QUO WARRANTO; OR, A Moderate Enquiry INTO THE WARRANTABLENESSE OF THE PREACHING OF GIFTED and UNORDAINED Persons. Where also some other Questions are discussed: VIZ. Concerning MINISTERIAL Relation, ELECTION, ORDINATION. BEING A VINDICATION Of the Late Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, So far as concerns those Points; From the Exceptions of Mr. john Martin, Mr. Sam. Petto, Mr. Frederick Woodal: Ministers in Suffolk, in their late Book, Entitled THE PREACHER SENT. By MATTHEW POOLE, At the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London. LONDON, Printed by I. H. for I. Rothwell, at the Fountain in Goldsmiths-row in Cheapside▪ and S. Thomson, at the Bishop's Head in Paul's Churchyard. 1659. The EPISTLE to the READER. IT is the great unhappiness of most men, that they judge of things by appearance, and not according to truth; That those ways and doctrines which are most specious in show, which seemingly look most to the promotion of God's honour, the advancement of holiness, and the liberties of God's people, are most taking with many of that sort of persons, who have a due sense of those excellent things upon their spirits: and such an opinion, I take this to be, which is the principal subject of this following Treatise, which is asserted by our Brethren; Viz. That Gifted persons may Preach publicly: An opinion wherein there is a double compliance, with the apprehensions and affections of men, whereby it gets entertainment among them: Either, because it gives an opportunity for the declaration, and demonstration of a man's abilities to others, (a disease incident to good men) or because it puts a man into a capacity of honouring God in a more eminent way: (which a gracious soul is very apt to thirst after) And, if, to these be added, and upon these do follow a third thing, to wit, an experience of some honour brought to God, and some good done upon others, this puts it out of doubt, with divers good men, and makes them sit down with a confident persuasion of the truth of it. And on the other side, when a Minister undertakes to refute and overthrow that opinion, he lies under this great prejudice, of minding his own interests, of envying the Lords people this glorious privilege, and desiring to monopolise it to himself; And so, whatever he saith upon that account, is rather taken as the issue of his own passions, than the sense of the Scripture: But, because I have learned to judge of things otherwise then by events and appearances, and the humours or censures of men. I dare not decline a necessary work upon the account of any reflections which may be cast upon me thereby, but shall leave the vindication of my credit, and the bringing forth of my righteousness to God, and (as in duty I ought) engage for the assertion of the truth in this particular: Which I am the more willing to do, because (if the providence of God may be observed, and if the tree may be judged by the fruit) there is hardly any one principle, which hath been more scandalous to thousands of the most judicious of God's people, (both Ministers and others) and more unhappily instrumental to the introduction, and propagation of all those loose, false, vain, frivolous and pernicious doctrines (which abound in the Nation) than the profession and practice of this specious opinion of liberty of prophesying. Nor doth this only flow from the abuse of that principle, (as our Brethren would insinuate) but from the very principle itself, as they state it: For so long as they hold, that, It is the duty of every gifted man, as such, to exercise his gifts, (which they assert pag. 32.) and that, if he have received gifts to teach publicly, he must use them also publicly; (which they avow, pag. 47.) and that, he himself may judge of his gifts, and may preach, though it be not so expedient, without any further Call: (which they profess, pag. 20.) What can be expected, but that this Doctrine should be a Trojan Horse, whence the adversaries of the Truth may break out, and destroy the City of God, A Pandora's Box, from whence all sorts of mischievous and foul poisoning opinions may fly out, and that without remedy. It must be here seasonably remembered, that the point here discussed is no trivial point, but one that nearly concerns the very vitals of the Church, to whose welfare nothing under God and his Word, is more necessary and conducible, than the Ordinance of the Ministry; And therefore nothing requires greater care in the disposal of it, then that doth, and in nothing were the Apostles more solicitous then in committing this Office and work to fit persons, and nothing would have been more incongruous to the wisdom and faithfulness of the head of the Church, then to prostitute them to the fancies and humours of every invader, nothing more unbecoming the carefulness of our great shepherd, then to suffer any wolf (that saith or thinks he is fit for it) to take the office of the shepherd, or to do his work, both which come to one, and are utterly pernicious, to the flock. The consideration of these and such like things, occasioned the Provincial Assembly to take it into their serious thoughts, not only to assert the Office of the Ministry, but also to regulate the work of the Ministry, and to confine it within those just boundaries which God and man have set for it: This was done in that late piece called Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, a piece which as it hath through God's blessing been satisfactory to the consciences of many persons, so hath it had a contrary effect upon others, (as might in reason be expected) to draw forth and derive opposition upon it, from divers hands, and among others, those of our Brethren, with whom I have now to do: And although it is not fit, nor usual for Assemblies to take notice of the contradictions of particular persons; yet, because our Brethren have with united force undertaken the refutation of part of that Treatise; and because they have endeavoured to manage it with Scripture Arguments and evidence, (which justly bear most sway in these times) and because divers well-meaning persons, (and that not only such as being injudicious, are inconsiderable, but also such as seem to be pillars in their way) have declared their high approbation of it, and asserted the unanswerableness of it. It was therefore thought fit that something should be done by way of reply: And accordingly the Provincial Assembly was pleased to lay it upon my shoulders, and I engaged in the work, and as I love not unnecessary delays, so I hoped long since to have given the World an account of it: But it pleased that Supreme Providence (which order all affairs) unexpectedly to surprise me, with a sad and dangerous convulsion, which being seated in the head, did not only disinable me for the present, but a pretty while after overawe me, so that I was dissuaded from meddling in any thing, whereby the brain might be exercised, and discomposed: and moreover, it is not unknown to many, that a work of far greater concernment, and pains, and trouble, and care, did lie in my hands all along, interfering with this, which indeed required the whole man; besides many other occasions not inconsiderable, which is needless and impertinent, for me here to speak of: Only thus much I have here mentioned by way of Apology, why this Reply comes forth no sooner, and it may further Apologise for the frequent defects which may be observed in it, because I was so continually encumbered with distracting cares, about other affairs, whereof I have many witnesses. This delay therefore the Reader is entreated to pardon, and to accept of the service, as it is now tendered, wherein, though I doubt not, it will be easy to the wise to observe many weaknesses, yet God and my conscience are my compurgators, that I have managed it with sincerity, and I hope my Reader will witness that I have handled it with the same candour and moderation which our Brethren have shown, and which I think aught to be shown in such differences as these. For the success of this work, as I am not without hope, that there will be found some, ex meliore luto, who laying aside partiality, will own the evidence here brought, and yield to it, (for I may without vanity say, that there is some evidence and cogency, at least in some things in difference) so I must confess, when I consider, how weak and injudicious most are, and unable to discern between things that differ, how supine and careless the generality even of good men are, in the weighing of things of this nature, (and yet usually such as are least knowing, are most confident and heady) how apt the most are to be led by the reputation of some particular men of their party for ability and piety, how deeply men's interests are concerned herein; and in particular their honour in not seeming to be baffled, and deserting that way they are once engaged in: I say, when I consider these things, I am full of fears, lest what is here said, and whatever is spoken hereafter, will vanish into the air, without any success. However this is sufficient encouragement to me, that I have born witness to the truth of God in these declining times, and hope it may be useful, if not for the reduction of such as are gone astray, yet for the confirmation and settlement of others, who may be wavering herein. There are three sorts of Readers, principally which I expect to meet with. 1. Weak and well-minded souls, who are in this much to be pitied, that being insufficient to see by their own eyes, and to look through the vail of holy pretences, and pious ends, are apt to be abused by others, and to be carried to and fro, by every wind of doctrine: These, I wish they had followed the Apostles direction, and never given way to doubtful disputations. But having once entertained them, and being overthrown by them, if they do not give very diligent heed, and receive not more then ordinary assistance, are never like to recover themselves. 2. Proud, wilful, and selfconceited persons, the pride of whose hearts, hath led them into ways of singularity, and will oblige them to make good their ground. Their Motto is, Cedo nulli. And because a recess from their received persuasions would import something of weakness, and humane frailty, they, being conscious to themselves, of their own great worth, are resolved, and unmoveable from their present apprehensions. 3. There are an intelligent and ingenuous sort of men, who being sensible of their own weakness, dare not suppose themselves beyond a possibility of mistake, and therefore always have an eye open to discern further conviction, when ever it is offered, and keep one ear open for the adverse party, whose language is that of Jobs, That which I know not, teach thou me, and wherein I have thought amiss, I will do so no more. It is for the sake of those, that I have taken this trouble upon myself, and I hope as to persons of this allay, my labour may not be in vain in the Lord. But I shall detain thee no longer in the porch, but let thee into the house, desiring the God of Truth, to lead us into all Truth, which is the hearty prayer of Thine in the Lord, Matthew Poole. Touching the Relation of the MINISTRY. COncerning the Epistle prefixed by our Brethren to their Book, I shall say nothing, because they run out into impertinent Controversies concerning the Catholic visible Church, the matter of a Church, Church Covenant, etc. And indeed it is needless I should say any thing about them, they having been so fully ventilated by so many Learned Authors, as Hudson, Rutherford, Wood, Cawdrey, and many others; and Dr Collings in particular hath Answered this Epistle, whither I refer the Reader: and therefore I come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Answer of the Book. Wherein I shall crave no more liberty than our Brethren took, and I shall use their own words, Pag. 1. Though I intent not to Reply to every particular, yet I shall give such Animadversions upon the most considerable things, as will leave it unnecessary to speak to the rest. This I shall solemnly promise, that I will not willingly decline any thing, which is either strong, or plausible, or considerable, but only such passages, as, the foundations being shaken, do fall of themselves: And under this promise I hope I may be excused from following our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ (which commonly occasions personal reflections, and heterogeneous excursions.) And, although it were easy to cast the work into a more convenient mould, yet, that the Reader may with greater ease compare their Book and the Answer, I thought fit to observe their order, and to distinguish it according to their Chapters. CHAP. I. 1. THey Question, What is meant by the Ministry? And here (to pass by impertinencies) because a Minister is called so from ministration, they infer, That gifted men, whose ordinary work or calling is to Preach, may properly be called Ministers of the Gospel; pag. 3. For my part I shall never blot paper with contending about words: Our Question is not about Names, but Things; And if the word Minister may be applied to twenty persons, we are not concerned in it; for the Question is not, Whether a Gifted brother, whose work or calling is to preach, may be called a Minister? (for even he who never preaches, if he any other way minister to the Gospel, may be called a Minister of the Gospel, according to their own arguments) but Whether such a Gifted brother may preach? and Whether the title Minister, in its special and distinct acception may be applied to him? And in both these we hold the Negative. 2. Their second Question is not much more important, viz. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Work of the Ministry, or to the Church? And here they tax the Assembly, for saying that the Office of the Ministry is better defined by relation to the Work, than to a particular people. Where I desire it may be observed, that the Assembly did not say, The Office of the Ministry is better defined by relation to the Work, than to the Church in general, but than to a particular Church: It was not the design of the Assembly to deny the Ministry to be a relation to the Church, nor yet was it their business accurately to insist upon the notions of relate and correlate; they never called the Work of the Ministry, the correlate, but only obiter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they asserted the Office of the Ministry to be better defined by relation to the Work, than to a particular Church, which our Brethren have not here disproved; but only endeavoured to prove that the Office of the Ministry rather consisteth in relation to the Church in general, than to the Work; so that all their labour, as to that particular, might have been spared. To which may be added, that we must distinguish between the abstract Ministry, and the concrete a Minister. And although the Minister in the concrete have the Church for his Correlatum, yet that the Ministry in the abstract should have relation to the Work, is no more absurd, then that the Office of a King should have relation to ruling, which, I think, no sober man will deny; and especially when such a thing is brought in occasionally by a person not minding, nor obliged to mind the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of words; it were a vanity in any man to batter down such an expression by a quaternion of Arguments, which our Brethren have attempted to do. To which may be added, that that rule upon which their first Argument hangs, viz. Relata sunt simul, & do mutuo se ponere & tollere, is true only of Predicamental, but not of transcendental relations, such as this is; whose being is not wholly respective, Suarez Metap. as the Masters of the Metaphysics inform us. And the same answer also may serve for the second Argument (which indeed is but the same) viz. That relations must be together, but the Office is a means to the Work as an end, and so the Office must needs be first, and therefore they are not relatives. To which I answer, 1. As before, The rule holds not of transcendental relations. 2. A potential being is sufficient in relations: My knowledge of a Rose to be in the spring is related to that Rose even in winter; and yet the Rose doth not actually, but only potentially exist in winter. The other two Arguments are trivial, and therefore I shall dilate no further about them, because this is a Logical and no Theological Controversy. CHAP. II. & III. Qu. Whether Ministers are only Ministers to their particular Flocks? IN handling of this I shall 1. State the Question plainly and faithfully. 2. I shall offer some Arguments for the Negative. 3. I shall inquire what our Brethren have to say for the Affirmative. For the state of this Question we must take notice of another Question, whence it hath its rise and being, to wit, Whether besides particular Congregational Churches, there be any other visible Political Churches mentioned in Scripture? It hath till these last times been universally received in the Church of God, that, Besides that union and communion, whereby the members of a particular Church meet together in a Congregation for the Word and Sacraments, there is another union and communion, whereby particular Churches do by their Delegates (because in their persons they all cannot) meet together, combine, consult and conclude in common, as they judge most expedient for the good of their particular Churches. This sufficiently appears from the constant practice of the Church in all ages, even from the Apostles times, Acts 15. and so downwards; which was, when ever necessity required and opportunity was offered, to meet together in Synods, and in common to govern all their Churches. And as these meetings were greater or less, so they received a differing denomination, being called Synods Ecumenical, Provincial, etc. And this is at this day the judgement of all the Reformed Churches in the world, some few amongst ourselves being excepted, and our dear Brethren in New-England, both known by the name of congregational men, so called from this their first principle, That the Scripture owns no visible Church but one Congregation. From hence it must needs follow, according to our brethren's mind, That Ministers are Ministers only to their own Congregations. As on the other side, they that own another Church, besides Congregational, do assert, that Ministers have a double relation, the one to their own particular Flocks, the other to the whole Church. And thus much for the rise of the Question. For our brethren's mind we shall not need to go far, they affirm positively, that Officers stand in relation to a particular Church only, and they deny them to be Officers to a Church universal, or to any but their own Flocks, Pag. 8. But here I cannot but take notice of a weighty difference amongst our Congregational Brethren, in which they should do well to be reconciled before they endeavour too eagerly to obtrude their Notions upon the world; It is this: Mr. Shepherd and Allen in their answer to the nine questions assert, that though Ministers are Officers only to their own Flocks, yet they may perform acts of their Office towards others, Pag. 133. And Learned Mr. Norton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes, that a Minister preacheth to another Congregation non tantum virtute donorum & charitatis, sed ex vi vocationis, etc. i. e. not only as a gifted Brother, but as an Officer; And it is sufficiently known that it is the judgement of persons of greatest note in that way among us in England. Now on the other side, Reverend Mr. Hooker expressly affirmeth that when a minister preacheth to another Congregation, he preacheth not as a Pastor, but as a gifted man, Survey Part 2. P. 32. And our Brethren in this Book fall in with him, and will not allow Ministers either to be Officers, or to act as Officers towards any, except their own Congregation. For the better clearing of the present Question I shall premise two Considerations which indeed do strike at the root of all their Objections. I. That there are two ways whereby a Minister may be a Minister to the whole Church. 1. Actu secundo, actually, immediately, absolutely and independently, so that he may without any other warrant undertake to teach and govern the whole Church, if it were possible; This was peculiar to the Apostles, and surely this is abundantly sufficient to distinguish them from ordinary Pastors. 2. One may be an Officer to the whole Church actu primo, habitually, aptitudinally, mediately, conditionally, and dependingly, so that he hath a jus or power to teach every where (Go preach the Gospel to every Creature) but may not exercise that jus or power, every where, but by the consent of the Church or Rulers, not as if there was any defect in his authority, but only because there is a manifest inconveniency and disorder in such a promiscuous and unlicensed exercise, which therefore is unlawful because it is repugnant to Order, and obstructive to Edification: and this is the case of ordinary Pastors. II. I shall premise another Consideration, which being well digested is sufficient to enervate all that is said by our Brethren as to this point: it is this, A general respect to the whole Church is not inconsistent with a peculiar respect to some one Church. Suppose one having a vast number of sheep, needeth and chooseth twenty Shepherds to look to his sheep, and these shepherds because each of them cannot possibly look to all, do therefore distribute the sheep into twenty parcels, and each undertakes to look to his share, yet so, as that in things of common concernment to all the sheep, they all meet and consult together, etc. but in matters of private concernment every man looks to his own parcel: In this case every shepherd hath a double relation, the one general to the whole, the other particular to his own parcel, which he doth more especially take care for, and feed, and keep, and watch over, etc. And in case any of those sheep which properly belong not to his charge go astray, if he see them and can keep them in, he is obliged by virtue of his office to do it, and if through his neglect they miscarry, he doth not only sin against Charity but against his Office. This is the case of the Church, and so it was out of doubt with the Apostles, unto whom Christ committed the care of his sheep indefinitely: And because each of them could not look to all, therefore the sheep were divided into parcels, and every Apostle takes upon himself a special relation unto some one parcel, and had his proper line; 2 Cor. 10. And because the sheep multiplied so fast, that to look to them all was a work too heavy for the Apostles shoulders, therefore the Flock was divided into more parcels, and they ordained more shepherds, who although peculiarly entrusted with their proper Charge, yet were not freed from their Care of the whole, but in things of common concernment did meet together with the Apostles in their days, Act. 15. And afterwards among themselves. Or as it is in Germany, where every Elector and Prince of the Empire sustains a double relation; He is related more especially to his own peculiar Territory to which he is an Officer, acting ordinarily, and constantly, etc. But over and besides his, he hath a general relation to the whole Empire, and is an Officer to the whole, not singly and by himself, but together with others, being entrusted with a joint-power of governing the whole, as in case of choosing of an Emperor, or other weighty affairs of the Empire, as the necessities and occasions of the Empire require. Just so it is in the Church, which is one entire body (as the Empire is) governed by one Systeme of laws, and moulded under one Government, every Minister hath a double relation, the one special and peculiar, to his own Flock which he is to feed constantly; the other general to the whole Church, which he is to feed occasionally, as far as his ability will reach, and as the Church's exigencies command, and which he together with others hath a power to govern. This will be put out of doubt by considering more fully that which even now was intimated of the Apostles themselves, who also had this double relation, one to the whole, whereby they were Pastors of the whole Church, and yet because they could not possibly each of them look to all the Churches, therefore the work was divided among them, and they undertook a special relation to some particular parts, as Peter to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, james to jerusalem, etc. Which division did not proceed from any defect of authority in the Apostles to feed the whole, but from the impossibility of the thing in regard of the vastness of the work, and because they were to carry on all Church-work as most suited with edification. In like manner we that are ordinary Pastors, sequimur patres, non passibus aequis; and though every Minister is a Minister of the whole Church, and hath an Authority extending to it suo modo, yet because it is impossible for every one to look to every Church, and all things are to be managed with special respect to the Church's edification, therefore Ministers are forced to divide the work, both as to Teaching and Ruling; yet so, as that there still remains a relation to the whole, whereby he is obliged to teach, and with others to rule other Churches, so far forth as his ability reacheth, and the Church's necessities require. And by the way, I cannot but take notice of a remarkable difference between Teaching and Ruling, in point of the possibility of the thing, and the edification of the Church (which is the great Rule in all Church-administrations) for a Minister may jointly with others rule a far greater proportion than he can teach. David as a King, could rule all Israel, but David as a Prophet, could not viuâ voce, teach all Israel, at least not ordinarily and constantly. And the Apostles, though it was impossible for every one of them actually to teach every Church, (they neither could do it, nor did it) yet it was possible for each Apostle jointly with the rest, to govern every Church, and they did actually rule all the Churches, at least all the Churches there mentioned, in that famous Synod, Acts 15. (in which, whether they acted as Apostles, or as ordinary Elders, all is one to the present Question.) And this may serve for Answer to that specious Argument so much insisted on by the Reverend and Learned dissenters, taken from the conjunction of Teaching and Ruling. These things premised, I shall now come to the Arguments: And here I shall have a double work; 1. To lay down an Argument or two, to prove that Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers to more than their own particular Churches. 2. To Answer their Arguments, and to justify those inconveniences objected by the Provincial Assembly to the contrary Opinion. For the former, I shall not here dilate, only I shall propound three Arguments. The first Argument is this, If Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens, than they are not Officers only to their particular Congregations: But Ministers are Officers, and act as Officers towards convertible Heathens. The Minor is the only Proposition that can be denied, and that I shall now endeavour to prove. 1. The case is plain in the Apostles: That Apostles were constituted Officers before the visible Gospel-Church was erected, is undeniable, and appears plainly from Mat. 28. The Apostles, at that time, were Officers for they had actually received their Commission; they being relata, must have a correlatum: A correlate there was none, but those who were to be made Disciples, who were to be converted: So that, one of these two must necessarily be granted, either that the Apostolical relation wanted a correlatum (which to say, is grossly absurd) or that the Heathens and Jews to be converted, were the correlatum to them. There is but one thing that can be said, to wit, that at that time there were divers already converted Christians, who were a sufficient correlatum to the Apostolical Office. To which I Answer, If we suppose that all such Christians had died, or forsaken the profession of the Faith, (which might have fallen out without any detriment to the perpetuity of the Church, seeing the essence of the Church had been preserved in the Apostles, if they only had continued in the faith) I say, suppose they all had thus fallen away, yet had the Apostles been Officers, and therefore the Heathens had been their correlatum. 2. And such indeed are clearly expressed, Matth. 28. 19, 20. to be the primary and immediate object of the Apostolical Office and relation. From whence will follow, that a Minister may be a Minister, though he have no particular Church to which he stands related: Just as the Eunuch was a member of the Church visible, though there was no particular Church into which he was admitted, Acts 8. The only probable Answer which I can apprehend is this, That the Argument no way holds from Apostles to ordinary Ministers: But in this case I conceive it doth. For, 1. The Apostles as well as Pastors (say our Brethren) are Officers only to the Church. Chap. 3. p. 18. they say of Ministers, That it is lawful for them to go and preach to unbelievers; and they instance in the Apostles preaching to Heathens, Acts 11. & 16. and yet (say they) they are no Officers to such unbelievers: Whereby it is plain that they deny not only ordinary Pastors, but also Apostles to be Officers to Heathens; which also further appears by the reason they add, why such Ministers are no Officers to Heathens (which is common to Apostles with other Ministers) viz. Because they cannot as Officers exercise Church-government towards them; which holds true even of the Apostles; What have we to do to judge them that are without, 1 Cor. 5. Now if the Apostles, who were (according to our Brethren) only Church-officers, yet acted as Officers towards such as were wholly without the Church, and towards Heathens, much more is it true of ordinary Pastors, that, albeit they are Officers in special to their particular Flock, yet they are Officers, and act as Officers, towards other Churches. 2. Apostles and Pastors are paralleled in this case, Eph. 4. 11, 12. And he gave some Apostles— and some Pastors and Teachers, For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. From whence it is most evident, that the object of the Apostolical and Pastoral Office is one and the same, both of them being by Office related to the Saints, not only that are actually brought in, but also to those that are to be gathered: And the Offices were appointed, and the Officers bestowed for this very end, for the edifying of the body of Christ: By which Body of Christ, we must with judicious Interpreters, necessarily understand the whole collection of all Christ's members in all ages of the Church; all which, in Scripture phrase, go to the making up of Christ's body, so that if one of them were lacking, Jesus Christ should want his fullness (as he is pleased to express himself) Eph. 1. 21. And answerably to this the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or edifying, is not to be understood, as in some other places, for building up of such as are brought in only, but also for the bringing in of those who are yet without; for that indeed was the great end why the Ministry was instituted, Mat. 28. 19, 20. And the very phrase of building, implies as well the gathering together of stones for the building, and the laying of the foundation, as the raising up of the building; and the nature of the body, as we have now explained it, necessarily requires, that this edifying should be understood extensively, as well as intensively. I shall contract all this into a short Syllogism, The body of Christ in its latitude is the correlatum, or the object of the Pastoral Office; But the body of Christ includes Heathens: Therefore Heathens to be converted are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office. The major is plain from the Text, and what hath been said; the minor also is no less evident, that Heathens are a part of Christ's body: They are called his sheep, john 10. 16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Heathens to be converted Christ laid down his life for (else they had never been converted) and yet he laid down his life only for his body, Eph. 5. And therefore they are his members and part of his body, and therefore they are the object and correlate of the Pastoral Office. And as the whole Church in all ages (to wit, including persons yet uncalled, Predestinati nondum congregati. Aug. but by election belonging to it) is the correlatum of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in all ages, so the whole Church in one age (including such as by predestination, though not yet by actual vocation and congregation, belong to it) is the correlate of the Ministers and Ministerial Office in that one age: So that not only a particular Church is the correlate of a Minister, but also such as are not yet members of any particular Church, nor of any Church at all. The second Argument may be taken from 2 Cor. 5. 20. where the reconcilable world, which consists of such as are yet without and no members of the Church, are made the chief object and correlatum of the Office of the Ministry; and from thence I shall thus argue, To whom Ministers act as Ambassadors, to them they act as Officers: But Ministers preach as Ambassadors to Heathens convertible and to be converted, Ergo. The Proposition is evident from the terms, To be an Ambassador, is nothing else but to be an Officer; and it may receive further light and strength from this consideration, that Ministers are not Ambassadors a pari ad parem, from one King to another as equal, but a superiori ad inferiorem, from one superior in authority to all; from a Prince to his subjects, whom he is calling in; from one who may and doth require all Heathens, as well as others, to hear and obey his Ambassadors, I mean from the Lord Christ. For the Assumption, that Ministers preaching to Heathens, do preach as Ambassadors (where all the doubt lies) I proceed to make good. 1. If the Scripture makes no difference between a Ministers preaching to his own Church and to others; then there is no difference, Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. But the Scripture makes no difference, etc. Wherever a Minister preacheth, he is to preach with all Authority. Strangers are as well obliged to obey him as his own people. 2. Even Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them, and that not only ex vi materiae, because of the matter they treat of, but virtute muneris, by virtue of their Office. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, Luke 10. 16. And therefore as the Jews and Heathens were bound to hear Christ, not only in regard of his message which he brings, but also in respect of his Office as he was the Mediator and the great Prophet in the Church, Deut. 18, 15, 19 So also it is with Ministers, who act as in Christ's stead, they are to be heard even by Heathens, for their Office sake, as well as for their Doctrine. And those Jews or Heathens which disobeyed the Doctrine of the Apostles, are not only charged with the guilt of rejecting the truth, but also of contemning the Persons and Offices of the Apostles, which could not have been, if the Apostles had not preached as Officers to such. And surely it must needs be reputed strange doctrine, to say, that a Minister, yea an Apostle, preaching to Heathens, doth preach no more authoritatively, than any woman or child that is occasionally discoursing to such of the things of God. The Apostles might challenge Maintenance of those Heathens to whom they preached, Mat. 10. 