the Church.

The second thing (with which I shall conclude this Chapter, and my whole Discourse, relateth to what our Brethren have brought to prove election necessary, up­on express Scripture grounds, to the constitution of a Minister. To which purpose they produce three Texts; The first, Acts 1.23, 24, 25. The second is, Acts 6.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. the third, Acts 14.23. I have said something before, to shew the invalidity of each of these. Our Brethren, chap. 11. pretend to take off something which I said: Let me examine with what success.

[Page 122]1. As to the first instance, Acts 1. they must argue thus. If they may, and ought to choose the greater Offi­cer, then they ought to choose the less. As to the present case, we grant the consequence, though it will not fol­low, because here is a different species of Officers. Be­cause all the people of a County may choose Parlia­ment men by the Law, it will not follow that they may choose Justices of the Peace: Their power of choice resulting not from nature, but from the Law of God, the consequence in strictness is naught, for Gods Law may will the first, and not the second. Therefore this Ar­gument cannot be conclusive: but, I say, at present we allow it.

2. How will it appear, that the [...] [the mul­titude] chose Matthias.

1. The Text saith only [...], which may be translated, And two stood: so it is Rev. 11.11. So again, Acts 18.14.— stood afar off, Luk. 17.12. the two Lepers— [...], stood afar off; so Luk. 7.14. stood still; so in many more Texts, and why not here? When Peter had done speaking, two stood up (possibly by an extraordinary motion of the holy Spirit (as they at least might think) offering themselves to the service, and then what becomes of the peoples Election from this Text? Our Brethren see from hence, nothing can be concluded.

2. But allow there were a choice, and that some did set these two before the rest; it is not said the multitude did it.

Object. But (say our Brethren) the exhortation was by Peter directed to the hundred and twenty.

Answ. That the exhortation was given in the pre­sence of the hundred and twenty, the Text saith, v. 15. But that it was given to them as their concernment, it says not. It saith, Peter stood up in the midst of the Dis­ciples, and it says [...] (properly) the crowd [Page 123] of names present was an hundred and twenty, the word signifies a company of persons, a multitude, Mat. 4.25. Matth. 5.1.7.28. By Disciples, ver. 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant, who are very often in Scripture, distinguished by this name from the [...] multitude, as Matth. 13.34. Matth. 9.36, 37. and in many other Texts. Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles, and said to them in the hearing of the mul­titude. I know the term disciple, is sometimes taken in a larger notion; but it seems to be here distinguished from [...]; sure I am our Brethren can give no suffi­cient reason, to shew that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles, (not exclusively to others, but empha­tically and more eminently than others) called Dis­ciples (as in many other Texts) and if this sense be al­lowed, they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two, verse 25. according to our Brethrens own Ar­gument.

3. But lastly, It is a plain case, God here chose; for two stood forth, or were set forth; when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle, till God made the choice. Hence it is plain, that from this Text nothing can be concluded.

1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor.

2. It doth not say any chose them: But, they stood.

3. If any did choose, probably they were only the Apostles, called Disciples by way of emphatical di­stinction.

4. The truth is, it was God who made choice.

If therefore our Brethren could prove, that the Bre­thren set these two before the Apostles, and (as they say) in doing that, did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer; yet this was just nothing; for nothing was needfull from them in that Case.

Their second Scripture is that, Act. 6. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. [Page 124] where it is expresly said, that the twelve called the mul­titude of the Disciples, and said, Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report, &c.

In the former Argument, our Brethren argued thus. If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer, then they ought to choose the less. Here now they argue quite contrary. If they ought to choose the less, then they ought to choose the greater; Surely both these Arguments can­not hold, being both made affirmatively. But as to the present Argument stated thus.

If the Church mentioned, Act. 6. v. 3, 4. &c. ought to choose Deacons then, a particular Church now ought to choose her Pastors.

But the Church, Acts 6. chose her Deacons. Ergo.

1. We deny the consequence.

2. We deny the Assumption.

I will offer Reasons for both: 1. For the denial of the Consequence.

1. It is plain, that Church, Acts 6. was the univer­sal Church, as well as a particular Church; as Adam though a particular man, yet was at that time all man­kinde: nor is this nonsense; for by universal Church, I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth, in which were Catholick Of­ficers, it was furnished with twelve Apostles.

2. It is plain that the persons choosing, were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen, and they had discerning Spirits, Act. 2. Act. 4.31. No par­ticular Church now can pretend to any such thing.

3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative, from the lesser to the greater, particularly it will not hold in this Case.

That in most cases it will not hold, is evident: none can argue thus; if a man can carry a thousand weight, much more an hundred thousand. If my Friend will give me a nights lodging, he will much more give me [Page 125] his house and land, or a lodging in his house as long as I live.

On the other side, it is true in some cases it will hold. But not to run into a Logical dispute; The present Question is.

How far it is lawfull to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another.

Our Brethren will grant, that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers, is moral not natural, viz. such a power as they have from the will of God: Now as to this I say,

1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded, because the will of another being the fountain of the power act­eth freely, and may make it lawfull to choose the grea­ter, and yet unlawfull to choose the less; as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choose Parlia­ment men, and yet not Lawfull for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace; and so again to choose the less, and not the greater; as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choose a Constable of a Parish; and yet not lawfull for them to choose a Colo­nel of an Army, or a Justice of the Peace; so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law; but the Law of God must justifie the Consequence; so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text; the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is.

2. It is probable that the Lord, who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude, would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage. Our Brethren must say no more, than it is probable. And then we answer,

1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scri­pture, is not a certain Rule for us to walk by.

[Page 126]2. We say, it is not probable, because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon, than of a Pastor. 2. Because this Church was more able to judge [...]f both, than any Church is now.

Our Brethren see what they are come to. 1. They [...]rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church, to other Churches, the least members of the universal Church, not in the least mea­sure so gifted, from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight.

2. When all is done, they argue it but probable, [...]nd this probable hath a great improbability attending [...]t too.

3. From a choice limited, as to the persons to be cho­sen— Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost — of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost.

So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose, yet the Argument is a lamentable Non se­quitur.

But to their Minor.

Are our Brethren sure, that either the whole or the major part of the Church here, made the choice? Our Brethren have to prove it, ver. 2. The twelve called the multitude, [...], and ver. 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude, in the Original, all the multitude, [...], this is all. To which I answer.

1. Our Brethren know, that [...], doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual per­son or thing, under the genus or species, spoken of, nor yet the Major part: How many times in Scripture, is Christ said to have died, [...] or [...] or [...] for all; yet Christ neither Died for every individual man, nor for the Major part of men, Mat. 3.5, 6. It is said, That all the Region round about Jordan, went to [Page 127] hear John, and were Baptized of him, confessing their sin, [...]. Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region, nor yet the major part, did either go to hear, or were bap­tized, or confessed their sins: Christ tells the Pharisees, they tythed [...] [...]very herb; yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees, or any other Jews Gardens; so that this word will not conclude, especially considering what reason we have to believe the contra­ry, viz. that neither the whole, nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election.

1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls, 120. were in it, Acts 1.15. 3000. more were added, Acts 2.41. 5000. more added, Acts 4.4. here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls. Now let any one in reason judge, 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them (except the Temple) and whe­ther it be probable, that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither (enough to have made a good Army:) the major part of these must be above four thousand. 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too; for Acts 6.1. there was a murmuring about the poor, between the Grecians and the He [...]rews; we therefore think it more probable, that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them, and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day, they can prove no more from this Text.

And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in re­ference to this Text, and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake, viz. That the whole Church, or Major part of it, must of divine right choose its own Officers. I come to their third Text.

Acts 14.23. I will transcribe, ver. 21.22.

Ver. 21. And when they [that is, Paul and Barnabas] had preached the Gospel in that City, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch.

Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the Faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God.

Ver. 23. And having ordained [or chosen, it is no matter which, as to our Brethrens purpose] them El­ders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had be­lieved.