10. 1 Cor 9 which such women and children could not pretend to; which clearly demonstrates that the Apostles preached not as gifted persons, but as Officers to them. The Apostles preaching to such had a power authoritatively to pronounce pardon, or to denounce wrath to them, upon their believing or disobeying, (which are the two acts of the Keys) and which to do requires an Office-relation to them. If it be objected that this may be true of the Apostles, that they were Ambassadors, and preached as Ambassadors to Heathens, and yet not true of ordinary Pastors. I answer; either ordinary ministers are Ambassadors, or else Christ hath not had any Ambassadors in the world since the days of the Apostles, But Christ hath had, and hath Ambassadors still in the world; therefore Ministers are ordinary Ambassadors: the Major is plain, for if only extraordinary Officers be Ambassadors; then where there are no such extraordinary Officers, there are no Ambassadors: The Minor also is no less clear, that the Office of Gospel Ambassadors was a continuing Ordinance, and it is most ridiculous to think, that while the design and work of the Ambassador lasts his Office should not continue; and besides, Christ hath perpetuated the Office, Mat. 28. 19, 20. If it be said they are Ambassadors indeed, but it is to their own people, not to Heathens: I answer, yes rather they are Ambassadors to Heathens: for as the great work of other Ambassadors is to make peace, so also Gospel-Ambassadors their great business is to beseech men to be reconciled to God, and therefore their principal object is not the Church who are already supposed to be reconciled, but Heathens and Strangers who are yet unreconciled: and seeing ordinary Ministers preaching to Heathens, have a power upon their repentance to remit sin, i. e. To declare their sins remitted officially, it must needs follow, that they are Ambassadors to such: And the Apostle in this place ascribes both the name and work of Ambassadors unto ordinary Ministers, speaking in the plural number, We then as Ambassadors, etc. And he attributes the name to himself, upon a ground common with him to ordinary Ministers, i. e. because he besought them as in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God: and as we rightly infer the assurance of salvation of ordinary believers from the Apostles assurance, because he fixeth his assurance not upon any peculiar revelation, but upon grounds common to all Christians; so may we that are ordinary Ministers, justly take to ourselves the Name and Office of Ambassadors, because the Apostles assumed it upon such grounds as are common to all Ministers: and not upon such as are peculiar to the Apostolical Dignity. And this may suffice for the enforcement of this second argument: but there is one block that must be removed. It is plausibly objected by Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepheard, in there answer to the nine Questions, That Ministers, though Officers to their own Flock, yet may do the acts of their Office towards others, as a Steward of an house acteth as an Officer in the entertainment of strangers, etc. And thus Ministers may preach as Officers to others, and yet be only Officers to their own Congregations. To this I answer, 1. This concerns not our Brethren here, who do positively determine, that Ministers preaching to others, do preach only as gifted men, not as Officers, p. 18. So that I might without disparagement wave this Objection. 2. This is a mere fallacy, the resemblance itself is misunderstood or mis-applied: for a Steward of an house, it is true, he acts as a Steward in the entertainment of strangers, but how? he acts as the Steward of that house, not as a Steward to them whom he entertains: But a Minister preacheth as an Officer with authority, not only in relation to his own Church, but any others that occasionally hear him, as hath been proved. And yet 3. If the similitude were well laid, there is a further dissimilitude in the case in hand; for a Steward of an house is a Steward only to that particular Family, but Ministers are Stewards to the whole Church, all which is called one family, and one household, 1 Tim. 3. 15. How thou shouldst behave thyself in the house of God. Gal. 6. 10. Do good to all, especially the household of faith. Eph. 2. 19 You are fellow Citizens of the Saints, and of the household of God. And the reason why the Steward of an house is no Officer to strangers, is because the Lord that makes him a Steward hath no authority to make him a Steward over strangers, nor further than his house or jurisdiction reacheth. But Christ, who makes Ministers Stewards, hath authority to make them such over the whole Church, yea, over Heathens; and indeed so he hath done, as the former Arguments have proved: and he requires of the world to own his Ministers as Ambassadors, and will severely punish their rejection and contempt of them. The third and last argument shall be this; If the conversion of Heathens, etc. be the principal ground and end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted, and the principal work of the Ministry, than the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens: But the conversion of Heathens, etc. is the principal end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted, and the principal work of the Ministry so instituted, Therefore the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens. For the major it is evident from the very terms; every Minister is unquestionably related to those among whom his work lies. And as it is plain in Christ Jesus, our great Bishop, that the Church or his sheep, are his correlatum, because his end and his work was their salvation; so also must it needs be in Ministers, that their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lies. For the minor no man can doubt of it that hath read the Scriptures, especially those forecited places, Mat. 28. & Eph. 4. If it be said, Conversion indeed was the great work of the Apostles, but not so of ordinary Ministers; those were to build up what the Apostles brought in: I answer 1. Both those places do evidently relate as well to ordinary Ministers, as to the Apostles: For Eph 4. they are equally named; and for Mat. 28. it is clear, because those Ministers who are there spoken of, and set apart for that work of the conversion of Heathens, they are assured by God that they shall continue to the end of the world, which is not true of the Apostles in their own persons, unless to them you add their successors, the ordinary Ministers. And 1 Cor. 3. 5. Who is Paul, and who is Apollo, etc. but Ministers by whom ye believe. And that text will continue true to the end of the world, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. of ordinary Ministers, as well as the Apostles. 2. If conversion be a work common and necessary in these days, as well as in the Apostles days, than Ministers are now appointed for that work as well as formerly they were: For while the cause and reason remains, the effect also must needs remain: But conversion is a work common and necessary now as well as then; For though men are not Heathens now as they were formerly, yet many are but professors and titular Christians, by virtue of their Church-membership, and so do need a work of conversion. 3. Either the ordinary Ministers of the Church were appointed for conversion, or else Christ hath appointed no Officers to take care of the greatest and most principal work, which is the conversion of sinners: But this is highly absurd that Christ should take least care, where there was most need: and therefore ordinary Ministers were instituted for conversion. And thus I have done with the first thing, which was to prove, that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to others besides their own Congregation. The second thing propounded was, To Answer their Arguments, and to vindicate the Arguments offered by the Provincial Assembly against that contrary opinion, that Ministers are Officers only to their own Congregations. And for the better methodizing of it, I shall first with all brevity propound the Assemblies Arguments, than our brethren's Answers, and then add a Reply: And this I choose to do in this place, although these things are discussed by them under another Head, p. 227, etc. because they properly concern this Question. But I shall pass them over with more brevity, because it is but a collateral Question, and our Brethren are less accurate in this, than in the other point. 1. This opinion is unheard of in the Church of Christ, before these late years. Provinc. Ans. It sufficeth that it is heard of in the Scripture. Reply. But you know that is denied; and for the Church's judgement, as it is not to be advanced into God's throne, so it is not easily to be slighted, where there is an universal consent of all Churches (as there is in this case) which it is hard to show in any Error: Nemo pacificus contra Ecclesiam. 2. This opinion is contrary to our Brother's practice, who hold the administration of the Sacrament to be a Ministerial act, and yet give it to members of other Congregations. Provinc. To this there is a double Answer given by our Brethren. 1. The main Answer where they lay most stress which therefore I propose first, is this, that In ministerial acts some things are common to men as men, as the Word and Prayer; some are common to them as Church members, or as confederates with any particular Church, not considering this or another Church, as the Sacraments; other things as special and proper to a particular Church, etc. as Excommunication, Election, etc. So that a man may claim the Sacrament as a confederate with any Church: And as a father giving instruction to his children and servants, teacheth them as a Father and Master; but, if strangers come in and partake of the instruction, he teacheth them not by virtue of any such relation; so if a Pastor preach and give the Sacrament occasionally, he acts not as a Pastor and Officer to them. This is the strength of what our Brethren say, p. 278, 279, 280. Reply 1. If our Brethren perceive not how they have overshot themselves, I question not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it, how they are fallen from their own principles. Indeed the Answer were tolerable, if preaching and giving the Sacrament were of the same nature and quality, and did proceed pari passu, but seeing it is generally granted by our Congregational Brethren, That Preaching is not always an act of Office, and that it is an act which may be done by Gifted men; and that the administration of the Sacrament is always an act of Office, and cannot be done but by one in Office, it is most incongruously done to jumble these two together, and to make them alike in this very case where they acknowledge the difference. 2. To the Sacrament two things are required, which are warily to be distinguished; 1. A right in the Receiver to claim, and that indeed we have in the supposed case, according to our brethren's principles. 2. A power in the Giver to administer, and this none hath but an Officer, and none can do it but as an Officer, and therefore no man can give it to any, but to them to whom he is an Officer, and acts as an Officer, and therefore they cannot give it to any member of other Congregations. And this acute Mr. Hooker is so sensible of, that he grants it in terminis, using these words; Touching the partaking of the Sacrament by some of one Congregation in another, it hath been a course which I have ever questioned, and against it I have alleged many Arguments, professing the course unwarrantable, for this reason (among others) because the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act, and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher, and what authority hath he to do it, and they to receive it from him to whom he is no Pastor; as he is cited by Cawdry, Inconsistency of Indep. Way, p. 203. Nor do I see how this can be fairly avoided by any that stick to Congregational principles, and I think such a strange paradox as this, asserted by so considerable a person, and flowing from such principles, may justly render them suspected to all impartial judges. And whereas our Brethren here imply the contrary, and talk of a Pastors giving the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor; 1. Let all men take notice that in this they have deserted their own principles, and have through incogitancy precipitated themselves into the gulf of Anabaptism, which, I doubt not, in their next, either their prudence or their ingenuity will oblige them to retract. 2. The Provincial Assembly were not obliged to take notice of the excentrical opinions of every particular Congregational man, but of those which were owned by the generality of them, and by such as seemed to be Pillars among them; and sure I am, such will reject this notion of a man's giving the Sacrament as a Gifted brother. They know the rule, Quod competit rei qua tali competit omni tali; If a Pastor gives the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor or Officer, but as a Gifted brother (for that is the other member of the distinction) than every Gifted brother may administer the Sacrament, which I suppose our Brethren will tremble to grant, and therefore they must call back their own words too loosely delivered. 2. But however (say they) this is an argument against our practice, not the assertion. Reply. Yes, it may give just cause of suspicion of the truth of that assertion, which inevitably draws along with it such a strange conclusion as this, that no man may receive the Sacrament any where but in his own Congregation, which is in a great measure to cut the sinews of Christian and Church-communion; and yet for aught either I or Mr Hooker see, either this conclusion must be embraced, or the principle rejected. I pass on to the Reasons. There are (say the Assembly) seven ill consequences which follow this assertion, That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation: I shall reduce them to two or three. 1. Then a Minister at the same time preacheth to his own members as a Minister, and to others as a Gifted man only. 2. Then a Minister baptizeth only into his own Congregation, not into the Catholic Church, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13. and so a Minister can baptise none but those that are members of his own Congregation, and so there is no way to baptise Heathens converted, nor the children of such parents as cannot be members of any Congregation. And here our Brethren bring in that Argument mentioned by the Provinc. That a Minister Ministerially admits into and ejects out of the Church-Catholick, and therefore is a Minister of the Church-Catholick, and not only of his particular Congregation, p. 281, etc. Let us now hear what our Brethren have to Answer. 1. They say, We see no absurdity in saying that a Minister preacheth to some as an Officer, and at the same time preacheth to others not as an Officer. Reply 1. This is a conceit for which there is no shadow in the Scripture: Nay it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only without, but against the evidence of Scripture. Ministers wherever, or to whomsoever they do the work of Ambassadors, whomsoever they beseech to be reconciled, to them they act as Ambassadors: And whose sins soever they remit Doctrinally (which is an act of Office) they are remitted; and whose sins soever they retain, in preaching, they are retained, whether their hearers be strangers, or of their own Congregation: And this they do by virtue of their Office. Surely it is very harsh to say that all strangers which hear a Minister, are no more bound to hear and obey him, then to hear or obey any woman discoursing privately of those things; and that a stranger rejecting his message, is no way guilty of the contempt of his Office, (it will be an happy thing if that will be a sufficient plea at the last day.) Nay by this rule the very Apostles themselves (as we have more largely seen) must, when preaching to Heathens, be cantoned into the order of Gifted men; and if that be true, it was no act of their Office to disciple Nations, and to gather in the Saints: And all those Heathens which are now converted by Ministers, are not converted by virtue of the Ministers Office, nor was the Office of the Ministry appointed for the gathering in of souls, but only for the building up of such as are brought in, contrary to Mat. 28. & Eph. 4. as hath been argued. 2. They argue against that position, That a man is made a member of the Church by Baptism, p. 284. whereas indeed it is none of our assertion, and so all that labour, both of theirs and Mr hooker's is lost. They cannot but know that we allow Infants to be born Church-members, and make their Church-membership the ground of their Baptism, and a par, a Heathen converted, and professing the faith, is a Church-member inchoatè before Baptism; this only we say, That the solemn, public and visible way of admission of members into the Church, is by Baptism; and this cannot be easily denied by any one that looks either to the Jewish or Christian Church: For as since the New Testament began, it hath always been the door of admission, so was it also unto Proselytes in the Old Testament, who used to be admitted into the Jewish Church by Baptism, right foot. Hammond. Selden. as divers Learned Men have proved. Or if our Brethren question that, yet at least, Circumcision (to which our Baptism answers) was the door of admission into the Jewish Church. But of this more hereafter. 3. They deny that a Minister ejects out of the Catholic Church. Not the Minister, but the person renouncing his profession ejects himself out of it; He may be ejected with, and not by Excommunication And how can a man's being ejected out of a particular Church, make him no member of the Catholic Church; if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church, doth not make a man no Officer to the Catholic visible Church. p. 285. Reply 1. Here two things are opposed which may be conjoined; For both the person ejects himself, and the Minister ejects him: He ejects himself meritoriously, the Minister efficiently and juridically. 2. Either a Minister ejecting a man justly out of his own Church, ejects him out of all other Churches (and that cannot be but by virtue of a Catholic Church, etc.) or he is not juridically ejected out of other Churches, and so he is in a capacity of being received into other Churches, (which what horrid confusion it would introduce into the Church of God, and how incongruous it is unto his wisdom, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, to appoint a remedy so short and insufficient for the disease, I leave to all sober men to judge.) And this is not a bare suggestion, for experience shows that the effect of this principle is such, and persons juridically and justly ejected out of one Church, have been admitted into another Church (who it may be, apprehend him to have been unjustly dealt with) and according to this principle there is no remedy, but so it must be. 3. For the ejecting of Officers, I say, 1. That a Church in their sense, i. e. the body of the people, hath no power of ejecting of Officers, as our Brethren suppose. 2. That when a Minister is juridically ejected out of Office in a particular Church by deposition, he ceaseth to be an Officer to the Catholic Church. 4. They say, according to our way also we cannot baptise Heathens, for if there be a Catholic Church, Ministers are only Officers in the Church, and not to the Heathens converted, so cannot baptise them. Reply. Ministers are Officers not only to those that are actually members of the Church, but to all that shall be brought in, as we have shown; they are Officers even to Heathens, in the sense before explained, as they do ex officio offer them a pardon, and give it upon their repentance, so they do ex officio admit them into the Church. 5. They say, in such a case Heathens may join as members to some Church, and so be baptised. Reply. Our Brethren should not obtrude such uncouth notions upon the world without evident proof. Their answer implies as if there were some other way whereby a man might be made a complete Church-member, without Baptism, whereas in Scripture there is ne 〈◊〉 quidem of any other door of admission: If there be, let our Brethren show it; sure we are the New Testament way was by Baptism. But of this more by and by. And this is all of any moment which our Brethren have to say by way of Answer to the foregoing Argument. 3. Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly, was this, that From hence it will follow, that when a Minister leaves, or is put from his particular Charge, he ceaseth to be a Minister; and so when he taketh up a new Charge, he needs a new Ordination, which is absurd, because every Minister is seated in the Catholic Church, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. And as a private Christian removing from his Church, doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church (for then his Baptism should cease, for every baptised person is a Church-member) and needs not to be baptised a new; so a Minister going from a Congregation, needs not to be Ordained a new. To this our Brethren Answer divers things. 1. They say, This runs into direct Anabaptism, for by this rule, an Excommunicate person ceasing to be a member, his Baptism ceaseth, and so he needs to be rebaptized when he is readmitted. p. 292. Reply I. But this followeth not for a double reason. 1. It may be said, that an Excommunicate person ordinarily is a member, though a diseased member, 2 Thess. 3.— Admonish him as a brother. He towards whom I owe the duty of a fellow-member, is a fellow-member: But I owe the duty of a fellow-member, viz. fraternal admonition to such an one. Again, He who is under a Church Ordinance appointed for his good, is a Church-member, though diseased, and under cure: But such an one is under an Ordinance, Ergo. 2. Though his Baptism ceaseth at present actually and really, as to all the actual privileges of it, and so ceaseth, that while he reputes not, he is to be looked upon after a sort, as an unbaptized person, or as an Heathen; yet when he doth repent and renew his Covenant, and re-admit himself to the Church, he needs no new Baptism, for as much as God is pleased to impute to him his former Baptism, and the Church accepts of it; And this is the benefit of his repentance, that God looks upon his sins repent of, as if they had never been committed, and so in that case he looks on him, as if he had never fallen from his Baptism; and so he needs no new one: Just as it was in the case of Circumcision, when any turned Heathen or Idolater, and renounced his Circumcision, he was to be reputed as an Heathen, while such; and yet whenever he repented, he needed no new Circumcision, but his former Circumcision was accepted by God for him. II. The Argument falls upon our brethren's principles, not upon ours: For to us (who assert that Baptism is the door of admission into the Catholic Church) it is uncontroverted, that a man removing from one Church, may be admitted to any other, because his Baptism gave him a complete visible and political membership, not only with that Church he was admitted into, but with all others: And this membership and Baptism, though they were lost in the sense before spoken, yet upon his repentance are recovered. But our Brethren, who make Baptism only the door of admission into a particular Church, they must own this conclusion, That upon every removal there must be a new Baptism. Even as it is in civil Corporations, which because they are distinct from one another, and there is no general Corporation of which each of these are members, therefore whenever a member passeth from one to another, he needs to be admitted a new, by what way soever they use in the admission of members. And to save them from this intolerable inconvenience, they have no shelter but one, which comes in the next place. 2. They say, Baptism doth not admit, or make a man to stand in relation to any Church, either general or particular, but it is a solemn sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ upon him, and therefore that remains wherever he removes. pag. 293. Reply 1. Our Brethren granted even-now, that Baptism was a sign of a man's admission to the Church. 2. This may well stand with its being a sign of a persons taking the Name of Christ, nay indeed it is the same thing in substance, for what is a Church but a company of men professing the Name of Christ? and what then is it to be a solemn sign of a man's admission into the Church, but to be a solemn sign of his being a professor of the Name of Christ? 3. What a monstrous paradox is this, Baptism makes not a man to stand in relation to any Church: This should not have been dictated without any proof, but demonstrated by clear evidences, it being against the judgement of the whole Church. Surely the Apostle was not of this mind, when he said, We are all baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. By which it is most evident, that Baptism gives a man relation to some Body, and it is also plain that he speaks of a visible body, because it is an organical body, having the distinction of teachers and taught, etc. And this Body, if it be the Church Catholic, (as we say, and as the place proves, for as much as Jews and Gentiles are all members of it) than we have our desire: If it be a Church particular, than Baptism makes us to stand in relation to such a Church. And if this were meant of the invisible body, and this Baptism of internal Baptism, yet it rationally follows, that as the inward Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the invisible Church, so doth the external Baptism make him stand in relation to the visible Church. Again, That which makes a man visibly stand in relation to Christ, that makes him visibly to stand in relation to the Church: But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in relation to Christ, Ergo. The major is plain, because the Church and the Church only, and the members of it, stand in visible relation to Christ: The minor is evident from Rome 6. 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into jesus Christ, were baptised into his death. Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ; Therefore Baptism makes a man stand in relation to the Church. Again, That which makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation, makes a man to stand in relation to a Church: But Baptism makes a man visibly to stand in a Covenant relation; Ergo. The major cannot be denied, because of the identity of a Covenant and Church relation: All and only they that are really in Covenant, are really members of the invisible Church: And all and only such as are visibly in Covenant, are members of the visible Church: The minor must needs be granted by every one that understands the nature of Baptism: Baptism is the seal of the Covenant; and to say the seal of the Covenant makes not a man to stand in relation to the Covenant, is a contradiction. Lastly, That which makes a man capable of Church-priviledges, makes him stand in relation to a Church: But Baptism makes a man capable of Church-priviledges, v. g. of the Supper, etc. (which unbaptized persons are not capable of) Ergo it makes a man stand in relation to a Church. So then this paradox being disproved (that I may reduce these things to my main scope) and it being evident that Baptism makes a man stand in relation to some Church, and that visible too (which all grant) it remains either that there is a Catholic visible Church, to which Baptism makes a man to stand related; or if the Church into which it admits a man be only a particular Church, then upon every removal, there must be, as a new admission, so a new Baptism. 3. They say, An Officer may be said to be set in the whole Church, though his authority reacheth only to a part: as it may be said, There are set in the Commonwealth, justices, Constables, etc. and yet this proves not that besides their relation to their Precincts, they have a relation to the Commonwealth, and a power to act there. Reply 1. That phraseology sufficiently implies that the Commonwealth, wherein they are set, is one Political body, and so a pari, that phrase, God hath set in the Church, whatsoever that Church is, it proves it to be one Political body. 2. The case wholly differs, for Justices, Constables, etc. have limited Commissions, confined to their particular Precincts; whereas the Commission of Ministers is large and universal (as hath been proved.) If our Brethren would choose a fit resemblance, let them take it from that of the Empire before mentioned, wherein the Princes are set in and over the whole Empire, and he that shall say, In the Empire are set Princes, States, etc. shall imply that such Princes and States, besides their special relation to their particular Territories, have another relation to the whole Empire. 3. It is not barely the phrase we rest upon, but the sense and the explication of the phrase given us by other Scriptures, and which necessity requires in this place, as plainly appears from the Apostles, who were so set in the Church, that they were also set over the Church; so are not Justices, they are in, not over the Commonwealth; and who, besides a special relation to their particular parts (which we have before discoursed of,) have also a relation to, and over the whole Church: And so have other Ministers to, suo modo, as hath been proved; and both Apostles and Ministers are equalised in this, that they are in and over the whole Church, and so have a relation to it. 4. They say, The Church, in 1 Cor. 12. may be taken for this or that Church; and so the body to be edified, for this or that particular body, Eph. 4. Reply. That cannot be, for it is one Church in which all the Apostles and Ministers are set, 1 Cor. 12. It is one body which all the Apostles and Pastors, etc. were given to edify and perfect. It is that body into which we all are baptised, both Jews and Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12. 13. It is that one body which is Christ, i. e. mystical, which is made up of all the members of Christ, v. 12. It is that one body which is called the whole body, Eph. 4. 16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together, etc. And surely he had need have a good confidence of his abilities, that will assert, that all this is true of a particular Church. Another Argument used by the Provincial Assembly was this, That hence it follows that if a people unjustly through covetousness, starve a Minister from them, or through heresy or schism vote him down, in that case it is in their power to nullify the Office of a Minister. To this our Brethren answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That 1. Though the people sin, yet indeed they do nullify the Office of a Minister, as if they should murder a Minister, they nullify his Office, and if they may debar him from the exercise of his Office, why may they not make void his Office? Reply 1. Our Brethren confound two things vastly differing, to wit, the nullifying of the Office, and the hindering of the exercise of the Office; It is true, the people's opposition, nay indeed one man's violence may hinder the exercise, but cannot nullify the Office. 2. I demand whether this hold of the Apostles or no: The Apostles were made Officers to the Church only, (say our Brethren) and they say they were constituted Officers by the Church, alleging Acts 1. (although the Scripture tell us the Apostles were neither of man, nor by man▪) Well then, this being premised, Suppose when the Catholic Church was confined to one Congregation, this Congregation had proved heretical, and voted down the Apostles: I only suppose it, and suppositions are allowed by all, and to deny that liberty is a tergiversation: Nor doth this supposition imply any contradiction to that promise that God hath made, that he will preserve his Church, for that might have been preserved in the Apostles alone. I now Quaere, Whether in this case the Apostolical Office had been null or no? If they affirm it, as it is a strange assertion, so it is also false: For 1. The Apostles were not constituted by man, and therefore their Office could not be nullified by man. 2. The Apostles in such a case had a power officially and authoritatively to denounce the wrath of God against them, Mat. 10. 14. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart— shake off the dust of your feet. 3. They were Apostles even to Heathens to be converted, as we have proved. If they deny it, I prove it thus, that it must needs follow from their principles: For 1. The Church being, according to them, the adequate correlatum of the Apostles, the Church ceasing, they must needs cease also. 2. Ejusdem est instituere & destituere, and seeing they allow the institution and constitution of the Apostles to the people. 3. I thus disprove that monstrous paradox: That which renders it in the power of men's lusts or humours to nullify the promises of Christ, the authority, end and use of Christ's Ambassadors, is most absurd. That which makes it in the power of men, whether there shall be any Officially to preach peace, to remit sins, etc. is highly dangerous; But such is this doctrine. I prove the minor by these steps; 1. There are now none but ordinary Ministers in the Church. 2. The essence of a Minister (say our Brethren) consists in relation to a particular Church, which is his correlatum, and sublato uno relatorum tollitur alterum, so that when that relation ceaseth, his Ministry ceaseth. 3. It is in the power of the people to dissolve that relation, to eject a Minister; so say our Brethren, and it is generally asserted by Congregational men. 4. That which one Congregation may do, another may do, and so every one may do: Suppose then that there are twenty, and but twenty Congregations in the world, if each of these resolve severally to eject their Ministers, through covetousness, heresy, etc. I say, than it is in the power of these men to falsify Christ's word, and destroy the authority, end and use of Christ's Ambassadors. But you will say, it is in the power of men to kill these Ministers, one as well as another, and so thereby, as well as by our way, it is in the power of men to disannul the promise of Christ. And therefore as it would be answered in that case, that the bones of Christ were breakable, yet by divine providence were kept from being broken; so though it is remotè in the power of men to kill all those Ministers, yet God will restrain them from the act of killing them, that he may keep his promise; in like manner though it is in the power of such Churches to depose them, yet God will hinder the act, etc. I Answer the case is wholly different, the one is an act of horrid violence, the other a juridical act, and here is the great inconvenience for a man to assert, that Jesus Christ hath given to every Congregation a juridical power to depose their Ministers when ever they please, for the power of judging is left by our Brethren in their hands; and to disannul an Ordinance of Christ, and to punish an Officer and Ambassador of Christ without his fault, and without all hope of remedy: In what a sad condition were Gospel Ministers, if it were in the power of their people upon every Capricio, when ever the humour takes them, to rob a godly Minister, it may be for the faithful discharge of his duty among them, of that which he accounts better than a world, and that without any possibility of redress, forasmuch as he hath none to make his appeal to. How secure might a people be in their wickedness, if when a Minister reproves them sharply for their sins, they might take away from their Minister the power of reclaiming their sins, or officially denouncing wrath against them. But they have a second Answer to relieve them. If such a rejection of their Officers do not nullify his Office, the reason is, because he is de jure, and of right still over that Church as their Officer, though hindered from the exercise of his Office. And this indeed is much more tolerable than the other, but our Brethren have lost the benefit of this refuge, forasmuch as they positively acknowledge, that the people have a power to annul his Office: And besides it helps them not at all; for if the people, and they only, they beyond appeal, have a full juridical power of deposing and rejecting their Ministers (as our Brethren hold) than they only have a power to judge whether the cause of the deposition be just or unjust, and be it just, or unjust, the Minister hath no way but to acquiesce in their sentence; for if once this gap were opened, either in Church or State, that a person judged and censured might thwart the judgement of the supreme Court, by his private opinion, it would introduce intolerable confusion: It is true in such a case he may appeal to God, and find comfort in this, that in fero Dei his cause is good, but as for the forum humanum he is gone irrecoverably: And however neighbouring Churches, or Ministers may endeavour to convince and rectify such a Church, and to persuade them to own him as their Minister, yet, if they will persist, they must all be contented, and he must not be owned for a Minister. And thus much may serve for the Vindication of those Arguments which were urged by the Assembly. I shall now take notice of two or three of their Arguments. Their chief Argument is this: A Minister is a Pastor only to his own Flock: But it is only a particular Church which is his Flock; Ergo He is a Pastor only to his particular Church: The minor is proved thus, All that is a man's Flock, he is commanded actually to feed, and to take heed to, and he sins if he do not, Acts 20. 28. But no Bishop is commanded actually to feed the whole Church, Ergo the whole Church is not his Flock, p. 8. Ans. 1. The major of the first Syllogism is untrue: A Minister is a Pastor to his own Flock especially, but not only. 2. The major of the second Syllogism is denied, A Minister is not obliged actually to feed all his Flock; and I suppose I shall give an unanswerable reason for the denial of it: Every Apostle was a Catholic Pastor, and so had the whole Church for his Flock, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Here our Brethren are consenters: But every Apostle was not obliged actually to feed the whole Church, and all Nations, they neither did it, nor was it possible for them to do it, and therefore their work was divided among them; the Circumcision being more especially committed to Peter, and the uncircumcision to Paul: And yet, although by this distribution, Paul had a special relation to the Gentiles, and was obliged to feed them more especially, yet he had upon him the care of all the Churches, and it was his duty, as far as his ability and occasions reached, to feed the whole Church, and no farther: And so it is with ordinary Ministers, though they are especially obliged to feed their own Flocks, and indeed can do no more constantly, yet according to their ability and opportunity they are bound to feed the whole Church, by teaching, and consulting, etc. And this is the only Argument urged formally in this place against our Assertion. But because there are some other passages which seem to be argumentative, though scattered elsewhere, I thought fit to do them that right, as to bring them in here, that so the Reader might see all their strength together. Their second Argument is this; This makes the power of ordinary Ministers as extensive and large as that of the Apostles. Ans. I Answer plainly and clearly, that the difference between Apostolical and Pastoral power lies not in the extent of their relation (If any assert it, let them prove it) but in the independency, superiority, and singularity of jurisdiction, which, if it be not sufficient to distinguish between Apostles, and ordinary Ministers, besides their excellent and infallible gifts, I dare make our Brethren Judges. Their third Argument is this; Ministers are only Pastors to them whom they can govern, as well as teach: but Ministers cannot exercise Church-Government towards Heathens, for they are not their Flock; and therefore in preaching to Heathens they act not as Officers, but as gifted brethren, p. 18. The Answer to this is not difficult; If the not exercising of Government be a sufficient foundation for this assertion, that a Minister preacheth not to such as a Pastor, than the Apostles did not preach as Officers to Heathens, for towards such they could not exercise Church-Government: What have I to do to judge them that are without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. But the Apostles did preach as Officers to Heathens, which hath been already fully proved. Their fourth Argument is; That this brings in Episcopacy, to make one man an Officer over many Churches. And this Argument I have often wondered to meet in all sorts of anti-Presbyterians, Greeks, and Barbarians, wise and unwise, learned and unlearned, all agree in this charge; and they prosecute it with so much confidence, and eagerness, that if a man had so much charity, or so little judgement as to believe them, he would think there were no difference between Geneva and Canterbury. For Answer, to omit other differences which might be insisted on, as 1. That the Episcopal way leaves to inferior Ministers nothing but the Name and Title of Officers, all power of jurisdiction being engrossed into the Bishop's hands; whereby all other Ministers are made a strange kind of men, being Officers without Office, Rulers without rule, etc. Whereas in the Presbyterian way, every particular Officer is confessedly invested with, and hath liberty for the exercise of his Office, and power as need requires. 2. That Government by Bishops, is a Government by foreigners, as it were, the power of Ruling being neither in the hands of the people, nor of any chosen by them, (as it is in the Presbyterian way) but in the hands of persons wholly extraneous to most of the Churches they rule, and generally, neither knowing of, nor known to those whom they undertake to govern. But I wave these things and many other, as being extravagant in this place: This only I observe for the present purpose. The formality of Episcopacy lies in this, in the superiority of one Pastor to another, and to many other; and of one Church to all the rest in a Diocese; not in the superiority of a College of Pastors, or convention of Churches over one Pastor or Church: Will any indite the Apostles for introducing Episcopacy, because all the Apostles met together, Acts 15. did assume a superiority over Paul, (who was there met, as the rest, in the capacity of an Elder) and examine and judge of his Doctrine? Shall any man say the united Provinces in the low-Countries are under a Monarchy, because every particular Governor, etc. is subject and accountable to the rest of the Governors, the State's General? this no man will say but he that understands not the difference between Government by one, and by many: And therefore it is equally absurd to charge us with Episcopacy, because we would have every particular Officer and Church subject (not to any one man, that, and that alone is Episcopacy) but to a convetion of Officers, etc. And therefore for the future I shall desire our Brethren to forbear such frivolous and intemperate accusations. And this is all that I shall say to this present Question, closing only with this intimation, that I principally recommend the serious and impartial consideration of what is here said, unto such, who though they profess they will be ordained (and we are obliged to believe their professions) yet for the present refuse it, because they are not called to any particular charge; I hope what hath been said will satisfy some at least, that although it is convenient that every Minister should have relation to some one Church, yet he hath also a relation to the whole, and his relation to a particular Church as a Lecturer is foundation fully sufficient for his Ordination. CHAP. IU. THe principal Question is this: Whether Gifted persons may preach ordinarily without Ordination. State of the Question. I shall not need to take much pains about the stating of the Question, that being fully done in the Assemblies. Book. These things only I shall say, 1. We speak of persons truly gifted, not every one that conceits himself to be gifted; not of them, who, however in their own conceits they are gifted, yet indeed have need to be instructed in the Principles of Religion: And that is the true case of many of our gifted preachers in England: For such our Brethren say they do not plead, and yet I cannot tell what to make of this, if it look not that way, when they say, Though one that is really gifted, for aught we know may lawfully preach without approbation, from the Church or others, yet it may be inexpedient; so that hereby it is left to every man (as to the lawfulness of it) to judge of his gifts, and to preach, if he think himself fit. This also must be said, that the assertion of this Doctrine was that which opened the gap unto all that crew, and which hath been the unhappy occasion of involving this poor Church and Nation in those crowds of errors and confusion which are now too rise amongst us. 2. We dispute not what may be done in cases of necessity, either in preaching to Heathens, etc. or in preaching in order to trial, (which is necessary to take an account of a man's sufficiency for the Work.) 3. We do not in this place restrain Ordination to our way of Ordination: Whether it belongs to the Presbytery or to the people to ordain, we are not concerned in this Question, which is barely this: Whether a solemn mission or setting apart be necessary for a man's ordinary preaching? Our Brethren deny. We affirm. But for the full understanding of the Question, I refer the Reader to our Ius Divinum; wherein, because out Brethren acquarrell some things, I shall take notice of what deserves Animadversion. The main thing is this, They find fault with the definition given of Preaching, and they say, Any publishing, opening or applying Gospel-truths to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to, yea though it be but to a single person, is Preaching. By this rule we are all Preachers, bond and free, male and female, wise and unwise, seeing this is frequently done by persons of all sorts, and in this sense, both men and women are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such preaching we dispute not against, but enjoin it to people of all sorts. In that sense we do, as Moses, wish that all the Lords people were Prophets: This is that which upon all occasions we press private Christians to; that they would instruct the ignorant, admonish the unruly, etc. privately. And truly this business conscientiously managed, would so take up the gifts and time of most Christians, that they would never be charged at the last day for wrapping their Talents in a napkin, though they never assumed the public work of the Ministry. It is then public Preaching that we dispute against, we will not quarrel about words: If that shall be Preaching which our Brethren will call so, be it so; then in that sense we dispute not against Preaching, but Preaching publicly. There is another thing which they cannot digest, to wit, the distinction which we made between Preaching, and the speaking of a General to his Army, etc. wherein the object is a Congregation, not sacred, but merely civil, etc. To this they say, It is preaching, though the object of it be a Congregation not sacred, but profane and Idolatrous, for Infidels are to be preached to: And if the General of an Army open and apply Scriptures, not for a civil end chiefly, but for the instruction and edification of those he speaks to, and this, not in an intermixed way to qualify civil actions, how this can be denied to be preaching, we know not. To which I Reply, 1. In that case we must distinguish between finis operis, and finis operantis; the end of the work in its own nature, and the end of the worker. Suppose a Philosophy Professor is reading a Philosophical Lecture of the existence of God, or the immortality of the soul, (wherein he takes occasion to open and apply divers Scriptures) possibly he being a good man, may aim at the spiritual and eternal good of his hearers, yet none will call this preaching, because though the end of the Reader was, their salvation, yet the end of the Reading was quite of another nature. So if a religious General in speaking to his Army, when going to fight, principally aims at the salvation of their souls, yet this is not preaching; for though his end in speaking be their salvation, yet indeed the end of the work in itself (and that is it by which all actions must be estimated, for the end of the actors may be various and infinite) I say, the end of the work is to encourage them to the battle. 2. A company of Heathens met together in the case supposed, though they are not a sacred Congregation, yet the end of their meeting (suppose to hear Paul preach to them) is sacred, I mean, the end of the work, though not the end of the workers; and however it is with the hearers, yet the end of the actor or speaker is purely and solely the salvation of their souls; and so it is truly, and may properly be called Preaching. 3. But in this case, I say, a General may not publicly open and apply Scriptures to his Army, unless in a case of necessity, or in order to a civil end, i. e. their encouragement to battle. There is one thing more in the stating of the Question, which they trouble themselves much about, concerning our sense in the use of that phrase of authoritative preaching, and how they tell us, that Authority is sometimes taken for a right or power to do some public work; sometimes for the majesty▪ fervour and gravity which is to attend the dispensation of the Gospel; sometimes for that power which an Officer hath over his people; and (say they) we judge that our Brethren take authoritative preaching in this sense, because they oppose it to brotherly charitative preaching. But this is to seek a knot in a bulrush, for our meaning was sufficiently plain, and we did not speak of an authoritative preaching, as if we did allow any public preaching which is not authoritative, but only put it as a character of, and convertible with public preaching (unless in cases of necessity) and so the Assembly expressed themselves clearly and fully; We distinguish, say they, between a private, brotherly teaching, etc. and an authoritative publick-teaching. And this is all I shall say for the stating of the Question, which now I come to discuss, and I shall do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this method: 1. I shall propound and Answer their Arguments. 2. I shall propound and Vindicate our Arguments. And this method (though somewhat preposterous) I choose, because I would follow the order of their book as far as I can with any conveniency. CHAP. V. THeir first Argument is this: Election must go before Ordination: But a person must preach, yea preach frequently and ordinarily, before Election, for without this the people cannot discern his gifts, etc. Ergo Persons not Ordained may ordinarily preach. Ans. 1. They know their major is not beyond exception, but I let that pass, because afterwards we shall handle it more fully. 2. For their minor, if it be true, then preaching frequently and ordinarily in that case is necessary, i. e. for the trial of their gifts, and that we dispute not about, but whether out of a case of necessity one may preach ordinarily without Ordination. But this first Argument I suppose they intended only for Velitation: Their second Argument is the Achilles, which I must now come to grapple with. There are two pillars of their cause, Scripture precept, and Scripture example alleged; and indeed either of these shall serve turn: But we must not take them upon their bare word, but weigh what they have said in the balance of the Sanctuary. It is Scripture precept which is here discussed. Their second Argument than is this: Such as are commanded to preach may preach: But some men not Ordained are commanded to preach; Ergo. The minor they prove thus; All that are apt to teach, are commanded to teach: This they attempt to prove from 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. but by their favour let us add v. 9 to it, for our Brethren represent the place imagint luscâ, with an half face. The whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this, v. 9 Use 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 minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth. Where any indifferent Reader will observe the words mainly insisted upon, to be like a little Isthmus of land between two seas, to either of which it may be related: Or like a tree standing in the confines of two Counties, it being hard to determine to which County it belongs. It may look backward and relate to hospitality; It may look forward and relate to speaking and ministering; and the words will bear either sense, but both senses it cannot bear, that being an undoubted truth, that Sensus unius loci literalis non est nisi unicus; and to demonstrate that it must relate to this, and cannot relate to the other, will be found very difficult, if not impossible: And yet upon this doubtful place our Brethren hang the weight of their Cause. I find a threefold sense given of these words: Some refer it to the gift of speaking by any, etc. Others, to the Office of speakers. Others, to the giving of Alms: Of these I shall speak in order, premising only one thing, (which is well suggested by Dr Collings) i. e. that whatever the sense of the place is if it be a command to preach, yet this Epistle being written to strangers, and in a scattered estate of the Church; that might be lawful to them in that case of necessity, which otherwise is unlawful: But I will not press that too far. First then, Their sense is this; That whatsoever gift a man hath he is required to exercise it; if he hath a gift to preach, and that publicly, he must preach, etc. And to prove this sense, I observe they use three Arguments, which I shall propound and consider. 1. It is a gift indefinitely, and therefore it may extend to all gifts. p. 32. Ans. 1. And suppose it do extend to all gifts, it is a truth granted by us, that whatsoever gift a man hath, he ought to exercise it, but still, as he is called to it, and in his own sphere. 2. Nothing more usual then for an expression indefinite in words, to be definite in sense, and to be limited pro subjectâ materiâ, according to the matter in hand. It would be vanity to multiply instances in a case so known. If our Brethren were discoursing with an Arminian, about the extent of Christ's death, who should urge the word world, and mankind, and infer as they do, that the word being indefinite, it is to be taken of all mankind, they would quickly find an answer, that such indefinite expressions are to be compared with, and explained by other places, where they are restrained; and the same Answer may stop the mouth of this Argument: So that to argue from the indefiniteness of the phrase is but loose reasoning. 2. They say, This general expression must be interpreted and limited by that which follows, If any man speak, etc. pag. 33. Ans. 1. It may every whit as well be limited and interpreted by the foregoing words, and if so, than all that our Brethren say from these words falls to the ground. 2. If it must be limited by the following words, so it may, without any prejudice to our cause, in this manner, v. 10. he lays this down in the general, that every man that hath a gift must use it; then in the 11th verse, he instanceth in two sorts of men that have received gifts, to wit, Ministers and Deacons, who must be careful to use their gifts, and therefore in like manner all others are obliged to use the gifts that God hath given them: Or if they will not allow these to be Officers, it may be limited, according to their own apprehensions, that as every man in general is to use his gifts, so in particular every man that hath preaching gifts is to use them; but how? i. e. as far as God doth call him forth to the use of them, but no further; and to us there appears no ordinary way now of Gods calling forth men to this work, but by Ordination. 3. They argue from the particle As; As he hath received, i. e. according to the nature of his gift, he that hath private gifts, must use them privately; he that hath public gifts, i. e. gifts fit for public use, must use them publicly, p. 33. Ans. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well be understood causally, because he hath received it. 2. And if it be meant thus (which we say is a truth) that God expects an use of talents, proportionable to what he gives, yet every one must act in his order, and in his place and sphere, and as God calls him forth, as we shall see more fully by and by. 3. But what if this proportion be meant of Almes-giving? then all that they say falls to the ground. Thus we have seen how our Brethren sense this place, and what are the reasons that prevail with them so to do, which whether they be of that consequence as to justify them in the holding of an opinion so offensive to thousands of sincere Christians, and so introductory of all confusion, I leave to sober Readers to judge. And yet their own sense doth draw after it such gross and manifest absurdities, that they dare not abide by it absolutely, but qualify it with an exception sufficient to invalidate all their Argument. They say, By this text all gifted persons are commanded to preach, unless there can be shown some Scripture-prohibition to forbid their preaching. p. 35. To which I reply two things; 1. Hereby the plea is removed to another Court, and the Question lies here, Whether elsewhere there be any prohibition? which must be judged afterwards, by comparing our Arguments and their Answers. 2. It lies not upon us to show a prohibition to restrain them from preaching, but upon them to show a warrant for preaching (seeing for instituted worship we must have a positive warrant) which this place we see affords not, and whether any other place affords, we shall see hereafter. But we must not yet part with our brethren's Argument from this place. There are three or four difficulties with which it is gravelled. The first is that urged by Dr Collins, Here is not only a liberty granted, but a duty enjoined, so that by this Text, gifted persons not only may, but must preach, and that without election or calling, for the Churches neglect of their duty, must not make him neglect his. The full vindication of this, I shall leave to that reverend Author, but I cannot wholly let it go untouched: I shall form the Argument thus, They who are by virtue of a divine precept to preach the Gospel, are to do it necessarily, Necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel, they are to do it in season and out of season, they are to give themselves wholly to these things, they are not to leave the Word of God to serve tables: But all that have preaching gifts are not under such obligations, our Brethren being Judges. Ergo, they are not obliged to preach the Gospel. The major I prove, Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. The Scripture takes no notice of two sorts of preachers, whereof the one may preach seldomer or oftener as they please, and as the Church desires; and the other must preach frequently, constantly; and even those upon whom the least obligation lies in our brethren's opinion, are commanded. It is true no preachers are in Scripture obliged to preach in such or such a place, nor to preach so often (the determination of these and other like circumstances, is left to the rules of prudence, and general direction of the word) yet all are obliged to be instant and diligent in the work: And as the service of the Church is unspeakably to be preferred before the best merchandise, and God's glory before their own worldly interest; so when a man hath received gifts for the service of preaching, if these commands oblige him to preach, they oblige him to throw off all the impediments of that noble work, and to give himself wholly to these things: And the rather, because of our brethren's own Argument; A man must exercise his gift as he hath received it. Now if a man have ability to preach ordinarily and constantly every Lord's day, if he would use sufficient diligence, such a man dischargeth not his trust in preaching sparingly and occasionally only. Obj. But they say, that the case of a Minister and a gifted brother are alike in this, A Minister sins not, if he be put out of employment, and cast into a place where his gifts are not desired, etc. And so it is with gifted men, etc. Ans. Will our Brethren then say, that others not desiring a man to exercise his gifts, will justify him in the not exercising of it? Can any man dispense with another's wrapping his Talon in a napkin? What if Paul had come to a place where he was not desired to preach, (which often was his case) was he then free from his necessity of preaching? Or what if a Church grow weary of hearing and preaching, so that they desire not their Pastor to preach among them, Will this excuse him, if he throw off preaching? For my part I must profess, were I in that case, though I might think it more advantageous to the Church to dispose of myself in some other place. yet should I by no means look at it as a dispensation from the work of preaching, though no man should desire me, (were there but any that would hear me.) Nay more, where the Apostles were not only, not desired, but forbidden to preach, yet they accounted it their duty to continue in that work. Whether that hold in ordinary Ministers, I shall not now dispute; this only I shall say, (and that is fully sufficient for our purpose) that if a Minister be put out of employment, or be in a place where he is not desired to preach, yet if he may be permitted to preach, and the affairs of the Church require it, he ought to do it, or to employ himself in some other way, which may be equivalent for the Church's service. I shall add but one Argument to our Brethren, taken from their own words; Whatsoever duty a man may lawfully do, that he is bound to do: But one that is really gifted for preaching (for aught we know) may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church, or from others, say they; Therefore, one that is really gifted is bound to preach, although neither the Church nor others do approve it, much less desire it. The major is most clear, and it were a contradiction to say, that such a thing is a duty, which may in such a case be lawfully done, and yet that it is not his duty, or that he is not bound to it: The minor is their own words. And this is the first inconvenience their sense of this place runs upon. A second is this, That hereby it will follow that women may, nay must preach. A third is, That by the same rule, every one who hath a gift to be a General, Magistrate, etc. may undertake those places: To these our Brethren say something by way of Answer; but the Reply I must leave to him who is more concerned in them: they are so fully and largely discussed by divers already, that it is needless to say any thing more of them, and we may have occasion to speak of them hereafter. But the fourth and principal thing is this: It is true, every one is to exercise his gift, but in his own sphere, public persons publicly, private persons privately; and so did Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18. and those women, Phil. 4. 3. And because here the shoe pincheth, our Brethren make a strong attempt against this assertion, and endeavour to batter it down by divers Considerations. For the examples of Aquila and Priscilla, they say, 1. It appears not whether they were apt to preach publicly or no. p. 42. Ans. 1. It appears that they were excellently gifted, in such a measure that Paul calls them his co-workers, or fellow labourers (for so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports) in the work of the Gospel, Rom. 16. 3. Nor is it in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in public; and therefore seeing the excellency of their gifts is mentioned, without any note of restraint or diminution, it is most ingenuous and reasonable, to conclude they were apt to speak publicly. 2. They instructed Apollo privately, for that was most expedient. p. 42. Ans. It is true it was most fit to do it privately, yet not so, as that it was inconvenient to advise Apollo to be a diligent hearer publicly: They might have taught Apollo (with others) publicly, without any reflection upon him: Seeing therefore we read of their doing it privately, not a word of their doing it publicly; it is a certain truth which we assert, that they instructed privately, and but a mere supposition that they did, or might do it publicly. 2. As to the main Objection they say many things: To take notice of all they say will be needless: The strength of what they have, lies in these things: 1. Private men may do the same work with preaching, i. e. they may open and apply Scriptures, exhort, rebuke, etc. p. 44. And because they know we grant this, and say they may do the same work, but not in the same manner, not publicly, they add 2. That every Church-member is obliged to teach and admonish every fellow member, as occasion requires, p 46. Ans. If they mean that every member is bound to do this publicly (else it is nothing to the purpose, for to do it privately we allow) than not only gifted brethren, but all the brethren, yea and sisters to, not only may, but must turn public preachers. 3. A public gift cannot be fully improved, if it be not used publicly, but privately only, p. 47. Ans. 1. If therefore any really have public gifts, and desire to use them publicly, let them with the household of Stephanas, addict themselves wholly to the work of the Ministry, and not interlope betwixt two Callings. 2. I would know of our Brethren, whether this general rule (upon which their Argument hangs) be true or false, to wit, That the bare having of a gift fit for public use, is of itself a sufficient ground for that public use of it, without any other call. If they say that it is not true in the general, but only true in this particular case, than they discover to all the world, that it is but an hypothesis of their own, merely taken up for the defence of a praeconceived opinion: If they say it is true in the general, then, what if a woman is gifted to teach? or a man gifted to rule? The Argument is every whit as strong. I will return their own Argument upon them thus. Every man ought fully to improve the gift he hath, and if he have a public gift, he ought to improve it publicly: But many private men have the gift of Ruling, Judging, Leading an Army, etc. and this gift cannot be fully improved, but by the public exercise of it: Therefore such private men ought publicly to exercise such gifts. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, but by saying that besides these gifts a call is required, which till a man hath, he is not obliged to exercise his gifts publicly. And the same Answer (if our Brethren will be candid) may satisfy them, That besides preaching gifts, there is a call required (whatever that call be) and till a man hath that call he is not to exercise his preaching gifts publicly, nor do his gifts oblige him or warrant him thereunto. 4. They say, publicness in acting is not so material a thing, it doth not make an act to be an act of Office, the publickness of the act doth not make it preaching; private men spoke publicly, Acts 15. 12. Any private men may give Alms publicly in the Assembly, which is the Deacons Office. p. 49. Ans. 1. Though bare publicness of speaking makes it not preaching, yet that is one main ingredient of that preaching which is now in Question, and (as we judge) a property of Authoritative preaching: And so material is the difference between public and private teaching or preaching (call it what you will, for I hate logomachies) that although this latter is allowed to women, and was performed by Priscilla, yet public teaching, or teaching in the Church-Assembly is forbidden to women upon this account, because it is an authoritative act, as is most evident from 1 Cor. 14. 34. & 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. where the very reason given why they must not teach in public, is because they must not usurp authority; concluding beyond contradiction, that to preach publicly is an act of authority, and inconsistent with a state of subjection, and therefore not to be performed by any who are in a state of subjection, and under obedience to Officers, whether men or women. Yea further, whereas some of our Brethren contend, that although preaching constantly in public be unlawful to gifted men, yet preaching occasionally may be lawful. I offer it to their consideration, that it is not only preaching constantly, which is here forbidden to women, but also preaching occasionally, though but once in public, seeing even such preaching is accounted an act of authority: And therefore by a parity of reason gifted men are forbidden to preach, not only constantly, but also occasionally (further then necessity requires, &c) 2. For Acts 15. we allow private men, though not to preach, yet to speak publicly in divers cases, as at Vestries, Synods, etc. sometimes propounding questions, desiring to be further satisfied, etc. 3. For the last clause it is a mere fallacy; for though in that case a private man give his alms publicly, yet indeed he doth not give the Public Alms (which is the Deacons office) but only his own private alms he gives in a public way. 5. They say, It is usual for a man being requested, to do the work of another man's calling; one that is no Schoolmaster may tend a School occasionally for a few days, and yet he doth not go out of his sphere. p. 50. Ans. The parallel no way holds, for, though for other reasons the gift of some Schoolmasters places is limited, yet indeed in itself, neither the Office nor Work of a Schoolmaster is restrained, either by Divine or Humane Law; any man that is fit, may manage it, and we see ordinarily persons uncalled set up Schools without any authority, and yet without any blame. If they would have a fit parallel, take that of a Magistrate; What if a Justice of the peace request another man to sit for him upon the bench? may he do it? I trow not. 6 They say, A man may choose it as his calling to preach, and fit himself for it, etc. (though he do not own Ordination as that which gives him a call) now in this case, he doth not go out of his calling to preach. Men who have other callings, may leave them and become teachers, Heb. 5. 