1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word, [...] (I have said something to it before) but I would fain know of any one that understands sense, whether those that ordained, or chose, were not those that confirmed and exhorted, v. 22. those that prea­ched, and returned again to Lystra, &c. ver. 20. If they were, it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men.

2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar, whether [...] be not joyned by ap­position with [...] & [...], or what other Syntax of the words, according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured.

Object. But the Disciples are twice mentioned, v. 22.

Answ. Tis very true, but not as the persons confir­ming and exhorting, but as the persons confirmed and exhorted, so they are mentioned here [ [...]] but that is the dative case, the other the nominative.

Our Brethren say, that Dr. Ames saith, it may in­clude the Disciples too, or they might go before the Dis­ciples. I answer, what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us. 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove [Page 129] that the people ought to choose; not that it may be they may choose.

But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing, or ordaining here, was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Bar­nabas.

1. They say the word [...] is never used in Scri­pture for laying on of hands. This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here: I hope our Bre­thren know there are [...] in Scripture: Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case, where it signi­fies the people choice. The word is (indeed) used but twice more in the New Testament, once for choosing by suffrages, once otherwise, for Gods destination and appointment, Acts 10.41. Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither: If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers, I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes, &c. should so use it. But if they mean that in Civil Authors [...] is not used for the constituting of a person in Office, without the peoples suffrage; if they look Stephen or Hesychius, or Budeus they will better inform them; Hesychius saith, it signifies [...], and then [...]: But this is nothing to the present purpose; we say if it signifies choosing here, yet Paul and Barnabas chose.

2. Our Brethren say, this could not be; for [...] signifies to choose by suffrages; now Paul and Barna­bas could not make suffrages.

All this is a riddle to me; for if I understand [...] i [...] signifies the hand, not the tongue, and [...] signifies to stretch out, not to speak; the word no otherwise sig­nifies a choosing by suffrage, than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage. But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages? Surely they made two, and that is the plural number sure. The truth is the [Page 130] primary signification of the word was to choose by lift­ing up of the hand, in token of their consent, to a person named for an office: now in regard this made vulgar Officers, the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office, whether there were an hand lifted up or no; thus it is used in Scripture too, Acts 10.41. chosen or appointed before of God; yet I hope our Brethren will not say, that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage: and if two persons (according to our Brethrens Grammar) cannot make suffrages; surely one indivisible God, could not.

3. But (say our Brethren) the thing intended by [...], must be distinct from prayer and fasting, Act. 14.23. and when they had ordained, or ordaining them Elders, and had prayed with fasting. That impo­sition of hands in ordination is distinct from praying and fasting, we grant; But that praying and fasting is (without it) ordination we deny: the Greek is [...]: All our Brethrens strength lies in the English Translation. In the Greek, [...] & [...] are both the same tense, and [...] equally applicable to both. According to our Brethrens principle, the nomination of the person, and prayer, and fasting, and then executing by suffrage are distinct acts, yet all make but that one act of constituting an Officer. Neither is it said, that the praying and fast­ing here, at all related to the constitution of the El­ders, it might relate to their taking their leave of them, mentioned in the next words, and I am very apt to be­lieve it did; I am sure our Brethren cannot prove the contrary; so that it is but gratis dictum; a thing said, which our Brethren must ask us leave to believe, that the prayer and fasting here spoken of, was any thing relating to Ordination.

4. In the last place, our Brethren because they can­not [Page 131] prove, fairly beg the question, p. 233. Because the power of Election is no where given to Officers, but to the people: I think this Text should have proved this thing, that it is given to the people. On the contrary, we say, our Brethren neither have proved, nor can prove, that the Scripture hath given the power of choosing Pastors to the people: The Texts produced (as we have heard) will prove no more than a may be, hardly so much: And this Text it seems must have those to help it, or it will not prove. Thus Reader, thou seest how easie it is to assert what is found hard to prove: Read and judge, whether from Scripture it can be positively concluded, that it is Gods will that every particular Church should choose all its own Officers, and this choice be all tha [...] is necessary by Gods word to make them Officers. See if either in the Epistles to Timothy or Titus (which of all other Scriptures, are most to be eyed as our Rule about Church Government) because there are given directions for the setling of ordinary Churches in a per­manent state) see if there be one word in them for the peoples choice, though Titus was left on purpose in Crete to ordain Officers, Tit. 1.5. and several Rules be given in those Epistles for the setling of Gospel Churches. In the mean time we grant to our Brethren,

1. That there is nothing in Scripture, forbidding their election.

2. That in many cases, yea in all, it is very conveni­ent, and by no means to be neglected, if they will choose such a one as is fit for a Pastor.