12. Nor doth the 1 Cor. 7. 20. forbid a change of callings, but only command a man in his calling to abide with God, v. 24. p. 51. Ans. I. Designation of a man's self to a calling, is one thing, and a solemn inauguration into that calling is another thing: Suppose a man design himself for the service of a state, etc. until he be by authority installed into some Office of State, he is but a private person (notwithstanding all his intentions and preparations for that work) and if he should undertake to do the acts of an Officer of State, before he receive a civil Ordination (as I may call it) he should go out of his sphere. In like manner, whosoever designs himself for the Ministry, and intends that calling, yet, if he undertake to do the acts of the Office before he be called to it, he goes out of his place. II. For Heb. 5. 12. I must needs declare that I am sorry to see good men take such liberty to wrest the Scripture to serve their conceits: O how great is the power of prejudice! But I Answer, 1. Do our Brethren indeed believe that it was the duty (duty I say, for Paul speaks not what they may do, but what they ought to do) of all the Hebrews, men and women (for to both he writes promiscuously) to be public teachers? 2. Say that all must endeavour to be teachers, what then? must they needs be public teachers? A genere ad speciem non valet illatio affirmativa. They ought to be able to teach their families, to teach Heathens, to teach babes in Christ, and this will run smoothly and take in all. It is the duty of all men and women to grow in knowledge, and to be able to teach others, according as their place and opportunity enables them. Obj. But he speaks of such teaching as babes in Christ do not attain to, and such as is attained by long time, and such as belongs to grown Christians, v. 12, 13, 14. whereas all believers and babes in Christ are teachers in that private brotherly way, and therefore this cannot be meant of private, but of public teaching, p. 52. Ans. It follows not: The teaching here spoken of, though private, yet was not attained unto by the Hebrews, by babes in Christ, they were (according to the Apostl's description) unable to teach their families, or to instruct an Heathen privately, if he had desired information from them, for he tells us, they had need that one should teach them again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God. Our Brethren perplex themselves by confounding two things much differing, to wit, the duty and the ability: For babes in Christ it is their duty to teach, i. e. privately, yet they may want ability to teach. 3. Teachers are here taken for such as are apt to teach, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that the Apostle enjoins it upon all the Hebrews, as their duty actually to turn public teachers (If the whole body were the eye, where were the hearing?) but only to be fit to teach, id est, in the sense explained: As Gal. 2. 11. he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, word for word, condemned, blamed, that is, he was to be blamed. So Tully, Quis te damnatior? that is, who is more to be blamed than thou. III. For 1 Cor. 7. 20. Although I conceive not that every man is so obliged to continue in his calling, that he may not upon weighty reasons change it for another; yet surely that text forbids a rash and groundless removing from one calling to another: As it is true, whether a man keeps his old calling or enters upon a new one, he ought to do it with God (which is all that can be collected from the 24th verse) yet v. 20. servants, and so others a pari, are plainly commanded not to change their callings, i. e. rashly and causelessly. 7. They cite a command, Heb. 10. 25. But exhorting one another, i. e. in those Church-Assemblies, to which the opposition clearly refers it: Not only Officers, but all Christians are to do it, p. 54. And whereas they know it will and may justly be replied, that by this rule all Christians are commanded to exhort publicly, they endeavour to take that off by saying, only those that were able to do it are intended, as if a father bid all his children go to work, he doth not include the child in the cradle: But here is a manifest halt; for all the grown Christians were able to teach, though not all alike, (as of the grown children some could work better, some worse, yet by their supposition all that can work quovis modo, are commanded to work.) Some had better, some had meaner gifts, but the very meanest could provoke to good works, and might say something to admonish, to counsel and comfort others, to persuade them to persevere, etc. nay to that purpose a sincere hearted man, though of very mean abilities, might speak more effectually than some able Teachers: So that if this place prove any thing to our brethren's purpose, it will prove that it was the duty of every one, gifted or not gifted, to preach in the public Assembly, which is not only false, but contrary to their own opinion. But I Answer further; Their assembling together is not the modification of the exhortation (as if they were to do it in the public Assembly) but the matter of the exhortation, they were (every one according to his place privately or publicly) to exhort one another, to what? even to this, that they would not forsake the assembling of themselves together, i. e. that they would not apostatise from the Christian Religion, and Christian Worship, and Christian Assemblies, nor relapse to Judaisme, but that they would persevere to the end, that they would hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering, v. 23. And this concerns the first sense put upon the place, as if it obliged all gifted men to preach. In the second place the Assembly take notice, that by gift, may be understood the Office, he that speaketh, i. e. the public Office-preacher, let him do it, etc. and he that ministereth, i. e. the Deacon: And thus also others unconcerned in this quarrel, understand the words. But against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions. 1. They say, Neither the context nor subsequent verses refer to Officers, but to Christians in general, therefore this doth not, p. 57 Ans. Nothing is more common in Scriputre, than for general and special exhortations to be joined together, and for the Apostles to make a transition from a general to a special exhortation, and from a special to a general, as almost every interpreter of Scripture observeth. 2. They say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are far more usually taken for gifts, than for an Office, p. 59 Ans. 1. It sufficeth that sometimes it is taken for an Office, and therefore so it may be taken here. 2. And if it be granted that gift is taken in their sense in this place, it availeth them not, for the 10 verse may be a general rule, wherein every man is commanded to exercise whatsoever gifts he hath received, and to exercise them in a right manner; and in the 11 verse he comes to instance in two particulars; the Public teacher, saith he, as he hath received gifts for teaching, and the gift of the Office, so let him speak, etc. and so the Deacon, etc. And this shall suffice to speak of the second sense. A word now of the third, which is this, That this gift is meant of estates, etc. which a man is to use for God's glory and the good of others, for so the dependence upon the foregoing words carries it; Use hospitality, etc. and then he adds a reason, because they have received it, and so may and aught to lay it out; or (if you will) as a rule to guide persons in the management of it, that they should lay out according to what they receive in. To this there are but two things objected: 1. They are here called stewards, not of this world's goods, but of the grace of God, and not of one grace only, to wit, charity, but of the manifold grace of God, p. 35. Ans. The grace of God which properly signifies an attribute of God, is commonly in Scripture taken for the gracious effects and actings of that grace towards men. And whereas these effects and actings of grace are of two sorts, some concerning this life, and some concerning the other life, either of these, or any effects of grace may be called the grace of God Metonymically, and in respect of such temporal effects (as well as spiritual.) God is frequently said to be gracious, Exod. 22.— It is his raiment— and when he crieth unto me, than I will hear, for I am gracious: So also Amos 5. 15. 1 Sam. 12. 22. 2 Kings 13. 23. And indeed, although this may possibly seem strange to him that is praepossessed with the common use and acception of the word Grace in the English tongue; yet can it not seem improbable to him who knows the use of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and that is the language which the holy Ghost used) which is indeed nothing else but a favour or blessing, so that, all that we are here exhorted unto, is to be good stewards of the manifold favour of God, or of the manifold blessings which come from the grace and favour of God. And thus far our Brethren agree with us, that by the grace of God we are to understand the effects thereof towards us; only here lies the difference between us, that they will needs expound it of the spiritual and internal acts of this grace (because that seems to favour their cause most) when, as we say, it may be understood of the external and temporal effects of that grace, for of such things he spoke in the foregoing verse: And in that sense the word grace is taken in relation to men, viz. for the temporal effects of their grace or favour towards others, 2 Cor. 8. 19 Who was chosen to travel with us, with this grace which is administered unto us, i e. with this charitable contribution, as all Interpreters agree. So that no man can justly stumble at that sense of the word here. And for the addition of the word, the manifold grace of God, who knows not that Gods temporal favours (of all which we are to be good stewards) are manifold? There is as great multiplicity and variety in temporal as in spiritual blessings. 2. They say, This will destroy the connexion of this verse with the rest. Ans. 1. What more common then for exhortations of divers sorts, in Paul's Epistles, to be joined together without any coherence. 2. This doth not dissolve the connexion, but only varies the connexion, for whereas they annex it to the following verse, this sense joins it to the foregoing verse. And this may fully serve for the Vindication of this place of Scripture; wherein, though I have not taken notice of every word said by our Brethren, yet any ingenuous Reader that compares theirs and mine together, will discern that I have not omitted any thing which is either considerable or plausible, and for other things I have not so much spare time as to throw it away upon them. And thus much for their second Argument. CHAP. VI THe third Argument will not call for much labour. They argue from a Gospel promise, Mat. 25. 29. Unto every one that hath shall be given: Whatsoever gifts a man hath, if he improve them, God will increase his gifts. Ans. It is true, every one is to exercise his gifts, but every one suo modo, and debito ordine, as hath been frequently said, according to his capacity and place, and after a right order. What if a man be prudent and very fit to manage the Deacons work, and to distribute the Church-alms? must he undertake it (upon pretence of exercising his gifts) before he be called to it? No surely; 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let them first be proved, then let them use the Office of a Deacon. Or if a man hath gifts to rule a State, must he take upon him that work, before he be called to it? Surely no: And therefore a Preacher also, however gifted, yet must not publicly exercise his gifts till he have a call, some call I say or other, for I meddle not now with particulars, what that call is; only I say, besides gifts a call is required, without which he sins not, in the not exercising of his gifts in such a way (although exercise them he may divers ways.) And if our Brethren allow this in the Office of the Ruling Elder and Deacon, that how well soever they are gifted for those works, yet without a call, a call (I say) distinct from that which may be pretended by virtue of their gifts, they may not exercise those gifts, why should they not allow it in the Preaching Ministry? Why should not only the Offices, but also the works of these inferior Offices be enclosed, and that higher and much more difficult work of the Ministry lie in common? And this shall suffice for their second Argument, wherein though divers things are said, yet nothing of strength is added, which hath not been considered and enervated under the foregoing Argument. Their third Argument is taken from Gospel precedents or examples: They instance in two, 1. In Apollo. 2. In the scattered Saints, Acts 18. 24. 1. In Apollo, and the marrow and strength of what they say of him is this; He preached publicly, etc. and yet was not ordained, for he knew only the Baptism of John (not the Baptism of Christ) to which the institution of Ordination was subsequent; he had but an imperfect knowledge of the doctrine of Christ. Unto this instance divers things are said, which our Brethren take notice of, and attempt to confute. 1. Whereas some Answer, That Apollo was an extraordinary Officer, that he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. that he is called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3. 5. To this they Answer, 1. Let him prove it that will assert it: All that the text saith of him is, that he was eloquent and fervent, etc. which a man may be without those extraordinary gifts, p. 71. Reply If this place doth not, yet others do imply that he was an extraordinary Officer, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Exc. But that was afterward, when he went to Corinth; He might be a gifted man first, and yet afterwards an Officer etc. p. 73. Ans. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts is very probable from that 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with persons so qualified, but when he received them, the Scripture is silent: The Scripture intimates that he had them at Corinth, but that he received them not before, ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem. The distance of time is not so great between his being at Ephesus, that is Acts 18. 24. and in Achaia, that is v. 27. of the same Chapter: And therefore it is most probable he had those extraordinary gifts when he was at Ephesus. If it be objected against this, that he was ignorant in many truths, instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, p. 71. The Answer may be this, that this is not inconsistent with his being a Prophet: God revealed not all his mind at once to all his Prophets. Those Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others, as well as to speak themselves. The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived, though not in such a plentiful and glorious manner as afterwards, and yet were ignorant of those great and glorious truths of Christ's death and resurrection, etc. Inst. But after his departure the people of Ephesus were ignorant of those gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 19 1, 2. Ans. That might be, neither they nor Apollo might know distinctly what these gifts of the Holy Ghost were, and yet Apollo might have them; his face might shine and he not know it: As a man may be converted and yet not know that he is converted, nay possibly he may not clearly understand what the work of conversion is. 2. Whereas it is further said, that Apollo's might have a Commission from John to preach. They say, Let them prove it that can, the Gospel is silent as to that, p. 71. Reply 1. Our Brethren must remember the proof lies upon them to make good that he was not ordained, not upon us to prove that he was ordained: For if we lay down this position, That merely gifted men ought not to preach, etc. if they offer any instances to the contrary, they must make this good, that such were only gifted men, and not ordained: They are not so unacquainted with the laws of disputation, as not to know that the proof lies on the opponents part, which they manage in this place. 2. The Gospel is silent as to the Mission and Ordination of divers others: We read nothing of the Ordination of Titus, of Epaphroditus, of the Pastors of the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2, & 3. Shall we therefore conclude they were not ordained? 3. Whereas it is said he preached only where there was no Church: They say, Let them prove that it is more unwarrantable to preach where a Church is, than where no Church is. Reply This will easily be proved by that ingens telum necessitas: I hope there is a far greater necessity of gifted men's preaching where Ministers are not, than in a Church where they are. 4. To these I may add, that we do not find Apollo's preaching in a Christian Church, but disputing in a Jewish Assembly, a liberty which we as readily allow to gifted men, as to write in defence of the truth. 5. Say that Apollo's were not ordained (which is all our Brethren can extort or desire) yet this gives them no help at all, for the extraordinariness of his gifts might well supply the defect of an Ordination, and that is no precedent for such whose gifts are but ordinary. And thus much for their first example. The second is that locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that famous instance of the scattered Saints, Acts 8. about which I shall not engage myself, nor detain the Reader with repeating those various Answers that are given to it by the Provincial Assembly, which might easily be vindicated from their exceptions. I shall not stand upon this; That the persons scattered were, if not solely, yet mainly the Officers of the Church, who might therefore preach, etc. But that which wholly invalidates this place as to their purpose, is that which is commonly said, that this was an extraordinary case, a case of necessity. And mark the weight of our brethren's deduction from this place: Because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church, in a time when all Church-order was broke, preached and taught Jesus Christ to Heathens and unbelieving Jews, occasionally (it may be in private, or with Paul in the market places etc. or in their Synagogues disputing with them) therefore now unordained persons may preach publicly and solemnly to a Christian Church settled and constituted, wherein are plenty of able and godly Pastors, and where as their preaching is not necessary, so to many fearing God it is highly scandalous. This is the true state of the Argument, and if our Brethren be not sick of this consequence, I shall say they have good stomaches. But this must not pass so, and therefore they make an assault upon it, and there are three or four things which they say (lest they should say nothing) which stand in the room of Answers, with which I must profess I wonder how sober ingenious and conscientious men (such as I hope our Brethren are) can satisfy themselves. But such as they are we shall give them a fair hearing. 1. They say, Persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach, p. 85. Ans. Yes, it laid a necessity upon them, i. e. in order to God's glory, and the salvation of souls, which could not be had without preaching, Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way; upon this supposition, that in those times God would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, it was necessary that they should preach, for as much as there can be no salvation without preaching, Rom. 10. 2. They say, It is questionable whether necessity can make that lawful, which is in itself unlawful, as to forswear a man's self, p. 86. Ans. There are two kinds of evil and unlawfulnesses, Some things are simply and absolutely evil, and prohibita quia mala, forbidden because they are intrinsically evil; as to forswear, to blaspheam God, etc. and these no necessity can excuse: But there are other things which are in themselves indifferent, and only mala quia prohibita, are therefore only evil because they are prohibited, and because they are against positive precepts. Now those things which are only evil this latter way (and such is preaching without Ordination) they may, though not ordinarily, yet in cases of necessity do. Thus in a case of necessity, David might eat the Shewbread, the rest of the Sabbath might be violated, Periculum mortis pellit Sabbathum: And of this kind is order in a State or Church, which is a duty to be observed ordinarily, and yet in case of evident necessity may be violated. And, as in a State, in such a case, every man is a Constable, so in the Church, in such a case, every man may be a Preacher. 3. They say, It is an extraordinary case when Ordination cannot be had in God's way, i. e. when Election doth not go before it, p. 86. Ans. 1. That Election must necessarily and continually go before Ordination, is but one of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and suppositions to be confuted hereafter. 2. And if ordinarily Election must go before Ordination, yet, as we say of preaching, when Ordination cannot be had, it may be done without it; so it is true of Election when it cannot be had, Ordination must be taken without it; and when Ordination cannot be had exactly in God's way, as to all the particulars, it must be had, as it may. The Shewbread was ordinarily according to God's way, to be eaten by the Priests alone, but in cases of necessity it might be eaten out of God's way, it might be eaten by others. 3. It is not every extraordinary case that carries it, it must be a case of necessity, such as this is not; for what if neither Election nor Ordination can be had by them in God's way? There is no necessity of their preaching in a Church which is constituted. And thus we see how firmly this Answer stands against all their exceptions, and that all their assaults are but like the beating of a storm against the wall. So that there is one flaw in their Argument which will for ever condemn it of insufficiency. But that is not all: Mark how the Argument is laid by our Brethren; Those who were scattered abroad they preached: But many unordained men were scattered abroad; Therefore many unordained men preached, p. 74. Ans. 1. You shall see what an hopeful Argument this is: I will make use of their own Argument against them, and I desire no other Umpire. They who were scattered abroad they preached: But many ungifted persons were scattered abroad; Therefore such preached: And because this example they bring as a precedent for us, therefore ungifted persons may now preach publicly; which because it is not only false, but contrary to their own sense, therefore (that we may not be put to deny the Conclusion) we must find fault with one of the premises, and that can only be done our way, i. e. by saying that, not all that were scattered preached, but only some of them preached: Only here is the difference, these some that preached, say we, were Officers; say they, they were gifted men, which yet they cannot prove, and if they could, it reacheth not our case, nor our times, for it was a case of necessity, as hath been argued. If they like not this, I will put it in another dress: They who were scattered, preached: But women as well as men were scattered, so they say, the scattering was subsequent to Paul's haling men and women, etc. and that the All that were scattered, were not all the Officers, but all the Church. So that by this Argument here is a warrant for women-preachers, if this example be a precedent: Nor let them fly to their usual refuge, that women are elsewhere forbidden, for although they were ordinarily prohibited, yet in cases of necessity (such as this was) they might do it, as that woman did who preached to the Iberians, and converted them. To this I may add, that all that can be extorted from this place is this, that they preached; which we may grant without any prejudice to our cause, for there are divers kinds of preaching or teaching, they might do it divers ways. It might be true of all, that they preached and taught Jesus, but not all alike, nor all in the same capacity; the Officers might teach publicly, the rest privately; the Officers constantly, the others occasionally; the Officers might preach officially in a Christian Church, the rest might discourse to a company of Heathens, or dispute with them; and all these may be called teaching or preaching. So that our brethren's Argument is a genere ad speciem affirmatiuè, which will not hold water. For what they say, that It is indefinitely said that they that were scattered, preached. Ans. They know that indefinite propositions, in materiâ contingenti, in a contingent matter (such as this unquestionably is) are not equivalent to an universal: Supposing that Officers and people were scattered, I say, that if the Officers alone had preached, that had been sufficient ground to say of the whole they preached, as oftentimes that is said to be done by all Israel, which was done by the Officers of the Congregation. And thus we have seen those two great topics of our Brethren, from Scripture precept, and Scripture precedent overthrown. And so much for the third Argument. Their fourth Argument is that principal place and pillar of their opinion, which if I shall satisfactorily Answer, there will be little ground left for our brethren's confidence in this cause. 1 Cor. 14. 29, 31. whence they draw this Argument, All that are Prophets may publicly preach: But some men who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; Therefore some men who are not ordained Officers, may publicly preach. Which Argument may be cut off in a word, for their Conclusion may be granted without any detriment to our Cause; and our Brethren might have known, and aught to have considered, that we grant, that persons unordained may preach, in a double case; 1. In the case of necessity. 2. In case of extraordinary gifts, and an immediate Commission from God, which we take to be the case of these Prophets, of which more hereafter. In the mean time let us follow them: For their major it is granted on all hands: For their minor, it is this, That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets; where there is a double defect and insufficiency to the proof of what they intent. For 1. The Prophets might be Officers, though not ordained; so were the Apostles, neither of man nor by man. 2. If the Prophets were not Officers at all, yet the extraordinariness of their gifts was a sufficient warrant for the public exercise thereof: But neither of these are to be found in the case of those unordained preachers we plead against, but they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them, for neither are they Officers at all, ordained or not ordained, nor are their gifts extraordinary; so that the minor might be granted, and yet the truth not wronged. But let us see how they proceed: I fear it will prove ominous to them, thus to stumble in the threshold: They argue thus, to prove their minor, All that have the gift of prophecy are Prophets: But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of prophecy; Ergo, Some men, who are not ordained Officers are Prophets. For the major, though we grant it, yet, according to our brethren's principles, it might be denied; for, if it were as they say, that those prophesiers here spoken of had the gift, but no Office, I should deny such to be Prophets, because the name of Prophet, both in vulgar acception, and in Scripture use, connotes an Office; Caiaphas did prophesy, joh. 11.— and yet I believe our Brethren are not so hardy, as to say that Caiaphas was a Prophet. The minor will lead us to the main point, which is this, Some men not ordained Officers have the gift of prophecy; which they attempt to prove by three steps: They say, this prophecy 1. is a gift, not an Office. 2. That it is a gift still continuing. 3. And which some unordained persons have, p. 90. And if these things be proved, they say something to the purpose; but let it be considered, if there be a flaw in any one of them, their whole Argument falls, and how much more, when every one of them will be taken tardy. The last Proposition they place first, and use three Arguments to prove it, whereof the last is that which the other propositions treat of, the two former are these which follow. 1. (Say they) Some not ordained have this gift of prophecy, because we find no Scripture warrant for the ordaining of Prophets. Ans. 1. What if there be no particular warrant, it is sufficient that there is a general rule for the ordaining of all Church-officers, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, etc. and (at least, if these be ordinary Officers, as our Brethren make them) a parity of reason (which is a sufficient Argument to sober minded men, such as I take our Brethren to be) will prove that they also are to be ordained. 2. But if they be extraordinary Officers (as the Provincial Assembly affirm) preferred before the Evangelists, and having this privilege above the Evangelists (for aught we read) to be immediately and infallibly endued, etc. then what wonder if in this they partake with the Apostles, who as they were not of men, so neither by men, and needed no Ordination, nor had it, unless in relation to some special work, as Acts 13. 1. 2. (Say they) They must be discerned to have the gift before they be ordained, and therefore some not ordained may have the gift of prophecy. Ans. This Argument is built upon the former mistake, as if there were a necessity of such a Prophet's Ordination; whereas, I say, God's endowment of him with extraordinary gifts, is a kind of Ordination, and supplies the defect of an Ordination by men. But (complying thus far with our Brethren, to own these Prophets to be unordained persons, and their gifts but ordinary) I further Answer, that this is wholly impertinent (as was intimated before) for in the case of a Pastor, the question is not, Whether one not ordained may have Pastoral gifts, which we assert he may have, nay he must have, and must be known to have them before he be ordained; but the question is, Whether a man not ordained may commonly and ordinarily exercise those Pastoral gifts, which is quite another thing: It is one thing to have gifts, another thing to exercise gifts. A man may lawfully have divers gifts, (v. g. of ruling an Army or a State, etc.) which yet he may not lawfully exercise. But let us now come to their next Proposition, which is more to the purpose, viz. That this prophesying is not an Office but a gift. If this be proved, it amounts to something, but I doubt the premises will fall a mile short of the conclusion. I pass by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they run into, which Dr. Collins takes notice of, and shall rather consider how they attempt to prove it; which they do by two Arguments. 1. All who have the gift of prophecy are Prophets: But all that have the gift are not Officers. Ans. If these Prophets were ordinary persons, I deny the major, for then besides the gift, they must be ordained (as in other ordinary cases:) But if these Prophets were extraordinary persons, I deny the minor, for the very having of such a gift extraordinarily inspired, is an immediate call, and makes them extraordinary Officers, as it was in the Prophets of the old Testament. Arg. 2. That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth, was not an Office but a gift: For 1. God no where promised to make every one an Officer there. 2. This was impossible, for then all the body had been the eye; and if these were extraordinary Officers, much less might they covet to be such: But now this prophesying they ought and might covet in faith. v. 1. 39 Ans. 1. The major is denied: 1. An Office might be coveted as well as a gift, 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if any man) desire the Office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work. Yea an extraordinary Office might be coveted, as is evident from the desires and endeavours of the sons of the Prophets in the old Testament. 2. Let our Brethren show where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts, and I will show them where God promised to every one of them to be Officers. 3. If extraordinary gifts might be desired, (as our Brethren say) why not an extraordinary Office? If an extraordinary Office might not be desired, this is either because this is an Office, or because it is extraordinary; not because it is an Office, that hinders not but it may be coveted, as we have shown; nor, because it is extraordinary, for then extraordinary gifts might not be desired. That extraordinary gifts might be desired, appears from the very words cited by our Brethren, 1 Cor. 14. 1. Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy; whence it is most evident, that not only prophesying, but the other gifts mentioned there, i. e. of tongues, interpretation, etc. were to be desired: So that our brethren's Argument is feeble to prove this to be an ordinary gift, because it was to be desired. 4 For every member in the Church of Corinth to be an Officer was not impossible: True, it was impossible for all to be Officers there in that Church, but not to be Officers in other places: And this I would desire our Brethren to ruminate upon, whether, supposing, that all the members of the Church of Corinth might in faith desire, and so obtain gifts fitting them for Office (which our Brethren grant) & supposing that the exigencies of the Church required their Office-relation, which might well have been in those times, and that their being in other callings ought not to hinder it (as our Brethren sufficiently intimate, pag. 53.) I say, whether, supposing these things, it were either impossible or unlawful for every member of the Church of Corinth to desire to be an Officer, where he might be serviceable to the Church: That in this case it is unlawful or impossible, I suppose our Brethren will not readily say; and if they say it, nothing more easy then to disprove it: And if they grant it to be possible and lawful, than all their Argument falls to the ground, than every member ought in duty, and might in faith, covet, as to have gifts necessary for an Office, so (in due order and fit time) to be Officers, though not in that Church, yet in some Church, which is enough to our purpose. Add to this that if this prophecy be an Office, this is no more than that wish of Moses so much insisted upon, at least according to their sense of it, I would that all the Lords people were Prophets. And thus I have shown the insufficiency of their proofs alleged for the defence of their first and most considerable Position, That the prophesying here spoken of, is a gift, not an Office: This Position they uphold only by two Arguments, which I hope any ingenuous Reader will discern to be so far answered, that they have no great reason to be confident upon these grounds: And yet I must entreat the Reader to consider, that here lies the great stress of the cause; for if it be not a bare gift, (which you have seen our Brethren cannot prove) but an Office, than the preaching of these Prophets is no warrant nor example for the preaching of any that are not Officers: Now although I might acquiesce here, for as much, as, if any assert that these were barely gifted men, it lies upon them to prove it; yet, ex abundanti, there is a reason given, whereby it doth more than probably appear, that these Prophets were Officers. In the mean time, let this be remembered, that if we could not prove that these preachers, 1 Cor. 14. were Officers (no more than they can prove that they were only gifted persons) yet our cause stands unshaken, and all that would follow in that case would be this, that this place must be laid aside, both by our Brethren, and by us, as not demonstrative to the point in hand. This being premised, I come to our Argument, which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers, and (which is most considerable) placed before the Evangelists. I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath. They say, Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words; seeing ofttimes the worse is placed before the better, as Priscilla before Aquila, the woman before the man, p. 93. And thus far it is true, that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity; and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first, sometimes last, so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded, and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted, especially when it is punctually observed, that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned, they are placed next after the Apostles, and that this is done so solemnly, and with such emphatical words, 1 Cor. 12. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, etc. And as it may fairly be collected, that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers, because generally they are placed first, and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them, because generally they are placed last, so also it is considerable (and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it, were it for their cause, as much as it is against it) that Prophets are generally placed in the second order. For what they add, If Prophets be Officers, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets, who did foretell of future events, as Acts 11. yet this hinders not, but this prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift, etc. Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets, (that I may accommodate my discourse to our brethren's conceptions) to foretell future events; for judas and Silas as Prophets, did exhort, Acts 15. 32. 2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets, the one by Office, the other by gift, as it is but a begging of the question, so it will by wise and indifferent Readers, be looked upon but as subterfuge, and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles, two sorts of Evangelists, etc. the one by Office, the other by gift? It had been somewhat tolerable, if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesy, but not called Prophets (seeing, as our Brethren say, the doing of some Acts occasionally, as v. g. ones teaching occasionally, doth not denominate a man a teacher) but seeing they are also called Prophets; impartial men will easily gather, that they are the same which are known by that name in other places. Thus much for the first Proposition; which being dispatched, I now come to the second, and shall try whether that succeed better in our brethren's hands; and that is, That Prophesying is an ordinary gift, and still continuing in the Church. This they undertake to prove as follows: Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use, and no Gospel Rule can be showed for the repeal or ceasing of it, p. 96. Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two ways. 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it: or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it. Who knows not that the gift of Tongues, predication, and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased? and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus, because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them. Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary, Ergo still continuing. Ans. The proposition is altogether needless, for if it be ordinary that is sufficient, and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provincial Assemby (that this Prophesying is extraordinary) And therefore let us hear what they have to say, or what they allege to prove it ordinary. For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to, p. 97. I shall only say this, Wise men before they had made such a bold charge (especially making use of the dreadful Name of the Lord) would have understood the grounds of it, which indeed are none at all: for the Authors of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici, were only three or four reverend City Ministers, whereof one or two are since gone out of the City; and, not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth: And being different persons, though agreeing in the main of this controversy; it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance: however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose, i. e. that the gift was extraordinary. Besides, I suppose, our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction, for these two may very well consist together, to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift, and yet the ordinary Pastors of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation: And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church, it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastors of that Church quoad exercitium muneris: And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin. regim▪ affirm, and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts, i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastors of that Church and yet both grant, that for their gifts they were extraordinary; and that is the thing now in question: So that in stead of a contradiction feigned, here is a real agreement found out; all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose: and all asserting, 1. That these Prophets were Officers. 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts: To which their special relation to Corinth, and residence there, and doing the acts of Pastors is no more a prejudice, than it was to the Apostles, who though they were extraordinary Officers, yet some of them at some times were as Pastors to some Churches, etc. which occasioned that apprehension that james was Bishop of jerusalem, etc. That this Prophesying was ordinary, our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove. Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary, p. 100 Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers. Extraordinary Officers, 1. Must act orderly. 2. Must speak in a known language, 3. Must speak to edification. 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers, yea people also, as the Provincial Assembly fully proves; of which our Brethren take no notice: Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine. Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary, i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation, and comfort. Ans. 1. This also was the work of Apostles. 2. The work indeed was ordinary, but the manner of doing it was extraordinary, in as much as these did it infallibly, and by immediate revelation. Arg. 3. But here is no mention of extraordinary work, of a gift of predication, which is required to all extraordinary Prophets, but the contrary is intimated, and this prophesying is here said to be, not a sign for them that believe not (which predication of events is) but for them that believe. Ans. 1. Date non concesso, that these Prophets had not the gift of prediction, that no way hinders but they might be extraordinary Officers, for besides this they had another extraordinary gift, to wit, a gift of infallible teaching by immediate revelation. Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of predication, that we read of, and yet I hope our Brethren will give them their pass for extraordinary Officers. 2. For my part I am prone to conceive (and let our Brethren disprove it) that the predication of future events was rather a privilege indulged to some New Testament Prophets, than common to all Prophets: The gift of miracles was a gift bestowed upon Prophets, and yet some wanted it; for john (though a Prophet) yet did no miracle, joh. 10. 41. However, the great and principal work of these New Testament Prophets (and the old also) was preaching, etc. and therefore (although these Prophets, 1 Cor. 14 had the gift of predication) yet it is no wonder that the title of prophesying should be appropriated to the most common principal, Analogum per se positum sum●●ur pro famosiore analogata. and famous part of the work, which is preaching. 3. And how poor an evidence is this to prove, that these Prophets could not foretell future events, because it is not mentioned in this Chapter? the rather because he here speaks of the Prophets, not in relation to unbelievers (for whose-sake the gift of prediction was given) but in relation to believers, and to the Church, and concerning the ordering of the work of prophesying or preaching in and to the Church-assembly. 4. We readily grant all which can be proved from this place, which is only this, that the preaching of these Prophets (for it is that act of the Prophets which is here called prophesying) is not for them that believe not, but for them that believe: It is not said, that these Prophets were given not for a sign to them that believe not, etc. (which had been more to the purpose) but that, that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a sign, etc. 5. If they had not that particular extraordinary gift of predication, yet had they divers other extraordinary gifts, as that of Tongues, and the interpretation of them, etc. and that was sufficient to make the persons extraordinary, though they wanted some other extraordinary gift. Arg. Public Prophesying extraordinary was allowed to women, Luke 2. 36, 38. But this public Prophesying was not allowed to women, v. 34. let your women keep silence; Therefore this public Prophesying was ordinary p. 102. Ans. That extraordinary Prophesying was allowed to women in public, either in the old or new Testament, hath been often said and supposed; but never yet could I see it proved; nor can one instance be given of it, that I know of, to wit, that any woman did preach in a public Assembly; and there lies the stress: Anna might speak to all, i. e. severally, as they came by turns to the Temple, and so might Priscilla occasionally speak privately, as she had opportunity: And indeed we read that when she preached, she chose to do it privately, Act. 18. But neither of them in a public Assembly. But that Argument is so fully handled by others, that I shall not need to dilate upon it here. And thus we have seen how infirm our brethren's Arguments are, which are brought to prove that this Prophesying was ordinary. In the next place I should come to lay down Arguments to prove that it was extraordinary: I shall not insist upon all the Arguments used to prove it: Some were proposed by Dr. Collings, and are by him vindicated in his last piece; others I dare venture to stand upon their own legs, and refer the comparing of them and the Answers here given to any indifferent Reader: And besides, Dr. Collings hath eased me of that burden. This only I take notice of, that this Prophesying was by revelation, v. 26. Every one (i. e. of you Prophets) hath a Psalm, a Doctrine, a Tongue, a revelation, an interpretation. And v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. To which our Brethren answer two things. 1. They say, All these enumerated were not extraordinary: A Doctrine is ordinary; the ordinary Elders have a Doctrine, p. 103. Reply. It is true of ordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine; it is true also of extraordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine, but not both in the same way; in the one it was extraordinary, in the other ordinary, so that from the bare mention of a Doctrine, it can neither be collected that that Doctrine was ordinary, nor that it was extraordinary, but that must be gathered from the circumstances of the place; and for this place, whereas the Office here spoken of is extraordinary (as we have proved) and the word Doctrine is at least ambiguous: It is more probable that this Doctrine is meant of an extraordinary kind (as the rest are which are there enumerated) than that it is meant of an ordinary Doctrine, when nothing else here spoken of s ordinary. 2. They say that the word revelation is sometimes taken for a revelation in an ordinary way, that is by the word, etc. Ans. That is readily granted, and needed no proof, but it must be added that sometimes also it is taken in an extraordinary sense; so that now we are to inquire which way it is to be taken here, and which way the circumstances of the text restrain that common word: Now that it is meant of extraordinary revelation four things will procure belief with unbiased Readers. 1. That the word is of the present tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be revealed, not if it have been revealed, as it should have been, for the revelation of the word was passed. 2. The posture in which it is revealed, when he sitteth by. 3. The effect of such a revelation, that it gives a stop to the others discourse: 4. That this revelation was not common to all the Church, but peculiar to these Prophets, and not common to all the Prophets neither, but peculiar to one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some one that sitteth by, and therefore surely it cannot be the revelation by the Word, which is common to all the Prophets, yea, all the Church. Nor is there any weight in what is further objected by our Brethren, that if this revelation should command silence to a Prophet speaking by immediate revelation, than the same Spirit should clash with itself: For though these Prophets did speak by immediate revelation, yet not so as that they did not at all exercise their ordinary gifts, or that they never spoke as ordinary men: For even the Prophets and Apostles themselves, sometimes spoke their own private opinions: And why might not these Prophets after the delivery of their revelation amplify it, and open it according to their private opinion, by the help of their excellent, though ordinary gifts? which (though they were much to be valued and respected) yet well might be corrected by some immediate revelation manifested to another. But (say they) this requiring the first to hold his peace, doth not necessarily forbid his proceeding so far as he intended, or command a sudden silence, etc. but only commandeth so to contract a man's discourse, as there may be opportunity for others. And I confess nothing is more easy then to dictate; This is soon said, but if you ask our Brethren for a proof, I am afraid they will stick in the mire: In the mean time, they having offered no proof for it, must needs allow me to rely as much upon my affirmation, which yet is not mine, but the Apostles, as they upon their negation. It is plain from the words, that it was a thing that fell out beyond expectation, and therefore is brought in conditionally, If any thing be revealed, which condition was needless, if the revelation spoken of was ordinary and common. And this may be abundantly sufficient for the Vindication of this place, from which I may justly expect this fruit, that ingenuous men of a contrary mind to us, may abate some of their confidence, and see cause to make a further enquiry into this point then yet they have made. And this may suffice for Answer to their Arguments, whereby they attempt to prove that gifted persons may preach. Let us now see, whether we have not more convincing Arguments to prove that they may not preach: Albeit this must needs be said, that in course of disputations, it is not incumbent upon us to prove the Negative, but upon them to prove the Affirmative, Asserenti incumbit probatio. So that I might here take take up, and having shown the invalidity of their Arguments, I might supersede further trouble: And this memorandum I shall leave upon the file, that this Assertion of our Brethren, That unordained persons may preach ordinarily, is neither commanded by any Gospel precept, nor countenanced by any Gospel example (which hitherto hath been alleged.) But because our Arguments, whereby we have proved our Assertion, are assaulted by our Brethren, it will be convenient to say something by way of Vindication. CHAP. VII. THe first Argument is put into our hands by the Apostle, and it is Rom. 10. 15. How shall they preach except they be sent? i. e. How can they do it lawfully? The sum of our brethren's Answer lies in this, That the mission here spoken of, is not Ministerial, whereby they are constituted in their office; but providential, whereby they are sent into any place: and that this mission is indeed necessary to preaching, i. e. naturally, not morally; As it is true, How can a man preach except he have health, strength, etc. And besides, it may be morally necessary, and yet not constitutive of a Minister: For it is morally necessary to a Ministers preaching, i. e. lawfully, that he have all the Gospel qualifications required to a Preacher, and yet though he want some of these, he may be constituted a Minister. To which I Reply, 1. To the last clause, there is an apparent fallacy, which will plainly appear by this one distinction, That a man's preaching may be unlawful two ways; 1. Circumstantially, when there is a defect in the principles, or in the manner of acting, etc. 2. Substantially, when there is a defect in the substance of the act, both as to the matter and manner of it: When a Minister wants some necessary qualification, etc. he preacheth lawfully for the substance of the act, though he sins in the manner of acting; but when one that preacheth wanteth mission, the very substantial act of preaching is unlawful. As when a Magistrate acts vaingloriously, he sins in the manner of his acting, but his act is lawful in itself; but when a man usurps the power of a Magistrate, there he sins in the substance of the act, because he wants authority, etc. Or as it is in the case of the Lords Supper, it is wholly unlawful for a scandalous sinner to receive it, but it is lawful for a regenerate man (though weak in grace) to receive it, though he sins in the receiving of it. In a word, the act is lawful, quoad specificationem actus, for the kind of it, and per se; though it is sinful, quoad exercitium actus, in the exercise of it, and per accidens. 2. It must be granted that the word sending is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taken variously in diyers places: Sometimes it is taken for the mission of a person already authorized to any place or people, but sometimes also it is taken for the authorization of a person to a work or office, yea, so it is frequently taken as joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you, i. e. As the Father authorized and sealed me to the Office of a Mediator, so do I authorise you to be Apostles, etc. 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent (i. e. commissionated me) not to baptise, but to preach. John 1. 6. A man sent of God. Thus Christ often said, that he was sent, in Answer to that Question of his enemies, By what authority dost thou these things? 3. This providential mission, and Ministerial mission need not to be opposed to one another, but may well consist together: A providential sending of a Minister to any place (such as that of Paul, Acts 16. to Macedonia) doth not at all exclude, but rather presuppose a Ministerial' mission, that Paul was an Apostle before hand. Nay indeed upon further search these will be found to be much coincident: How can they preach unless they be sent? Sent, by whom? They say, by God: Well then, we must inquire in the Scripture how God sends Preachers: Thus much is apparent, that God sends them by some call (distinct from the gifting of them.) Whether this call be by people, or by Officers, that is another dispute, which now I shall not meddle with; this is sufficient to our purpose, A call authorising men to preach, is that whereby God sends men to the work of preaching: If they were extraordinary Officers, than God sent them ofttimes immediately; if ordinary, than God sent them by the ministry and mediation of men: And all those that were providentially sent by God to any place, were called either one way or the other; And this calling or designation of them to their office and work, is that which is commonly known by the name of Sending. This authorization of Isaiah, is called the sending of him, Isa 6. So it is called sending by Moses, Exod. 4. And this sending is that which is denied to the false Prophets, jer. 23. 21. I have not sent them; were this meant of a providential sending, this were not true, for so God did send them; and therefore the meaning is, I did not authorise them. In this sense also Christ bids us pray the Lord, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest: How send them? for that, let Christ's example interpret Christ's words, He sent forth the twelve, Matth. 10. i. e. by giving them Command and Commission: So Luke 10. 1. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them— And conformable to this, was the example of the Apostles, who used to send men into the Ministry, by fasting and prayer, and laying on of hands; and this way of Sending is granted on all hands, our Brethren cannot deny it: But for another way of sending that remains yet to be proved. Hitherto we have had no example of it, as hath been seen. 4. Let it be considered that our Brethren observe that this is brought in as a justification of the calling of the Gentiles, and of the sending of Preachers to them by the Apostles, which the Jews grumbled at: Upon which I ground this inference, That the cannot here, How can they preach unless they be sent, must be understood of a moral impossibility, and not of a natural impossibility, as our Brethren would have it: For if it be taken of a natural impossibility, it is false, for though the Apostles had not sent them, they might have gone of their own accord, or some other way: But if you take it for a moral impossibility, it runs smoothly; Whereas you Jews grumble at us for sending Preachers to the Gentiles, we do no more than what is necessary; for seeing God hath promised that the Gentiles shall be saved by calling upon the Lord, and they cannot call on God without believing, nor believe without hearing, nor hear without preaching, nor preach without sending, i. e. not preach lawfully, unless they be sent, either by an immediate call, or else by us or others, who are authorized by God for that work, and therefore we are not to be blamed for sending of them. Exc. But (say they) all the other interrogations are to be understood of a natural impossibility; It is naturally impossible for one to call upon him on whom he believes not, or to believe on him of whom he hears not, etc. and that this only is meant of a moral impossibility, will be hard to conclude. But the Answer is easy, That it is a very frequent thing in Scripture, for the same word to be used in divers senses; as, Let the dead (i. e. spiritually) bury the dead (i. e. corporally.) And (to keep to the very phrase) the word cannot is thus used, jer. 13. 23. Can the Aethiopian change his skin? etc. There is a natural impossibility, then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil, there is a moral impossibility: So in that comparison of our Saviour, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, there is a natural impossibility; How can ye being evil, speak good things, here is a moral impossibility. 5. If this be only a providential mission, by which these Preachers are here said to be sent, than none at all are excluded; nay the very devils themselves, if they should preach Christ (as they did sometimes in possessed persons) must necessarily be taken into the number of the Preachers here spoken of, (for even such would be providentially sent) than which what can be more absurd. And I wish our Brethren would duly consider that there is a necessity of granting one of these two things; either that the devils may be the Preachers here spoken of, or that the mission here spoken of is not providential. I shall add no more upon this account, only there are some Arguments which they offer to prove that this mission here spoken of is not constitutive of a Minister. 1. They say, The Apostles were Officers and yet had mission afterward, Mat. 28. 19 Ans. 1. Officers indeed they were while Christ lived, they were constituted Preachers, Matth. 10. but they were not Apostles of the Gentiles until Matth. 28. and therefore it is not strange that when they were inaugurated to that new and solemn work, they had a new and solemn mission. 2. This Argument is founded upon the ambiguity of the word sent, or mission, which sometimes is taken for a man's authorising to a work, and so they had but one mission to one kind of work; sometimes for a bare disposal of them to this or that particular place or work, and in this case they might have a hundred missions: God sent Paul to Macedonia, and to Corinth, and to Rome, etc. yet surely our Brethren will not make all these to be several missions in the sense of the present dispute. 2. Mission (they say) may be repealed (so cannot a call to an Office:) Mat. 10. & 28. compared. Ans. That is taken off already: The Apostles had in each place a distinct call to a distinct work. 3. They say, The seventy Disciples had mission to preach, who were not Officers that we find. Ans. 1. This is a contradiction, for if they had a mission from Christ, that made them Officers, at least protempore; for what is the making of one an Officer, but a solemn designation of him for that work, by a person empowered to authorise him. 2. They might be Officers, though we do not read of it. 4. They say, Then the instructions of none can be useful to work faith, but of Officers only; for this hearing is necessary to believing. Ans. That follows not, for though the only ordinary means of begetting faith, is the hearing of a Gospel-Minister, yet God is not bound up, he may and doth oft times use private instructions of private men to that end: And as it follows not, that it is simply impossible for a man to believe that heareth no Preacher, because the Apostle saith, How shall they hear without a Preacher? (seeing God may work faith by immediate inspiration) so it follows not that it is simply impossible for any man to be converted by hearing of one who is not ordained, etc. because the Apostle saith, How shall they preach unless they be sent? But this only follows from both, that the hearing of a Preacher sent, is the only ordinary means of working faith and salvation. But we must not part thus, our Brethren add that this text is not cogent, because though it did prove a necessity of a mission, yet it doth not prove a necessity of ordination (which was the thing to be proved) seeing this mission is not Ordination. Ans. I shall not contend about words, nor is it pertinent to enter into a particular dispute about Ordination. This is sufficient for our purpose, this mission is not the bare gifting of them, but it is an authorising of them to the work, or the giving of them commission to preach: Now there are but two Scripture ways of giving men commission to preach that we know of, the one extraordinary, from God immediately (which our Brethren have too much modesty to pretend) the other ordinary, by men setting them apart to that work (whether the Officers set them apart in the Name of Christ, or in the Name of the Church, all is one as to this question) it sufficeth us that some solemn designation or setting apart is necessary, and that gifted men may not preach merely because they are gifted, unless they have some further call or mission; which although our Brethren here seem to grant, (in saying that the bare gifting of men is not the sending of them) yet indeed they are obliged to deny by virtue of their interpretation of that Text, 1 Pet. 4. 11. where the mere having of that gift is propounded as a sufficient ground to put a man upon the use of it. But however let us hear what they have to prove that this mission is not Ordination. 1. They say, We cannot find it. Ans. If you cannot find it in express terms, yet others have found it in clear consequences. 2. Then Deacons are sent, for they were ordained, Acts 6. 6. Ans. Very true, Deacons were sent and had mission: What advantage can our Brethren pick out thence? 3. Mission may be repeated. Ans. That was answered before. 4. A Parochial Presbytery, if sufficient, etc. may ordain one for that Church, but they cannot send one to themselves. Ans. 1. That Presbytery doth not send an Officer in such a case to themselves, but to the Church, and so there is a sufficient distinction between the person sending, and the person sent. 2. A local distinction is not necessary between the person sent, and the persons to whom a man is sent. Isaiah was sent to the whole house of Israel; now put case Isaiah be in the Temple when he is sent, and with him divers Jews, I say, he is in Scripture phrase sent as well to those that are locally present, as to those that were absent. 5. They add, That mission is propounded at the end of Ordination, Mark 3. 14. And he ordained twelve, that— he might send them forth to preach. Ans. 1. The strength of this Argument lies in the ambiguity of the word Sent, which, as we readily grant, sometimes it signifies a local mission to a place, so again, at other times it signifies a constitutive mission to an Office. 2. Though the words in the English make some show for them, yet indeed if one look into the Greek, it is but a mere show, for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acquisivit, comparavit, he got, procured, took twelve into his family, bred them up under his roof, that he might fit them for, and so send them into the work of the Ministry; so that indeed the word whereby their Ordination is signified, is plainly that of sending; and the other, however it came to be rendered by our Translators, he ordained (who neither meant it in such a sense as our Brethren do, nor ever dreamt that it would be so made use of) yet indeed signifies nothing but barely the taking of them into his family, his constituting of them members of his family, and not his ordaining of them to be Officers in his Church. And thus I have dispatched all that hath any moment, which is alleged by our Brethren, as to this place. There are divers other things they add, which being less material, I may trust the judgement of any common Reader with them; as when they say, It is not a Church, nor a Presbytery, but Christ who sends Ministers: Which if they understand thus, that Christ only doth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sovereignly, authoritatively, they have not us for their adversaries; but if they so mean it (as they must, or else it is nothing to the purpose) that men cannot send 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministerially, it is too gross to be believed by any man that reads the New Testament, and therein finds so many rules and examples of Gods sending by the Ministry of men, as Acts 6. Acts 13, etc. So when they say, That the mission of Ministers is not by a Presbytery, but by the Word; and that Christ's command to go and preach, is a mediate calling to all lawful preachers, though no Presbyters should urge it upon them; and that a Presbytery only sends in a Doctrinal way, as a private Christian also may do, by saying, Go and Teach. Where we have almost as many absurdities as words. 1. Two things are opposed that aught to be conjoined, to wit, the Agent and the Rule, the Presbytery sends, but this they must do according to the Word. 2. All manner of calling, either by a Presbytery, or by a Church, is made wholly superfluous; For they here plainly assert, that Christ's saying, Go preach, is a calling and a mediate calling to all lawful Preachers, and that gifted men are lawful Preachers, is their great business to prove; and if they say a call is further necessary, here is a call reaching to all gifted men: I am much mistaken if many of their own Brethren of the Congregational way, will not reject and abhor such loose assertions as these. 3. They allow as much to a private Christian, as to a Presbytery, both of them send in a doctrinal way. But the very mention of these Paradoxes is an ample Confutation. And thus much for the first Argument. CHAP. VIII. THe second is taken from Heb. 5 4, 5. No man taketh this honour, etc. but he that is called of God— To this they Answer two things. 1. If this prove a call, yet it proves not a call by imposition of hands, which is that they contend for. Ans. We are not now meddling with that particular kind of call, nor is this place alleged to prove it, but only to prove this in the general, that notwithstanding the highest gifts and qualifications fitting them for any Office, they must also have a call and designation to that Office, and that remains unshaken by all that they have said. 2. They say, he speaks not of Gospel Ministers, but of Priests, and of the high Priests only, which are an higher order than Ministers, and prefigured Christ, and it follows not, because a call was necessary to the highest order of Officers, therefore it must be necessary to an inferior order. Reply 1. Let me take the boldness to question whether the Gospel Ministers are an inferior order to the high Priest or no? If it be affirmed upon this ground, because they are types of Christ, then upon that account the inferior Priests were of an higher order. (That I say not, the goats, and sheep, and bulls, etc. which also were types of Christ) If this be the reason, because they expiated sin, they did it only Ministerially and Declaratively, and by typifying and applying the true expiatory sacrifice; and that also is the Office of a Gospel-Minister, joh. 20. 23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted.— However it is, sure I am the Lord Jesus doubts not to prefer john the Baptist before all the old Testament Officers, and that in regard of his work, and to prefer the meanest New Testament Minister before him. 2. If the work of the high Priest was higher, and that must be weighed on the one hand, then let it be weighed on the other hand, that the gifts of Christ were more glorious. And this assertion I may venture to lay down, that Jesus Christ had more warrant to undertake the highest Office in the Church without a call, than one who is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere man hath to take the meanest Office without a call. The third and fourth Arguments I shall omit, because there is nothing that I find in our brethren's Answer, which will need a Reply. The fifth Argument is taken from those rules laid down about the calling of men into the Ministry, and about the trial of their qualifications, and one main reason of it was this, that false Doctrine might be prevented, 1 Tim. 1. 3, 4. 'tis 1. 