But that it is necessary to the making of a Minister in Office, by any rule of Scripture; or that in no case the election of a Pastor (in the strictest notion) by a par­ticular Church may be denied, or over-ruled, this we deny; because we say, every particular Church is not able to judge of the abilities of a Minister, and often doth make apparent errours in Judgement.

Our Brethren, p. 236. ‘ Assert the abilities of a par­ticular Church, to judge of the abilities required in a Minister; they say they are able to judge [...], if he be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality.’ We grant this (in some measure) but there are some other qualifica­tions too. He must be one, 1. That holds fast the faithfull word. 2. Able by sound Doctrine to exhort. 3. Able to convince gain-sayers, Titus 1.9. 4. Apt to Teach. Now we deny that every particular Church, even of our Brethren, is able to judge of these things.

According to our Brethrens principles, any seven vi­sible Saints may make a Church; we say seven real Saints may not be able to judge of these things; How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince a gain-saying Socinian, or Arminian, or Papist, who know not what any of them hold? And how many hundred private Christians are there who are ignorant of these things? I dare assume that in no Church, our Brethren have in this County, there are seven men know what the Socinians hold, much less do the major part know (yet they are doubtless able to judge whether a Mini­ster be able to convince them) Is any one so sensless, as to think any seven private Christians is able to judge whether a Minister holds the faithfull word? Our Bre­thren know two sevens of their Brethren, have judged that the Quakers and Anabaptists hold the faithfull word: which I speak not to create an odium upon them, for some of ours have done so too. It doth not follow, that because a good Christian must be sound in the Faith (in things necessary to Salvation) therefore he is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister, who is to exhort by sound Doctrine; for a Minister is to preach more sound Doctrine, than what is absolutely necessary to salvation.

Object. Oh! But (say our Brethren) ‘The sheep of Christ know his voice, and they will not follow a stran­ger, this importeth their having ability, and liberty to judge what Teachers they should elect.’

Answ. Doth it so?

What belongs to Christ sheep as Christs sheep, belongs to every sheep.

But this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo.

The Major is undoubtedly true; the Text saith, my sheep, not my fold; what is here made to belong to sheep, belongs to every sheep. I hope our Brethren will not say, this belongs to the Women, yet are they Christs sheep too; nor will it serve the turn, to say they must not speak in the Church; for we are now speak­ing of choosing and judging, lifting up of the hand is enough.

But surely our Brethren will not say, that every man hath ability; if they do, and will give us leave, we will [...]ick them out twenty out of every hundred they shall bring us (if not four times twenty) whose knowledge concerning sound Doctrine, and ability to convince gain-sayers, they shall be ashamed to own as sufficient [...]o judge of the abilities of a Minister.

The truth is, every sheep of Christ [that is, so truly and really, i. e. every Elect soul] so far refuseth the v [...]ice of strangers, as (though he may for a time fol­low them) yet he shall first, or last, reject them again. Our Brethren know, that some, both of their and our Brethren within these seven years last past have followed Strangers, and such Strangers too, as the Christian World never heard of before, yet we should be loth to say, they are none of Christs sheep, because they are gone astray. The Lord in mercy make them to return.

If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christs sheep, as folded together in the Church. We grant what they say, but say it is meant of the one fold, ver. 16. consisting of all the Jews and Gentiles to be converted; and that some of them are able so to judge, or that all of them will not follow strangers, we grant. But this is nothing to our Brethrens pur­pose, to prove that every individual sheep, or every particular Church, hath this ability.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.