5, 9, 10. To this they Answer, 1. This concludes for the ordaining of Officers only, not against the preaching of gifted brethren, who lay no claim to the Office. Reply. The best clew for the guiding of us in the interpretation of every Law is the reason of the Law: Now if one great reason why the Apostle was so careful to try and approve of Officers, etc. was this, to prevent false Doctrine; then upon the same account, he was obliged to be as careful to try all Preachers, for else he had made a hedge about the sheep, and yet left one gap open, which indeed was enough to frustrate the design of the hedge: What if none be allowed to be shepherds by Office, but such as are called, will it not be of as bad consequence, if the wolves be allowed to take upon them the exercise of the shepherd's work? We see by experience, some gifted men preaching occasionally and disseminating their pernicious opinions, have done more to poison the people, than an able Minister by his instant and diligent labours could do to preserve and nourish them. What is the ground of the Apostles strictness in admitting men into the Ministry (Lay hands suddenly on no man) but this, the difficulty and importance of the work? And what work is more difficult and important than that of preaching, to do it as becomes the Gospel? Paul prefers it before the rest, 1 Cor. 1. And in regard of this work, it is that he cries out, Who is sufficient for these things? 2 Cor. 2. 16. So that it were a strange incongruity and self-contradiction for the Apostle to use so much care in the constitution of Office-Preachers, and yet to be wholly careless as to another sort of Preachers, who may preach frequently (yea as often as the other, according to our brethren's Principles) without coming under such a harsh and ungrateful examination and ordination. 2. They say, There aught to be care to choose Officers that are sound in the Faith, but this the people must look to in election. Ans. But this relieves them not, for what care shall be taken as to their gift-Preachers, who may preach without the Church's election, nay are under a command to preach, as they are pleased to expound 1 Pet. 4. a command of God I say, which no man can dispense with: I know our Brethren say, that to a man's exercise of his gifts in this or that place, there is required a call from the people or the Magistrate, p. 149. But this will not help them; for I demand, whether in case the Apostles had neither been called by people nor Magistrate, Whether that had been a sufficient discharge to them from the execution of their Office? I trow not: Nay they preached when they were forbidden; and why? but for the reason now mentioned, to wit, that they were under a command of God, which no mortal man could dispense with: And therefore if gifted men are under a like command, pressed with the highest penalties, to preach (as our Brethren say) they may and must preach, though they have no call, neither from people nor Magistrate. The sixth Argument I am sure will stand upon its own legs, taken from that confusion which will necessarily come into the Church by this means, which indeed the sad experience of our Church in these days doth so unquestionably demonstrate, that I shall need to confute him that denies it, only as the Philosopher did confute him that said there was no motion by walking before him; so I shall only point him unto real Arguments, and desire him to make use of his own eyes, reason and observation, and he will quickly be of the same opinion. But these Arguments were not directly levied against our Brethren, (whom we acknowledge to be more sober) but against such as pleaded for a promiscuous assumption of the Office. The next Position laid down by the Provincial Assembly indeed doth more nearly concern them, which is this, That none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordination. CHAP. IX. ANd to this purpose they urge eight Arguments, which to me still seem very considerable, and my persuasion is, that if any judicious man of another mind, could but redeem himself from the prevailing power of prejudice, and duly ponder our Arguments and their Answers, he will find that all the assaults they make against them are vain and ineffectual: But it shall not be taken upon my word. I will 1. propound our Arguments. 2. Take notice of their Answers; wherein I promise them not disingenuosly to conceal or neglect any thing wherein their strength lies. 3. I shall add something (where it is needful) for the vindication of those Arguments. Arg. 1. That work, for the doing of which, God hath designed special Officers of his own, neither aught, nor may be done by any others; But God hath designed special Officers for this work of preaching. The minor is granted; but all the doubt lies about the major, and that is the Proposition which our Brethren deny, and they give three instances to the contrary; Prayer is the special work of Ministers, Acts 6. 4. We will give ourselves to prayer: And so is exhorting and reproving, etc. 'tis 1. 5, etc. Distribution of worldly goods is the Deacons work, and yet others may Pray, Exhort and Rebuke, give Alms, etc. Reply 1. For Prayer, it is true, it is the duty of all men, and of Ministers more than others, but that it was a work for which the Office of the Ministry was appointed, neither doth this text assert, nor did ever any man dream, and so that is wholly impertinent to the case in hand: One may as well say, that the Office of the Ministry was designed for the work of hospitality, because they especially must be given to hospitality, 1 Tim. 3. 2. as to say, that it was designed for the work of prayer, because they especially must give themselves to prayer. 2. For the Deacons work, that is not barely the distribution of worldly goods, but the distribution of the Church's goods (which our Brethren here do either subtly or unwarily, which I rather think, confound) and this latter none but the Deacon may do, so that this may be retorted upon them, that as the appointment of the Deacon for that work of distributing the Church's alms, is a sufficient reason to prove that no private man ought to do it, so also is the appointment of a Minister, for the work of preaching, a sufficient intimation that other persons may not undertake that work. 3. For that work of reproving and exhorting, they may do it, but privately, not publicly. Against this our Brethren object two things. 1. If an Officer rebuketh a member in private, this he doth as an Officer, so that the publicness of an act is not necessary to make it an act of Office. Reply. This depends upon a mere mistake. It is one thing to say the publicness of the act of exhorting, etc. makes it an act of Office, or that a public act is an act of Office, that we affirm. It is another thing to say that no act but a public act is an act of Office (as our Brethren mistake it) this we affirm not, nor is it for our purpose to assert it; nay, we assert that an Officers private rebuke is an act of Office. 2. They say, If it be the different way and manner of acting, that maketh an act to be an act of Office, than their Argument concerns not the work itself, but the manner of working, and so all which it proves is this, that none ought to do the Officers work in the same manner as he doth it, i. e. not officially, and this we readily grant. Reply. Our Argument concerns the work, but than it must be the work in question, and that our Brethren well know was not exhorting in general, but public exhorting: But of this more hereafter. It must now be remembered, that the Provincial Assembly confirmed the major by three Arguments. The first was this, Because God hath severely punished such as have done those works, for which he hath appointed special Officers, as Saul, Uzzah. To this our Brethren Answer two things. 1. That these were cases of necessity, and so if they prove any thing, they prove that gifted men may not preach, no, not in a case of necessity, which is allowed by yourselves. Reply. The case is not parallel, nor is the necessity alike, of Preaching and Sacrificing; Preaching (as our Brethren will grant) is absolutely necessary to salvation, so is not Sacrificing; nor was Sacrificing necessary in that case for Israel's deliverance (if God had denied an opportunity of sacrificing) I conceive the parallel will lie right between their sacrifices and our Sacraments, neither of which are necessary to salvation, necessitate medii. And hereby the Argument will receive further light and strength, i. e. Because God hath appointed peculiar Officers for the administration of our Sacraments (as well as their Sacrifices) therefore they ought not to be administered by persons out of Office, no, not in any case of a pretended necessity (forasmuch as there is no absolute and real necessity of either Sacrifices or Sacraments to salvation.) And thus far our Brethren must consent with us, unless they will turn gross separatists, and allow a liberty also for gifted men to administer the Sacraments, which I am confident they will not. 2. They say the case is not alike; for there was an express prohibition of these acts to any, except Officers, Num. 4. 15. & 16. 40. Numb. 1. 5. & Numb. 18. 22, 23. The preaching of gifted men is not thus forbidden: And besides not only the manner but the matter of these works were forbidden to others. Reply. A thing may be prohibited two ways, either in express terms, or by solid consequence: I suppose our Brethren are far from that dotage which divers Anabaptists and Socinians run into, that we are not to be satisfied with Scripture consequences, but to look for express Scripture, as if men must not believe what God saith, unless he speak it in their way: There are many things confessedly unlawful, which are not prohibited in express terms, but only by some general rules and Scripture consequences: What if I should keep to the instance of Uzzah? who was punished not principally, at least not solely, because he did touch the Ark with his hands, but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders; which the Levites were to do: Now (I say) as in this case, Gods command that the Ark should be carried upon the Levites shoulders, was a command that it should be carried so only, and it was a prohibition to the Levites or any other, to carry it any other way; so in our case, God's appointment of Officers to preach, is a prohibition to others to invade that work. Again, let me make this supposition (which no ingenuous man can disallow of,) Suppose that Paul had not expressly prohibited women to preach, I desire our Brethren to answer me, whether, in that case, it had been lawful for gifted women to preach publicly or no: If they say yea, than I argue thus against them, that Paul doth not establish a new Law, but revives and interprets an old Law, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence— for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as saith the Law. So that it was forbidden by the Law before that time, and had been unlawful, though Paul had never prohibited it. If they say, no, than I argue thus, that an express prohibition is not necessary, for such there had not been in the case supposed, nor had women been prohibited any other way but thus, Preaching was committed unto certain men in authority, commissionated for that work: Ergo, it was prohibited to persons under authority, and because all women are under authority, therefore are they universally excluded from this work: I add further, that it is a granted case in the business of the Sacraments, the administration whereof is prohibited to all un-officed persons (our brethren themselves being Judges) and how prohibited? There is no more an express prohibition to restrain men from administering the Sacraments, then from preaching, but only it is therefore judged prohibited, because God had appointed Officers for the doing of that work, and therefore implicitly prohibited the doing of it by others; and surely the prohibition doth equally concern both preaching and administering the Sacraments by others, forasmuch as both the manner of prohibition is the same in both, and the reason of the prohibition, to wit, because Officers were appointed by God for those works: And thus I have vindicated the first proof of the major, wherein I have been the larger, because it is a principal point, and because what our Brethren excepted had some colour of reason, although I am not without hope, that our Brethren themselves by this time may see, that it was a colour only, and no substance. 2. The major was proved thus, That otherwise the Officers God hath appointed are made void, or at least unnecessary and insufficient. To this they say, This will prove as strongly that Officers are unnecessary, at least to the work of private exhortation, seeing private Christians may do it. Reply. It is very true, and naturally follows, that because private Christians may reprove privately, therefore there needed no peculiar Officers to be set apart for that work of private reproving, and if that were the whole work of a Minister, there would need no Officers for the work of the Ministry: But because there is another, and an higher work of the Ministry, which private Christians may not do, i. e. the work of public preaching, therefore it is that there are Officers appointed for it. 3. Hereby the order instituted by God in the Church is confounded. To this they say, It is not. As a Father's teaching of his children doth not destroy the order of Schoolmasters, nor take away the distinction between Master and Scholar, etc. Reply. It is true that a Father teaching privately, doth not destroy the relation of a Schoolmaster and Scholar, but if Fathers did, and might promiscuously teach in a public way, this would destroy, or at least much prejudice that comely order. In like manner, that a Father or any Christian teach others privately, is no way prejudicial to public teaching, but eminently subservient to it, and we heartily wish it were more conscientiously and diligently practised; but if public teaching were promiscuously allowed to all gifted men (whether Masters or Scholars) surely this would be repugnant to the order instituted by Christ, that one member of Christ's body should usurp the acts of another. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of the first Argument used by the Provincial Assembly. The second Argument was this, No religious service may be performed by any persons not appointed, nor warranted thereunto: But persons gifted are not appointed nor warranted thereunto. Our Brethren deny the minor, they say, gifted persons are appointed to preach. Against this, was argued as followeth, If they are appointed to preach, than every gifted man that preacheth not is guilty of a sin of omission. To this they answer, he is not guilty, if he want an opportunity, a call from others to exercise his gifts. Reply. I would gladly know whether the Apostles had been excused if they had refused to preach at all, for want of a call from men to preach; What if both Magistrates and people had not desired them to preach, whether did this give them a supersedeas or no? If they say it did, I suppose many are not of their mind, I am sure for one, that was Peter, when he was not only not called to preach, but forbidden to preach, yet he accounted it his duty to preach, Act. 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather than men. If they say it did not discharge them from preaching, than I demand why it did not; surely all the account which can fairly be given of it must be this, They were by God appointed and obliged to preach, and therefore no men can disoblige them: And upon the same ground; if gifted men were appointed by God for that work, the negligence of men not desiring them, (provided they would permit or hear them) would not disoblige them: Add to this, that whatever gifts a man hath, he is bound to exercise them wherever he can (where he is not restrained, and put under some kind of impossibility of doing it) whether he be desired or no: A Christian having received a gift of private instruction, he is obliged to instruct persons not only when they desire him, but when they do not, whenever he can have conveniency and opportunity so to do: And in like manner (if our Brethren say true, that all gifted men as such, are appointed by God to preach) if a man have a gift of public instruction, he is obliged to use it whenever he can be permitted so to do, and not only when others call him to the exercise of his gift. And this is the more forcible against them, because they reduce those preaching gifts unto the talents spoken of Mat. 25. which talents whoever useth not, is under a most dreadful curse and commination: Now, as it is in other talents, if a man have received riches, honour, parts, interest, etc. he must use and exercise them for God's glory, whether he be desired or no; so in like manner according to their hypothesis, his preaching talon must be laid out, whether the people desire it or no. Our third Argument was this, No man may do the Office of a Magistrate or Deacon, who is not called to it: Ergo none may do the Office of a Minister, who is not called thereunto. To this Argument they Answer divers things. 1. If this Argument hold, then, as no man that is no Magistrate, may do one act of the Magistrates, so no man that is not ordained, may do one act of the Minister, he may not preach once, though as a probationer, which is against our brethren's own principles. Ans. There is a double flaw in this discourse; For, 1. There is not Par ratio; there is not equal necessity of men's trials in order to both works: It is necessary a Minister should do the work of a Minister, viz. Preach in order to his Trial and Ordination to that work. But it is not necessary a man should do the work of a Magistrate in order to his trial, for his abilities may be fully known other ways. 2. In cases of necessity private men may do the work of the Magistrate: It is proper to the Magistrate to take away a man's life, and yet in a case of necessity, as if a private man be assaulted by a Rogue upon the highway, it is lawful for him, if he can, to take away his life. 2. They Answer, Care may be taken otherways, there may be approbation without Ordination. Reply. It is true, men may devise twenty ways of their own, as indeed there is a marvellous proneness in men to set up their own devises in God's worship; and whenever they are convinced of the necessity of using any means in order to an end, rather to contrive means and ways of their own, than to use such as God hath already appointed, which, I fear, is our brethren's miscarriage here: God hath appointed an Ordination, and an examination and approbation in order to Ordination, and of Ordination the Scripture speaks more clearly and frequently, than of any other approbation; nor do I remember that ever it speaks of the approbation of any Preachers, but in order to Ordination; our Brethren have forsaken this Institution of God, and introduced a new device, of approbation without Ordination. And because the occasion here leads me to it, I cannot but take notice of one thing, whereas I am informed some persons, through carelessness or oscitancy, or wilfulness, or ignorance, have taken up this conceit, that an Approbation from the Commissioners appointed for the trial of Public Preachers, is a kind of Ordination, and may serve in stead of it: I would have them here to take notice, that this is not only false in itself, but against the very words of that Act whereby they are constituted, wherein an express protestation is made (as elsewhere hath been observed) That they themselves do not intend that this shall be taken as an Ecclesiastical call, but only a Civil dispensation of the Magistrates right to particular places. And whereas it was urged, that The work of the Ministry being a work of greater consequence and difficulty, than the work of the Magistrate or the Deacon, it requires greater care. They Answer, Men may perform some works of greater consequence, who yet may not perform works of less consequence. To believe is an act of higher consequence, than to do the work of a Deacon, yet every Christian may believe. Reply. This is a mere fallacy, for though believing is a work of greater difficulty and consequence in relation to a man's self, yet not in relation to the Church and other men, and that is it we are treating of; so that the work of believing is altogether impertinent in this place, for we are speaking of such works as relate to others, and wherein there is a care required in relation to others, but believing is a work confined to a man's self. Our fourth Argument was this, None may administer the Sacraments who is uncalled; Therefore none may preach who is uncalled, for these two are joined together in that Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. and preaching is the greater work, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Our Brethren make many exceptions against this Argument. 1. They say it makes against us, For you (say they) separate between preaching and baptising, you allow men to preach probation-wise, not to administer the Sacraments probation-wise. Reply. The reason of the difference is apparent, Preaching probation-wise is simply necessary in order to their Approbation and Ordination, for the trial of their gifts, and so this preaching is in a case of necessity, and therefore allowable; but there is no necessity at all of trying their gifts by administering the Sacraments, seeing there are none of their gifts exercised there, but such as are fully discovered by their trial in preaching, etc. 2. They say, Matth. 28. is no Commission authorising them either to preach or baptise, (that Commission they had afore, Mark 10. & Joh. 4.) and therefore could not now be constituted afresh. Reply. 1. Give me leave however to propound it as my private opinion, though I shall not be positive in it, and I know there are some difficulties in the way, that the Apostles were indeed Officers before, but not Officers of the same kind, and therefore might well require another commission: If a man be a Captain in an Army, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Colonel, he must have a new Commission: If a man be a Deacon in a Church, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Minister, he needs a new Commission: If a man had been made a Pastor and Teacher in the Apostles days, this man had been an Officer; but, if he had afterwards been made an Apostle, he had needed a new Commission: And this I take to be well-nigh a parallel to our case: For the Apostles it is true, were Officers before this, but I humbly conceive they were not Apostles before this; which I think will be probable by these three Considerations. 1. That an Apostle strictly so called, was a new Testament Officer, and therefore such an Office was not in being before the new Testament began: But the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ (as all intelligent Divines grant) for that was it which rend the vail, and abolished the Jewish pedagogy. 2. They were not Apostles properly and formally, until they had apostolical gifts: But these gifts they had not before the death of Christ. 3. They wanted universality of jurisdiction (which was the constant character of an Apostle) nay indeed, so far were they from having a jurisdiction over all Nations before that time, that they had not jurisdiction over all the Jews, nor (to speak strictly) over any of the Jews, for as much as they were, till Christ death, subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priests, that being not taken away but by the death of Christ: And surely it is something strange to fancy them to be Apostles without any jurisdictions. I conclude therefore, they were rather Prophets, or extraordinary Teachers, than Apostles, (and so Mr Firmin affirms of Paul before Act. 13. Mat. 10.) and had not their Commission as Apostles, till Matth. 28. 19, 20. 2. Put case that Mat. 28. is not a formal Commission, yet it must needs be granted, that it is a renewing and confirming, and enlarging of their former Commission, and therein their work is afresh proposed to them, and enjoined upon them, and that is sufficient for our purpose; for this work is double, preaching and administering the Sacraments, which being equally imposed upon them, must by like reason be equally restrained to them, unless better grounds can be shown to the contrary, than have yet been given. 3. They say, It is denied by some that preaching is a greater work than baptising. The sealing of a Deed is a greater work than the writing of it; every Clerk may write it, but only the Conveyancer can seal it. Ans. The Question is not, whether preaching or baptising be greater in regard of the dignity of the work? but in regard of the difficulty of it: As in the instance proposed; The sealing of the Deed is a work of greater dignity, but the writing of the Deed is a work of more difficulty, and therefore belongs to him who is appointed for such works, and who hath more skill in the management of such works: So in this case, preaching which answers to the writing of the Deed, being a work of far greater difficulty, than the applying of the seal, it was requisite that greater or at least equal care should be taken in it, and that it should be managed by none but such as are both fitted for, and appointed to the work. The fifth Argument was this, To usurp authority is a sin; But Preaching is an act of Authority, and therefore for persons not in Office to preach, is to usurp Authority, and so to sin, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 7. The loss is blessed of the greater: Women must not preach, because they must not usurp Authority, 1 Tim. 2. In Preaching the key of the kingdom of Heaven is used, which is an authoritative act. Against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions, some whereof are impertinent, and some frivolous: All that hath any appearance of probability, I shall take notice of. 1. They say, Preaching is no act of Authority, for if a man preach to Heathens, where no Church is; How can he usurp authority over the Church? Reply. True, he cannot usurp authority over the Church, but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth, when Paul preached to Heathens, it was an authoritative act, no less than when he preached to the Church: He preached as an Ambassador to one as well as to the other: And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens, or such as are yet unreconciled, preacheth as in Christ's stead, it can be no other than an act of authority. 2. They say, There may be other ways to give authority to men to preach, besides Ordination. Reply. Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence: Ordination, we know, and there are clear Scriptures warranting that, and much more clear and undoubted for that, than for Election (as hath been often observed) but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorising men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination, we know none, and if our Brethren know any, they should do well to inform us. 3. For Heb 7. They say, Indeed he that blesseth by an original, inherent power, as Christ doth, he is greater than he that is blessed, and of such a blessing the Text speaketh; but he that blesseth Ministerially, and instrumentally is not always greater than he that is blessed. Reply. This is very gross, and contrary to the Text, which evidently speaks of Melchizedek, who blessed only Ministerially (and not by any original power) and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle allegeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed, and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek, it were wholly impertinent to the present cause, which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. 4. They say, There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man, so the Text runs: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, 1 Tim. 2. 12. Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture, wherein it is so familiar a thing, to use a conjunction disjunctive, or a word disjoining one thing from another, when indeed the one explains the other: Shall any, who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, thence infer that these sorcerers, etc. are not the dogs there intended, because they are distinguished from them? This would be plainly childish. And (to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction) Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel, he saith, For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of jesus Christ; where the latter is not distinct from, but expositive of the former, for how could he receive it from man, any other way then by being taught it? 2. For their phrase in this place, the Apostle hath so hemmed it in on both sides with an exegesis, that no rational man can doubt of it: On the one side of it teaching is forbidden; on the other side silence is enjoined: and nothing can be more evident, then that he speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching, and is opposed to silence. And for what they add, That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man, i. e. her husband, not over the Church. Answer, This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush: For, the man here is not to be understood singularly, for her husband (there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense) but indefinitely, for any man: For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general, not husband and wife in particular: And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands (which I believe our Brethren will not deny) then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church, not over an husband. To which may be added, that the authority here spoken of, is not an Economical, but a Political, an Ecclesiastical authority; not an authority in the Family, but in the Church; not an authority assumed in some Family administration, but in a Church affair. If it be further said (for I shall improve their Argument to the highest) that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women, allows it to the men; I Answer, It no way follows, no more than it follows, that the French Laws, when they prohibit women from usurping authority, or wielding the Sceptre, do allow it to all men; or than it would follow, if a Law were made, that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation, that therefore every man ought to do it, which is so far from being true, that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also, but all others until they were called to it. 3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrest of the Text, a parallel place will put an end to it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence— it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, as saith the Law: Whence the inference is plain and undeniable, that to speak, i. e. in the Church, is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection: And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women, therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach, for my part, this is so clear, that he that shall resist such evidence, I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man. I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things, which concern our present controversy. 1. That it is not only constant preaching, but even occasional preaching which is here forbidden them: And so, by a parity of reason, gifted men unless in case of necessity, and with order to trial for Ordination, which also is necessary, as hath been argued, may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly, is as clearly, though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition, as to preach constantly. 2. That it is the work, and not the manner of working, which is here forbidden: The very work of public preaching is here forbidden them: This I say, to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren, that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons, i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively, yet the work they may do: And why may not I have the same liberty, and apply it to the case of women, and say that they may do the work, although they cannot do it in the same manner, i. e. with authority: If I should say so, it would be easy to silence me, by saying, that the very act of preaching is spoken of, as an act of authority, and that may justly silence them too. The sixth Argument was this, The Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching. Jer. 23. 21, 22. They are reproved not only for preaching false doctrine, but for preaching without a call, for running without being sent. To this our Brethren return this strange Answer; That these were Prophets rightly called by God; and they are blamed for this that being Prophets they did not prophesy right things pag. 128. Reply. This is a little too gross, to say, they are by God called to be Prophets, of whom God professeth, They ran but he sent them not: Whether shall we believe God or our Brethren? And this is the more considerable, because it was not with Prophets as it is with ordinary Gospel-Ministers (who besides the delivery of a message to them from God, must also have a solemn mission and authorization for the work) for the Prophets had no other call then this, or at least, this was Gods usual way of calling them, he immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message: And when God vouchsafed to send such a message, that was taken for an authorization of them, or a call to be a Prophet, as plainly appears in the case of Samuel, 1 Sam. 3. where after God had delivered a message to and by Samuel, it follows, v. 20. And all Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord: And therefore on the contrary seeing these Prophets were such as had not any message at all from God that we read of) thereby it is evident that they were not Prophets, and he that faith, they were such, as he asserts it gratis, so it is plain, it is but an opinion taken up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gratify their cause. And I am persuaded had not our Brethren been hurried into this fancy by the favourable aspect it hath to their doctrine, they would have rejected it as wholly ridiculous. Whereas they urge that saying, If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, than they should have turned them from their evil way, but the Lord would not have entailed his blessing upon the labours of false Prophets. I answer. 1. As the words are here rendered, they no way oppose our doctrine, for, The standing in God's Counsel, and speaking Gods Words, implies a call, as hath been showed; as if he had said If they had waited till I had sent them, and delivered my message to them, than they might have expected a blessing. 2. It must be observed that there is another reading proposed by some learned men, which as it is very conformable to the Hebrew Text, so it is more probable in itself, and more consonant to the context, to read it thus, If they had stood in my counsel, i. e. if they had stood till I had sent them, etc. they would have profited this people and they would have turned them from their evil way; whereas now they did encourage them in it; so that he brings in this as an evidence, that they were false Prophets. The seventh Argument used by the Provincial Assembly was this: The Ministers of Christ have been as careful to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine, Cal. 1. Joh. 3. 27, 28. Luk. 20. 2. To this they say: 1. If it prove a call, yet it proves not that this call is ordination. Ans. That is not the business, to speak of this or that particular call, (that is proved in another proposition) but only in the general to show, that over and besides gifts, some other call, mission, or designation from God, either immediate, or mediate, is required; and this is sufficient against our Brethren, who assert, that any man having gifts, is eo nomine, called by God to preach, and his gifts alone sufficiently warrant him, though he have no other call. 2. They say, The reason why Paul proves his mission, was but for his doctrines sake, and although it was necessary for Paul to prove his immediate call; and to prove the divineness of the doctrines of the Gospel, yet there is no such reason to make it necessary to prove a mediate call. Reply. 1. I do not understand that the proof of Paul's extraordinary mission was necessary to prove the divineness of his doctrine, for then, those ordinary officers that preached in that time could not have proved the divineness of their doctrine. Besides, there are, and were divers other excellent and sufficient mediums to prove his doctrine by, he proved it out of the Law and the Prophets, by miracles, by ocular witnesses of Christ's resurrection, etc. It is true he proves his mission for his doctrines sake, and that makes not against us at all, but for us, seeing if Paul had preached without a call, he had given just occasion to suspect his doctrine and to doubt of the certainty of it, (because they that reject Gods warrant to the office, have no reason to promise to themselves God's blesin the work) And therefore it follows strongly, that much more ought Ministers, who have far less gifts than Paul had, to prove their mission and call, or else they must give men leave to doubt of the certainty of their doctrine. It is true (what our Brethren say) that, the proof of an ordinary call is no sufficient argument to prove the truth of the doctrine, seeing ordinary lawful Ministers may err: But yet when a man cannot prove his call, that may render his doctrine doubtful, and the reason is, because, Bonum oritur ex integris, malum ex quolibet defectu. To make a man's preaching regular many things must concur, he must be called, he must preach agreeable to the Word, etc. But the want of any one of these will make it irregular. Other things they say, but because they are trivial, I wave them, as not having such store of time as to throw it away to no purpose. The eighth and last Argument was this. That work may not be performed which cannot be performed in faith: But preaching by a gifted Brother, not called, &c. cannot be done in faith; for, 1. Such have no precept to preach. 2. There is no precept for people to hear them or maintain them. 3. They have no promise of assistance, of protection, of success, etc. To which our Brethren say something: But because they add nothing of any weight, except that which hath been said by themselves before, and by us answered; to avoid Tautologies, I shall ease myself, and Reader, of the trouble of following them: There is one thing only which is very observable, that they say nothing as to that which is most considerable in the argument, which is the matter of maintenance; which I must desire them seriously, and conscientiously to peruse, and let them take it in this form, and give me leave to improve it. All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance: But all gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers. The Major is the main thing liable to doubt, and therefore I shall prove it. Either all Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance, or only such Preachers as are in office-relation to those to whom they preach, and of whom they challenge maintenance: But not only such Preachers may challenge maintenance as are in office-relation to them; Therefore all Scripture-Preachers may challenge this maintenance. The Minor (for that only is liable to exception) I prove thus: The Apostles (say our Brethren) were only in office-relation to the Church, and other Teachers are only in office-relation to their particular Churches (as they assert) But these might challenge maintenance from others. The disciples Luke 10. had no office-relation to them to whom they preached; they were no officers in the Jewish Church, and the Christian Church was not then erected, and yet for their very work they may require maintenance. v. 7. And in the same house remain eating and drinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his hire. And Paul, where ever he sow's spirituals (though it be among heathens) he may require carnals, 1 Cor. 9 And generally in Scripture, the maintenance is rather thrown upon the work then upon the office. The double honour, 1 Tim. 5. 17. and the high estimation, 1 Thes. 5. 13. is for their works sake. And the ox that treadeth out the corn (though it may be he treadeth not out his own Masters but another man's corn) ought not to be muzzled: I would desire our brethren to answer me this question: Suppose a man will go into Wales to preach the Gospel, Whether in that case, they do not believe the people are obliged to give him carnals for his spirituals? If they affirm it (as I believe they have too much ingenuity to deny it, and the foregoing places fully evince it) than we have gained thus much, that the maintenance is not due only to such as are office-wise related to those to whom they preach, but to all Scripture-Preachers, which was the thing to be proved, and so we have secured the Major. For the Minor, it is needless to spend time about it, for our brethren grant it, and besides it speaks for itself: For if all gifted men be bound to preach (as our brethren assert) and if in Churches, many men are, and all aught to covet to be so gifted (which also they assert) than the maintenance of such would be both absurd and impossible. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of the Provincial Assemblies Arguments, to prove that none ought to Preach without Ordination: And so I have done with the principal Question: Only that the Reader may be able more judiciously to compare things together I shall present him with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or enumeration of the Arguments on both sides. The Arguments alleged by them to prove that unordained men may preach. I am the more willing to propound all their Arguments together, because I would not take them at advantage, but set the best gloss upon their cause, for, it oft times falls out, that, quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant, those Arguments which when they are pulled asunder, have but little strength in them, being united together, seem considerable; so that if their cause have any real strength in it, we shall see it here, when the arrows are all put together in one bundle, or else we may conclude, that there is neither strength nor truth in it. Their first Argument is this. Election must go before Ordination (which they take for granted, though it never was proved) But a person must Preach before Election and therefore before Ordination, and so one not yet Ordained may Preach: So that their Argument is this: Because a man unordained may Preach in a case of necessity, i. e. when he is to be tried for Election or Ordination, therefore he may Preach where there is no necessity. Arg. 2. Gifted men unordained are▪ commanded to Preach. And here because Peter, 1 Pet. 4. 9, 10, 11. commands every man to exercise his gift they infer from thence, that this gift must needs include preaching (though it may as well relate to hospitality) and that this gift must needs be exercised in a public way, by such as have no further call thereunto. Arg. 3. They argue from examples, Because Apollos (who was a man extraordinarily endowed, and an Officer 1 Cor. 1. 12.) spoke publicly to divers jews, though not gathered together in a Church assembly; and because the scattered Saints (who it is doubtful whether they were officers or no) in a case of persecution and necessity spoke occasionally of the things of God to persons they met with, therefore any gifted men may ordinarily, and without a case of necessity preach publicly in a Church Assembly. Arg. 4. Because some persons, who are called by the name of Officers, Prophets, and therefore may well be concluded to be in Office, because such being enriched with extraordinary gifts did Prophesy, therefore persons who are unquestionably no Officers, and whose gifts are but ordinary, may preach. And this is bonâ fide the whole strength of their opinion, which, whether it be of sufficient force to transport a man beyond the sentiment or judgement of the Church, in all ages, of the generality of the reformed Churches of the present ages, of the far greater part of learned and godly divines among us: I desire our brethren, and all that are concerned in it, in the fear of God to consider. And now let us see whether we cannot give a better account of our assertion, and whether it doth not stand upon a firmer basis. The Arguments alleged by us, to prove that unordained men may not Preach. Arg. 1. None may Preach lawfully, unless (besides their gifts) they have a mission from God, Rom. 10. Arg. 2. Neither Aaron, no nor the Lord Jesus would undertake their offices, nordo any work of their offices, until; over and above their excellent gifts, they had received from God a call and designation thereunto. And therefore persons far inferior in excellency and gifts ought not upon the account of their gifts, either undertake any office, or any work of any office, without a further call thereunto; nor are they by 1 Pet. 4. or any other place obliged to it. Arg. 3. Gospel-Preachers are called by names importing an office: Ambassadors, Stewards, etc. And therefore such Preachers are only officers, for names must answer to things. Arg. 4. Gifts and calling, are constantly distinguished. 5. Divers rules are laid down to guide and caution men in the admission of persons to the office of Preaching the Gospel, all which, are superfluous, if gifted men are, eonomine, warranted to Preach. 6. To allow the Preaching of unordained men, opens a door to all confusion. 7. God hath punished such as (though sufficiently gifted and qualified for the work they did) undertook to do a work, to which they were not called, as Uzzah, Saul, Uzziah. 8. None may perform any religious service to God, but such as are appointed, or otherwise warranted thereunto: But all gifted men are not appointed to preach, for than they sin if they neglect it, etc. 9 None may do the work of a Magistrate or a Deacon, who is not called to it, and therefore none may, without a call, do the work of a Minister, which is a work of far greater difficulty and more importance. 10. None may administer the Sacraments, because he is gifted, unless withal he be solemnly set apart for the work. Ergo none but such an one may preach, for as much as God hath joined both these together. 11. Preaching is an act of authority, and therefore must not be done by such as are under authority, by such as are not officers. 12. Scripture reproves uncalled men for Preaching. 13. Christ's Ministers have been always careful to prove their Calling as well as their Doctrine. 14. Gifted men uncalled cannot Preach in Faith, neither are they commanded to Preach, nor People to hear them, etc. 15. All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance, But all Gifted men, though Preaching, cannot challenge maintenance: Therefore they are not Scripture-Preachers. The Tenth Chapter concerns Doctor Collings, and is by him answered. CHAP. XI. THus we have dispatched our main work, now it only remains that somewhat be spoken as to the business of Election and Ordination; and here a threefold question should be ventilated. 1. Whether Election by divine right belong to the people. 2. Whether the essence of the Ministerial call consists in Election or Ordination. 3. Whether Ordination may be done by the people. For the First, Whether Election by divine right belong to the people, there is no need to say any thing about it, because it hath been so fully ventilated by others; only for those three places alleged in favour of this Election, and answered by the Provincial Assembly, which they have here undertaken to vindicate, it will be convenient to say something, as also of the absurdities objected by the Assembly to the Affirmative. The first place is Acts 1. 23. It was answered: 1. These words, they appointed two, do in all probability relate to the Apostles, v. 5, 17, 21, 22. To this our Brethren reply, The exhortation about choosing was given to the 120 brethren and therefore they did choose. Reply. It was not an exhortation to choose, nor a direction in choosing (here is not a word of the knowledge, piety, prudence, etc. of the person to be chosen, which useth to be the subject of the Apostles discourse, when he exhorts to, or directs in choosing) but only a declaration that one must be chosen, which was very congruous and convenient, whether the Apostles or people did appoint; and however the Apostles might and did appoint, yet it was fit the People should consent and be satisfied. I forbear other things as to this place, because they will recur in the next place, whither I refer them; only this I leave to the consideration of ingenuous men, that it is at least doubtful who it was that are here said to appoint two; the Grammatical construction and Logical connexion possibly will bear either; I am sure it will beat the Apostles, and therefore great stress cannot be laid upon this place. The next alleged Text is that, Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons. To which it was said, That the people were guided and limited in their choice by the Apostles; so that if they had swerved from the Apostles directions, the Apostles would not have ordained them. To this they Answer, That Laws and Rules directing in the choice, hinders not the entireness of the choice: A Corporation have entire power of choosing and yet are limited by Laws. Reply. It is true, Regulation by dead Laws and Rules is no prejudice to the people's sole power in election, but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it, to wit, the regulation being such, as here it is, wherein the Apostles (or their vicegerents the Ministers) have not only a bare vote in the election, but a negative voice, whereby it is in their power either to choose or refuse: So it was here, and therefore surely the Apostles had a share, yea, the great share in the choice, and therefore the people had not the whole and sole power in the choosing of Deacons, which was to be proved: This case is not unlike our Colleges, when the Fellows have a power to choose, etc. yet under the direction and regulation of the Master, who hath a power to choose or refuse the person chosen by the Fellows: Can any sober man in this case say that the sole power of choosing is in the Fellows? Is it not in the Master also? And so it was in the Apostles. 3. Our Brethren forget the main thing that was driven at which by their own acknowledgement was this, that, The essence of the call consists not in Election, and that plainly appears from this place: For if the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds, I desire our Brethren to Answer whether they think they would have been Deacons notwithstanding, whether the Apostles would or not. If they say, yea, that is so injurious to the Apostles, and their jurisdiction, that they will have few followers; if they say no, than the essence of the call to the office of the Deacon (and so of the Minister by their own Argument) consists not in Election, unless they will say, that a man can be a Deacon and yet want the essence of a Deacon. Excep. If this Election had been frustraneous it had not been for want of Ordination but for the neglect of observation of Gospel-Rules in choosing. Ans. Nay, on the contrary, it had been the want of Ordination▪ For suppose the people had proceeded according to Go●pel-Rules, in the Election and choosing a person visibly fit, and the Apostles by the spirit of discerning, seeing something in him which renders him unfit, had denied Ordination; In this case, the Election had been null, though according to Rule, Ergo, The want of Ordination makes it null, efficiently, or rather deficiently, though the want of fit qualification makes it null meritoriously. And again, let us suppose that both the people and the Apostles had not exactly kept to the Rule in choosing (for the Apostles might err in matters of fact though not in matters of doctrine) and the people had chosen, and the Apostles ordained a man not fit for the office according to rule, in that case, to say that this call had been null, would be a venturous assertion: It is harsh to say, of every man chosen to the office of a Deacon who is not full of the holy Ghost and wisdom, (for those are the required qualifications) that his choice is null. I am confident our brethren have too much modesty to affirm it, and if they do not affirm it, then that which in this case had made the election null, had not been the not observing of Gospel-Rules, but the want of Ordination. 2. It was said, that, though the people might have the sole power of choosing Deacons, yet not of Ministers. A minore ad majus non valet argumentum affirmatiuè. To this they Answer, That we use that kind of arguing, when we argue thus; We use Ordination in the choice of Deacons; Ergo, of Ministers much more, so Christ argues from the less to the greater; God takes care of Lilies, Ravens, etc. Ergo, he will much more take care of you. Mat. 6. Reply. Our brethren's answer runs upon a gross mistake, for they inconsiderately confound two Canons which vastly differ (though both of them belong to the same Topick.) 1. Their Argument is fetched from this Canon: Cui competit minus, competit majus: If a power of choosing Deacons, which is the less, belongs to the people, than a power of choosing Ministers, which is the greater, belongs to them. To this the Assembly well answered: A minori ad majus, non valet affirmatiuè. It is very false to argue thus: The power of choosing a Captain belongs to the Colonel, Ergo, the power of choosing a General belongs to him: Or thus, The members of such a Company have a power to choose their own Officers (which is the less) and therefore they have a power to choose the City Officers, which is the greater. It is a true Rule, A majori ad minus, valet affirmatiuè. i e. Cui competit majus, competit minus: But it is false to argue, A minori ad majus affirmatiuè, or thus, Cui competit minus, competit majus. 2. But there is another Canon, much differing from the former, and that is this; Quod competit minori, competit etiam majori: If Ordination was required to the meaner and less considerable Office, which is that of the Deacons, much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office. And this was the Argument used by the Assembly. And to this belongs the Argument, Mat. 6. 26. If the care of God's Providence reacheth to lilies (which are the less) much more will it reach to you, which are the greater. The third Text alleged for the people's election, was Act. 14. 23. When they had created them elders by suffrages, (for so they say the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is generally used) in every City: And this they say, may have reference to the disciples, as well as to Paul and Barnabas, for they were spoken of before. Reply. One would think nothing more can be said, or desired by any sober man for the elucidation and vindication of this Text, than the making out of these two things. 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is frequently used for a simple choosing or appointing, though without suffrages. 2. That it cannot be taken here for choosing by suffrages. From these two, it follows most evidently, and irrefragably, that this place, (which is alleged as a pillar to prove the people's election, etc.) doth no ways enforce it, but rather overthrow it. For the first, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not always used for a choosing by suffrages, but oft times, for a simple choosing, or appointing, etc. is most plain, from Acts 10. 41. and may be made good by a multitude of instances, for which the Provincial Assembly, referred you to other Authors, and especially Selden de Synedriis, it being needless to transcribe. 3. How oft the use of words varies from the etymology, no man can be ignorant, that is not wholly a stranger to the Greek tongue. But our Brethren say, it is strange, that Luke should use the word in such a sense as was different from the custom of all that writ before him. I answer. 1. It is so used by others, as was now said. 2. It is no new thing, to find a word, used in Scripture in a different sense, from that which it hath in other Authors. And if our Brethren acknowledge that Luke useth the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 10. 41. in a sense, never used in any Author before him; Why may we not expect the same favour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 2. Although this (if nothing else could be said) were sufficient to answer their Argument, which is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it be incumbent upon them to show, that the word must needs be so understood in this place, yet, ex abundanti, we assert; That this word cannot be taken in their sense: And in this case by their own allowance, we may recede, from the native signification of the word, because it is repugnant to the context. And for proof of this, I shall but desire any candid Reader, diligently to read the whole context, especially in the Greek tongue, And I persuade myself, he will judge it but a few removes from an impossibility to understand it in our brethren's sense. 1. They are said to ordain to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to themselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it should have been, if the people had done it. And although it be true, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is sometimes taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet that is but seldom (and then also it is, for the most part, aspirated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the common use of the word, (by which our Brethren will have us guided in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore we expect the like from them in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I say, the common use of the word is otherwise, and especially this is considerable, if you take notice of other circumstances, which oblige us to this sense, as namely: 2. The same persons are said to ordain in several Cities and Churches: Therefore it must needs be meant of them that had an authority over several Churches. 3. They ordained, etc. who going away, commended the people to the Lord, and surely that was the Apostles: it is a lamentable shift to say, That the disciples are spoken of in the foregoing verse, and therefore it may be understood of them. True, they are spoken of and so are the Apostles spoken of, and, seeing both are spoken of, we must inquire, to whom this must be referred, and for that, the very first rudiments of Grammar will determine, that the reference must be towards of the same case. Now then, in the 22. verse, the disciples are spoken of in the Accusative case, and as passive under the Apostles confirming, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by no means agrees, as being active, and of the Nominative case: But now if you understand it of the Apostles, all things run handsomely. The same persons are brought in as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vers. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 25. etc. all of them of the Nominative case, and the active signification: And whoever take out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from all the rest, wherewith it is hedged in on both sides, as they offer manifest violence to the Text, so they will be judged by indifferent persons, merely to take it up in favour of a praeconceived opinion. And therefore our Brethren, do well take up, and at last come to this faint conclusion; Though this do refer to the Apostles, yet the people may be comprehended in it: So that whereas in the first canvasing of this Text, we had much ado to get in the Apostles; and this Text hath been often alleged by our Brethren to show, not that the people may, but that the people must, ordain and choose themselves Elders, now all that it amounts to, is a m●y be, they may be included here. All the answer it deserves, and that I shall give is this; The people may not be included here: At lest non liquet, it appears not from the Text at all, that they are comprehended here. However, let the question lie here, between us and our Brethren, whether this Text, and this Ordaining belong to the Apostles (who are here expressly said to do it) or to the people (of whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not a word is spoken here) and I suppose impartial Arbitrators will quickly end the difference. But, (say they, who ever did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet) this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be meant of Ordination, seeing it is mentioned as distinct from Ordaining by prayer and fasting, when they had chosen— and had prayed with fasting, and if Ordination were intended, here were a Tautology. Reply. I would ask our Brethren this question, whether in case the people were they who are here said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to choose Elders, whether they did not manage that work with prayer and fasting, and whether this Text doth not sufficiently speak for itself, that this prayer and fasting was used in relation to the choice of Officers: If they assent, than the Tautology remains on their part as well as on ours. 2. But indeed, we must take heed of calling it a Tautology, when ever we find the same thing expressed in divers phrases, which is a familiar practice in Scripture. 3. Albeit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when put by itself, did signify, to ordain by fasting, and prayer, and laying on of hands, yet common reason and frequent use will teach us, that when fasting and prayer are expressed, then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be understood only of imposing of hands. 4. Our Brethren forget the present work, we did not allege this place, or this word, to prove that Ordination is to be done by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands, nor were we drawing any argument from this Text; But we were upon the defensive part, and our work was only this to maintain, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not here signify a creating by the suffrages of the people, which being proved, our brethren's attempt from this Text is frustrated, and the place sufficiently vindicated. These three places being cleared, and redeemed from misinterpretation, there is but one thing remains to be done, which is a little to enforce those absurdities objected by the Provincial Assembly against their opinion. I shall take notice only of the first, as being most material, which is this: Every one that is to be made a Minister, must first be tried, 1 Tim. 3, 10. whether he be apt to teach▪ able to convince gain sayers. Now in many Congregations, the major part are very unfit to judge of Ministerial abilities. To this they answer: That true Churches are fit to judge of Ministerial abilities, Christ's sheep know his voice, John 10. and the Church could judge of the qualifications of Deacons, Act. 6. Reply. 1. I dare venture the question upon this point, and although I shall not determine it concerning every congregation (whereof possibly some learned men may be members by accident) yet, for the generality of Congregations (including such as are constituted according to our brethren's principles) I say they are not able to judge of a man's soundness in the faith, and his ability to convince gainsayers. I will only suppose that (which generally is true) a Congregation to consist of such as are unacquainted with the affairs of learning, and I will suppose a crafty heretic to come before them, I say, he may most easily conceal his heresies, so that they shall never discover it, nor be able to try his soundness in the faith. I might instance in divers cases, suppose a Socinian is to be tried by the people, they ask him whether he believe Christ to be God, he will Answer yes, I believe him to be the true God, to be one with the Father, to be equal with God: How apt would a company of honest souls be to be cheated with such pretences and how readily would they be his compurgators; whereas, if this man were to be called by Ministers, they know that these are but words, and that though he acknowledge Christ in word, yet in deed he denies him, and allows him to be God, only as the Magistrate is a God; so there are many other weighty points, wherein it is impossible for the people to try a man's soundness in the faith. How many gross errors are there about the providence of God, the Person and Natures of Christ, the fall of man; which any learned man may so hide under ambiguous expressions, that it shall be impossible for an ordinary Congregation to discover them, unless they plow with the heifer of Ministers or Scholars: So for a man's ability to defend the truth, and convince gainsayers, how unfit people are to judge of that▪ no man can be ignorant, that considers how sadly, and frequently, the judgements of people of all sorts, and opinions, and ways, are misplaced, applauding some highly for their sufficiency that way, who are known to understanding men, to be miserably defective therein, and vilifying others, who are unquestionably far more sufficient. To convince gainsayers, is a great part of learning, and that unlearned men should be able to judge of a man's learning, will then be believed, when it will be credited, that a blind man can judge of colours, or, a deaf man of sounds, or an ordinary ignorant man, of the great affairs of State. 2. For that in john, I hope our Brethren will be ashamed to allege it to this purpose, when they shall consider that it is a character given by Christ to all his sheep, My sheep know my voice. It is true of wise men and weak men, of men, women, and children, which are the sheep of Christ: So that, unless they will say, that the silliest woman in a Congregation, who is godly, is able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gainsayers, (than which nothing can be more highly absurd) they must confess this Text was impertinently alleged. 3. For the people's fitness to judge of the Deacons abilities it is a strange instance, that because people are able to judge of a man's prudence, faithfulness, piety, etc. therefore they are able to judge of his learning, and sufficiency. And you may as well argue thus, that such a man is able to build an house well, therefore he can mould a State. And thus much shall suffice, to speak of the first Question; which, when a judicious, and candid Reader, hath duly weighed, I may groundedly hope, that he will be thus far convinced, that the necessity of Popular Election is not so clear, as hath been conceived, nor indeed so manifest, as Ordination. And sure I am, if we had no better evidences for Ordination, than such as these, we should have sufficiently heard of it from our Brethren. CHAP. XII. THE second Question is this: Whether the Essence of the Call to the Ministry, lie in Election or Ordination. And here also I must take the same liberty I have used, and that is not to transcribe every word nor to take notice of such passages as are inconsiderable, but only such as have most strength, and most appearance of truth in them. In the doing of which, as I have the witness of God, and my own conscience, so I doubt not I shall have the attestation of any disinterested person, who shall compare both together. But, before I come to handle the point, I must needs do my Brethren that right, as to let the world know, how far they are from that generation of men that despise and deride Ordination; they say, we do highly esteem of Ordination as an appointment of jesus Christ, p. 275. Only here they differ, They give Election the praecedency to Ordination, and they place the essence of the Ministerial call in Election, not in Ordination. But good reason, we should not condemn them unheard: I shall therefore do them the justice as to consider what they offer by way of Argument, and that is only this: Ordination doth not give the essence; Ergo, election doth (for their first Argument from Acts 14. vers. 23. hath been discussed before.) That the essence of the Call lies not in Ordination, they endeavour to make good by three Arguments. Their first Argument is this, That which doth not set a man over a Church of Christ, or commit it to his charge, that doth not give the essentials of the Ministerial office: But Ordination doth not set a man over a Church of Christ, etc. because without Election a man cannot be over any flock. I answer to the Minor, and the proof. 1. That it is but a begging of the question, and hath been before disproved, that without Election a man cannot be over any flock. 2. Although a man could not be over a flock without Election, and Election were necessary to his Call, yet the Essence of the Call may lie in Ordination: Election may be necessary, as the causa, sine qua non, and yet Ordination may be the causa formalis of the Call to the Ministry. Suppose by some ancient Charter, the People of such a City, are invested with a right to choose their own Minister; So that without their Election, he is not their Minister; Yet so, as that it belongs to some Gentleman, to present the person so Elected, unless he can show reason to refuse him, in this case Election is necessary, and yet the Essence of the eivil Call, lies in his Presentation. Or suppose 〈…〉 of Canterbury, had been to choose the A 〈…〉 shop of Canterbury, yet, notwithstanding the n 〈…〉 of their Election, the Essence of the Arch Bishops C 〈…〉 did lie in another thing, to wit, civilly in the gift of the King, Ecclesiastically, in his consecration by the Bishops: So, though the Election of the people were necessary, yet the Essence of the Call, may lie in the Ordination of the Minister● 3. Although Election determine a man's employment to this or that particular place, yet Ordination sets him over a Church of Christ, viz. over the whole Church: His Ordination sets him over a Church indefinitely: his ●●●●tion sets him over this or that particular Church. As the Act of the University, makes a man a Doctor of Physic, but the choice of such a City, or such a noble Family, makes him the Physician of that City, or Family. The second Argument is this: Ordination is to be consequential unto a man's having the whole Essence of the Call to the office, Acts 13. 3. Paul and Barnabas had the Essence of their Call before from God, they were not of men, Gal. 1. And this example is a binding rule to us. Answ. 1. I might say, as Divines say of Vocation, That there is a Calling, ad foedus, to the Covenant, and ad munus, to an Office. So likewise for Ordination, there is a double Ordination, the one, ad munus, to an Office, the other, adopus, to a Work. The Ordination which we spoke of, and wherein the Essence of the Ministerial Call doth consist, is an Ordination to an Office; and such an Ordination the Apostle never had, Gal. 1. 1. And such an Ordination, this Text, peradventure, speaks not of, but of an Ordination to a Work, nor is there any ground to wonder, that men should be solemnly Ordained to such a work as this, a work so great, so uncouth, so difficult, so much exposed to contradiction, nor was it unusual in the Church either of the Old or New Testament, to use fasting and prayer, or laying of hands, as well in the designation of a person to a work, as to an Office. 2. This Argument will fall as heavy upon Election as Ordination: It must be remembered that they assert that the essence of the call lies in Election; and to prove this, they urge the Election of an Apostle, Acts 1. Now from hence, I thus argue against them: If this was the prerogative of the Apostles, that they had their call neither of man nor by man, etc. then the essence of their call doth not lie in Election: But this was the prerogative of Apostles, that they were neither of men nor by men; so that although Ordination and Election were both used in reference to the Apostles, yet the essence of the call did lie in neither of them: And it is certain that in Acts 1. the essence of Mathias his call, did not lie in the election of the people (for that Barsabas had, as well as Mathias) but in the designation of God: And therefore, as our Brethren would say for themselves, in that case, that we are to distinguish between what is ordinary and what is extraordinary, between what was peculiar to the Apostles, and what was common to other Officers; and that this was common to the Apostles, with other Officers to be admitted by Election, which therefore is a precedent for us in the call of other Officers, but that the essence of their call should not lie in Election, but in God's designation, this was peculiar to them, and so is no rule to us; the same Liberty, I hope they will allow us, to say, that in this Ordination here was, 1. Something ordinary and common to the Apostles, with other Officers, which was to be ordained, which therefore doth strongly justify the use and necessity of Ordination to other Officers. 2. Something extraordinary and peculiar, to wit, that the essence of their call did not lie in this Ordination, but in the immediate appointment of God, which therefore cannot be applied to ordinary Officers. To say nothing of that which peradventure may be said, that Paul had the essence of his Call from this Ordination, and yet no prejudice to that other assertion that Paul had his Office neither of nor by man, Gal. 1. for though men were used as instruments in the dispensation of the rites belonging to Paul's Ordination, yet to speak properly it was not men but God, that was Paul's Ordainer, for the holy Ghost said, separate me, etc. It was not men that nominated Paul to be an Officer, but God did it, from heaven. Their third Argument is taken from the nature of Ordination, Ordination (say they) is nothing else but the solemn separation of an Officer by prayer and fasting (they after add, and laying on of hands) to the work whereunto he is called: It can be imagined to consist but of three things. 1. Fasting, and that is no act of worship. 2. Laying on of hands, and that was not essential to Ordination then, and it is questionable, whither it be still continuing or not. 3. Prayer, which therefore must be the act giving essence to Ordination seeing the others do not. Now upon all this, they build a double argument. 1. Ordination consisteth in an action performed to God only, i. e. in prayer, therefore it cannot give the Essence of an external call to office, from men. 2. That action which cannot be performed in faith, before a man have his outward Call to office, cannot give him that outward call: But Ordination is such an action, etc. For how can a man pray in faith, for his blessing upon a person in a work of an office, before he can conclude, that he is so much as outwardly called to that office. For Answer. 1. For the last clause, I also would ask our Brethren one question; Suppose the Essence of the Ministerial Call did consist in Election, and that Prayers are to be used for the person to be Elected, before his Election (which I know our Brethren will not diflike) in this case I ask them their own question How can they pray in faith for a blessing upon that person in the work of his Office, before he have the Call to the Office? Whatsoever they shall reply with reason, will serve for our use as well as theirs. 2. In such cases, our prayers have (as most frequently in many other cases) a tacit condition, that God would bless him in the work, viz. if he shall be set apart for it. I may pray in faith, that God would go with me in a journey, that God would bless me in the exercises of the Lords day, etc. Although I do not certainly know that I shall live either to go one step in my journey, or to do one exercise upon the Lord's day. 3. All their Argument proceeds upon a gross mistake and unacquaintedness with our principles: In a word, we hold that the Essence of Ordination, consists in none of those three things mentioned, neither in fasting, nor prayer, nor laying on of hands, (all which are only the modifications of the work) but in something else, to wit, in this, the designation of fit persons by Officers unto the work, which designation indeed, is signified by imposition of hands, and deservedly introduced, with fasting and prayer, as being a work of greatest weight, yet still the Essence of it lies not in this. 4. For imposition of hands, it is granted by most Presbyterians, that I know of, that it is not so Essential to Ordination, as that they will pronounce that Ordination null, which wanted it, although they conceive in being a rite instituted by Christ, cannot without sin, be neglected by men. Whether imposition of hands ought to continue in the Church, is excentrical to our present question, and therefore I shall wave it, leaving only this Memorandum for the Readers consideration. That the great Argument used for the abolition of it, because it was used in those days for the collation of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, hath to me, very little cogency in it; both because by the same reason, Preaching must be now laid aside, because when Peter preached, the holy Ghost fell upon them that heard him, Acts 10. 44. And because it continued all along in the old Testament, notwithstanding this, that sometimes it was used in those times for the collation of extraordinary gifts, as Deut. 34. 9 And joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him. But I must recall myself, and remember that it is not now my task to meddle with that point, but only to show that our brethren's Arguments are not unanswerable. And now that we have seen the weakness of their Arguments alleged to prove that the essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Election, not in Ordination, I shall consider whether we cannot find stronger Arguments to prove the contrary, That the essence of the call doth not lie in the Election of the people, but in the Ordination of the Ministers. CHAP. XIII. I Shall confine myself to one Argument, which I shall desire our Brethren to chew upon, which is this. The essence of the call to the Ministry, must lie in the act of those only, who by divine appointment are and aught to be in a capacity to give it: But the people neither are, nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry: Ergo, The essence of the call doth not lie in the act of the people, i. e. not in Election. For the Major, it is a plain case: Wherever God puts a man upon a work, he requires that he be fit for it. God will have no man to undertake any work, of Magistracy, Ministry, etc. for which he is not fit. The Teacher must be apt to teach, etc. And if it be one of the works of a Minister to send forth other Ministers, than God requires this of him, that he be in a capacity to do it. And so doubtless, if Election be the privilege of the members of the Church, as such, and the Essence of the Ministerial Call lies in it, then by divine appointment this is a necessary qualification for every Church-member to be in a capacity to give it. For the Minor which is this, That the people neither are, nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry: This I shall prove from those things which are requisite to put men into such a capacity. And thus I argue: Authority and ability to judge of the fitness of a Minister, are necessary to make a man capable of giving the essence of the Ministers call: But people neither have, nor is it necessarily required that they should have these: Ergo they are not capable of giving the Essence of the Ministerial Call: I shall prove both propositions. 1. For the Major, there are two ingredients, etc. of both I shall speak in order. 1. I say, to give the Essence of the Ministerial Call is an act of authority, I think this is unquestionable in all other cases; wheresoever the power of calling to any office lies, there is an authority in relation thereunto: For instance, in a Corporation, If it belongs to the Court of Aldermen to give the Essence of such an Office, it is an act of authority in them: So if it belong to the Court of Common council to do it, it is an act of authority in them. Et sic in caeteris. It is true a man may give an Office to another, which he himself hath not. But if he have it not formally, he must have it virtually. In democratical governments, where the officers are chosen by the body of the people, there, I say, the authority resides, and upon that very ground, the people taken collectively, are superior in authority unto the Officers to whom they give the Call. And as the Apostle saith, The less is blessed of the greater, so may I say, the less is called of the greater. And as it is in civil respects, in some Parishes where the People are Patrons of the place, and give the Essence of the civil call to a Minister, to be the Minister of the place, as to all legal rights, etc. there, I say, the People are, eo nomine, invested with authority, for that work, and their collation of this place upon that Minister, is an act of authority: So in like manner, if it belong to the people to give the essence of the Ecclesiastical call unto a Minister, than the people hereby are empowered with an authority, and their act is an act of authority. And this is the first branch. Authority is necessary, etc. The use of this we shall see when we come to the Minor; In the mean time we must prove the other branch of the Major, or rather, that is proved already, that ability to Judge of a Ministers fitness is necessary to put a man into a regular capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry. And therefore I now come to the proof of the Minor, where I must show; 1. That people have no authority, etc. 2. That they neither have nor by divine appointment are required to have ability to judge of a man's fitness for the Ministry. 1. That people have no authority nor can do any act of authority in the Church, is plain from hence, because they are by God's appointment placed in a state of subjection, at lest it is a clear case concerning women, who are forbidden to do an act of authority (i. e. to preach publicly) because they are in a state of subjection: And this is the more considerable, because in that instance which our brethren so much insist upon, Acts 1. in that election of an Apostle, not only the men, but women also did concur, which they could not have done, if election were an act of authority, or if it were that act which gives the essence to an Officer. 2. As they want authority, so they want ability. And here there are two branches. 1. They have not 2. they are not required to have ability to judge, etc. 1. The people have not ability to judge of a man's fitness for the Ministry; This we have proved before, and thither I refer the reader; and indeed, if our brethren's principles did not oblige them to the contrary, it would be out of doubt that for the body of almost all the congregations in the world, they are exceeding unable to judge of divers of those abilities which are required to the Ministry. It is little less than a contradiction to say, that unlearned men should be fit judges of another man's learning (and that learning is of necessary use to a Minister, neither will our brethren deny, nor can any one doubt, but he that is wholly a stranger to it) and it is no less absurd to think, that those persons who are unacquainted with the stratagems and subtleties of gainsayers and heretics, should be competent judges of a man's ability to convince gainsayers. If it be said, it is true, the people are not able to judge of these things themselves, but they should and may call in the help of neighbouring Pastors. I answer. They may do it, and they may forbear it: According to our brethren's mind, this is not necessary to the being, but to the well being of it: It is the people that have the whole and sole power of giving the Essence of the Ministerial Call; So that if they will perversely or proudly refuse the help of Pastors, (as some of our brethren's mind have experienced the giddiness and unruliness of Congregations, even when they have had Ministers to guide them, and much more when they have been left to themselves) they may do it: Or what if a Congregation be in an Island, or where there are no Pastors to help them? in that case they want ability to judge. 2. Who ever they are, that are entrusted with a power to give the Essence of the Ministerial Call, they are to see with their own eyes. And surely they that blamed the Bishops, because they delegated the Pastoral work to others, which they ought to have performed personally, cannot excuse the people (if they were indeed entrusted herewith) that they manage it by others care and wisdom. Or else, 3. This great inconvenience will follow, that Christ hath entrusted this great power in such hands, as are unable of themselves to manage it. And thus I have dispatched the first branch, and showed that the people are not able to judge. The second branch is this? The people are not necessarily required to be able to judge of a Ministers abilities, as they ought to be, if it did belong to them to give the essence of the Ministerial Call. I say, if it doth belong to every Church-member, as such, as his privilege, to have a joint power to give the essence of the Ministerial call, than it belongs to every Church-member as his duty, and he ought by divine appointment to be fit to judge of a Ministers abilities, and this would be a necessary qualification in every Church-member, not only that he be pious, but also judicious, and prudent, etc. and in all respects able to judge of a man's fitness for the Ministry, so that if a man were never so godly and desirous of Church-membership, etc. if he were apparently unfit to judge of a Ministers abilities (as many hundreds of godly people, unquestionably are) he ought not to be admitted a Church-member, because he wanted one necessary qualification for that relation: Which because it is a gross and manifest absurdity, therefore it is not necessarily required that Church-members should be able to judge of a Ministers fitness, and by consequence, it follows that the people are not entrusted with giving the essence of the Ministerial Call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was the thing to be shown; And thus much might serve for that point. Only, whereas there were divers Arguments urged by the Assembly, to show, that the Essence of the Call did not lie in Election, which our Brethren here praetend to answer: I am under some necessity of attending their motion: But because, some of them do manifestly refer to such things as have been fully discussed before, I shall not need to follow them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but only take notice of such things, as have hitherto been omitted, or are now more strongly fortified. 1. It was argued from Acts 6. Where the Apostles are said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to constitute appoint, Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. They answer, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be taken for the constituting act in some places, so is the word choosing taken for the constituting act, in other places. Luke 6. 13. And of them he chose twelve, whom he named Apostles, and the people here are said to choose, and that expresseth the putting of a man into office. Reply. It is true when choosing, is put by itself, it may signify an appointing, if it be ascribed to one that hath a power to appoint, as it is, Luke 6. But it is far otherwise, where choosing and appointing are distinguished from, and opposed to one another, and the act of choosing, ascribed to the inferiors, the people, and the act of appointing, ascribed to the superiors, the Apostles, in such a case to say choosing is appointing, or to say, that the constituting act, was that which was done by the inferiors, is but one remove from impossible, that I say not ridiculous. 2. It was argued from Tit. 1. 5. I left thee in Crect to ordain, etc. what was he left there to give an adjunct of their call? It must be considered, in what state the Church then was, and how useful the pains of Titus might have been in other places, which necessarily called for his help; so that we may rationally conclude, if the people could have given the Essence of the Call without him, and if Ordination had been but an unnecessary Adjunct, it is no way credible that the Apostle would have diverted Titus from so great, essential, and excellent a service, for the doing of a business, which was but circumstantial. The only answer they give, that signifies any thing is this: That Titus was left in Crect, not only to ordain Elders, but also to set in order the things that are wanting. But that relieves them not, for the setting of things in order (it which concerns only the well being of the Church) was not to be put in competition with those other glorious services, which Titus might have done in the mean time, (and which concern the very Essence of the Church.) ●2. It was argued from the nature of Election of a people▪ which is not the making of a man a Minister, but their Minister: The people Deut. 1. 13. did look out men, but it was Moses that made them Rulers: If the people have not office power, neither formally nor eminently, they cannot make an Officer, for, nihil dat quod non habet. They answer many things. 1. That Election makes a man a Minister. Reply. That is a mere begging of the question. 2. The act of Moses is not parallel either with Ordination or Election, but rather with Christ's act in making Church-Officers, because only Christ is the King of the Church; as only Moses was the supreme Magistrate. Reply. 1. To speak strictly, not Moses, but God was the supreme Magistrate of the jews, and that policy was not a Monarchy, but a Theocrasy, as josephus well calls it, and Moses indeed had no regal nor arbitrary power at all, but was only God's Secretary, to write his mind, and God's instrument, to publish and execute God's laws: And look what Moses was to the jews, that are Ministers unto the Church: Moses was the public interpreter of God's Law, and God's Vicegerent, who in God's Name, and according to God's Word was to govern the people, and they were to be ruled by him; and albeit in some cases the people might have the power of Election, yet indeed it was Moses his act which was the constituting act in the creation of Officers: Just thus it is in our case, Ministers are the public interpreters of Christ's laws, and Christ's Vicegerents, who in Christ's name, and according to Christ's word, are to govern the people, and they are to be ruled by them; And albeit the people have a power of Election, yet indeed it is the act of the Ministers, which is the constituting act of an Officer: So that here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers (in both it is depending and limited) only the one is Civil, the other Ecclesiastical. 3. That rule (they say) is not universally true, nihil dat quod non habet, for freeholders by choosing, may make Burgesses and Parliament men. The freemen of a Corporation give the essentials of their call to a Bailiff, and why may it not be thus with the Church. Answ. There is dispar ratio, Because all things are to be regulated by law and institution, Civil things by a civil institution, and Ecclesiastical things by a divine institution: Now what such freemen, etc. do, they have a charter, and a warrant for, whereby they are quantum ad hoc authorised for the work. If our brethren can show a parallel divine institution, for the people's being authorized to give the Essentials of the call to a Minister, than they do their business: But that they have not been able to do: In these cases the people have such office-power eminently in them, though not formally: And though each of the people considered distributively, are inferior to such a Magistrate after he is chosen, yet, all the people taken collectively, are (as to that act) superior to him who is to be chosen. Another Argument was this. That if the essence of the call lie in Election, than it will follow, that a Minister is only a Minister to his particular charge, and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place, which is a strange and false assertion. And this the Assembly prove by divers considerations and Arguments, to which our brethren answer. But because all that is here said doth more properly belong to that former question i. e. whether a Minister be a Minister only to his own particular Church, etc. I thought it more meet to bring it in there, and thither I refer the reader for a reply to all that here they say, which hath any sinews or substance in it. Again the Provinc. urged this: That thence it will follow that there must be Churches before Ministers, which cannot be, for every Church must consist of persons baptised, and baptise them none can, but he that is a Minister. Christ therefore chose Apostles before Churches, and the Apostles ordained elders to gather Churches. To this they answer, 1. A Church must needs be before an officer, because he that is an officer is made an officer only to a Church, and therefore the Church is presupposed. Reply. This is a mere begging of the question▪ and we have already at large confuted it, and shown, that a Minister is an officer, and acts as an officer even to such as are no Church. 2. The Apostles were extraordinary officers, and therefore that instance proves not that ordinary officers must be before Churches. Reply. Our brethren must take heed of denying the exemplariness of the Apostles to ordinary Ministers in the administration of Church affairs. They themselves do oft make use of it: And it cannot be denied by any rational, or ingenious man, that the Apostles, as in some things they did act as extraordinary officers, and are no precedent for us, (as in single, and absolute, jurisdiction, etc.) so in other things, their acts were ordinary, and there examples binding as to us, as their preaching, baptising, etc. And that this case is of the same nature, may appear from hence because the same reason which made it necessary fo● Apostles to be before Churches, made it also necessary for other Ministers to be before them: For the reason why the Apostles were to be before Churches, was this, because, by them Churches were to be gathered and baptised▪ And thus it was with the ordinary Ministers of those times, they also were instituted then, and are so now (by that lasting institution Eph 4▪ 11. etc.) not only for the building up of Churches already constituted, but also for the bringing in of those who are not yet gathered, and therefore it was and is necessary still that Ministers be before Churches. 3. They say, Acts 14. 23. When they had chosen them elders in every Church, the Churches therefore were before the choosing of elders. Reply. 1. That instance doth not at all enervate our assertion, for although some Churches may be before some elders, (which we never denied) yet in the general, a Minister must needs be before a Church. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of those arguments which the Assembly used to show that the essence of the call doth not lie in election. It now remains that I undertake the defence of those arguments which they used to show that the essence of the Ministerial call doth consist in ordination: Wherein I must still crave the continuance of the liberty I have used, i. e. not put myself or the reader to unnecessary trouble in animadverting upon every passage, but only to observe such things as are argumentative and have not yet fall'n within our cognizance. CHAP. XIIII. THE Assembly urged 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. They answer, 1. It is questionable whether laying on of hands be here meant of ordination, for that ceremony was used in the collation of gifts also. Reply. But forasmuch as this laying on of hands was done by an ordinary Presbytery, which had not such a power of conferring gifts by the laying on of hands (that being the peculiar privilege of extraordinary officers) therefore it cannot here be rationally supposed to be so used in this place, but only for ordination: And therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here said to be conveyed, must needs be rather concluded to be an office (which we often read to have been conferred by ordinary officers) than a gift (which we never read that an ordinary officer was entrusted to convey) But that our brethren will not bear with: For, 2. They say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an office, and here they repeat Mr. hooker's reasons, so that in answering one I shall answer both, and I must needs acknowledge that what is spoken upon this place is said very plausibly. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most commonly signifies gift, not office. 2. A man is not said to forget the office that is in him (he is in his office, rather than his office in him) a man is said to stir up his grace, not his office. 3. An extraordinary office (such as this was) could not be collated by ordinary officers. Lastly, they observe that this gift is said to be given, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of their hands as the cause, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with, noting only the concurrence and connexion. To all which I reply, 1. That both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in scripture for office as well as gift, our brethren themselves will grant, so that the word being indifferent, we must see which way other considerations will determine it. For the second (where most difficulty lies) I reply. 1. A man may properly be said to neglect his office, or to disregard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be careless in his office, or in the execution of his office: I know no absurdity in it, either in the English, or in the Greek Tongue: If a Magistrate be slothful, careless, etc. we may properly say he neglects that Office that God hath put him in, he neglects his place. And as a man is said to neglect himself, when he neglects those things, and those actions which concern himself; so a man neglects his office, that neglects the works of his office: So for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strip it of the metaphor, and it is no more but this, put forth, actuate, exercise thine office. Paul's bidding him stir up his Ministry, is no more than what elsewhere he bids him, fulfil thy Ministry, do the work of an Evangelist. He that neglects the work of his Ministry, invalidates his office, disuseth, neglects his office, and he that fulfils the works of his Ministry, stirs up his office: For that other criticism, that a man is in his office, not his office in him, the office is ad●oyned to him, not inhaerent in him: that is hardly worth taking notice of, because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so variously, sometimes for one preposition, sometimes for another, sometimes for that which is inherent in him, sometime for that which is adjoining to him (as all know that are not wholly strangers to the Greek Tongue) that it is a vanity to lay any stress upon it: Sometimes it is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and sometimes in for apud, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is for a man to be apud se, for a man not to be besides himself; so here the Office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apudte, with thee, which is committed to thee: And as men are said to be in sin, though indeed it is sin that is in them; and they are said to enter into their master's joy, though to speak properly their master's joy enters into them, and a man is said to be in drink, though drink be in him: So it cannot seem strange if an office be said to be in a man, though in propriety of speech he be in his office. For the third branch: 1. An extraordinary office might be conveyed in this case by ordinary officers: For 1. It is commonly thought that Paul did concur in this ordination with that Presbytery. 2. They ordained him by divine direction: And as it was no dishonour to Paul and Barnabas that they were ordained to that work Acts 13. 1, 2. by persons inferior to them, seeing those persons did it by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, so neither is it any prejudice to the extraordinariness of Timothy's office, that it was conferred by ordinary officers, seeing they conferred it by the conduct of prophetical designation. 3. What more ordinary both in state and Church, then for a person to have an office conveyed to him, viz. Ministerially, by such as are inferior to him, as the King by some of his subjects, the Archbishop, by Bishops, the officers of a Church in our brethren's way by the people, whom I hope they will allow to be inferior to their officers, at lest they profess that they do so. For the last clause, I say two things. 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places besides this; Acts 13. 7. God brought Israel out of Egypt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an high hand, as it is elsewhere phrased: So Acts 19 27. They told what things God had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them, i. e. by them; especially seeing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other place, which our Brethren suppose to be parallel, that puts it out of doubt: And the reason wherefore the Apostle rather useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was only for better sound sake, (which the Apostles were not neglective of) it had been unhandsome to have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore he elegantly varies the word, and puts in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But if you will needs have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in another sense then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. for with, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood of a gift, then why may we not acquiesce in this sense, (which will both fully take off all your objections, and yet no way praejudice our cause) neglect not the gift, etc. with the laying on of hands: i e. neglect not the gift, etc. nor the laying on of hands used in ordination, whereby thou wast solemnly set apart for, and obliged to the discharge of thy Ministerial gifts, and office; Do not slight, forget, disregard that injunction etc. And this sense I am sure the Greek will bear very well, and the English doth not exclude it. Again, if this satisfy not, it may be further added, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift in 2 Tim. 1. 6. (forasmuch as the power of conferring such gifts was the privilege of Apostles and extraordinary Officers) and the same word 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be understood of the office, the conveyance of which did fall within the verge of the ordinary Presbyters: And if you take it thus, than you may groundedly suppose, that the laying on of Paul's hands, was not done at the same time, nor to the same end, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but that this latter did convey the office at one time (which is said most properly to be neglected 1 Tim. 4. 14.) and the former did convey a gift at another time, which he is called upon to stir up, 2 Tim. 1. 6. And this fully takes off all the difficulty. Nor can any wonder at the different sense of the same word, and same phrase, for that is so common a thing, not only in divers Epistles, but in the same Epistle, yea the same Chapter, yea the same Verse sometimes, that one and the same word or phrase is differently to be understood, that none can justly stumble at it here. But lastly, it must be remembered that (if this place were to be understood in their sense, and did not contribute any thing to our cause) the truth we assert doth not so depend upon this place, that it must needs fall, if this place do not uphold it, forasmuch as it is founded upon divers other important places, as hath been showed. The Assembly argued further: The persons ordaining, were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Presbyters, whom it is not likely that Christ would appoint to convey only the adjunct of the Ministerial call, and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power to the people. To this they say two things. 1. In stead of giving an answer, they offer an argument; that because one relate gives being to another, therefore the people must needs give being to the Minister. Reply. This is a mere fallacy: Relata, are considerable two ways, as I may say, in esse constituendo, & in esse constitute, either as they are to be constituted, or as they are completely constituted: It is true, Relata considered in esse constitute, do give being one to another, the Father is not a Father unless he have a son. But then consider, relations in esse constituendo, as they are to be constituted, and so somewhat else gives being to them, when they are relata, the one gives being to the other, but there must be some other person or thing, which puts them into that relation, and it is that which we speak off: For instance, The husband gives being to the wife, and the wife to the husband: But there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation, to wit the Act of the Justice, or the Minister: A Vice Chancellor is the Correlate of the University, yet the Chancellors act doth constitute him in the relation, and gives him the essence of his call. 2. They say, Though Ordination be but an adjunct, yet, it consisting chiefly, if not only, in prayer, Christ might employ the Elders in adding such an adjunct. Reply. But what sober man can imagine, that if this were all, The Apostles should take so many journeys about Ordination; and should leave Titus, (who could ill be spared) in Crete to ordain elders: What, would he leave him only to pray for a blessing upon persons to be constituted by others? It is strange he should leave him to a work no way peculiar to his office, and a work which a brother might perform as effectually as an officer? And this shall suffice for the second Question. CHAP. XV. THE third and last question is this, Whether ordination may be done by the people? Wherein I shall need to say little, because indeed they say little to the purpose, and what they do say, is for the most part, either nothing else but a repetition of their disproved principles, or so infirm, that I may safely leave things to any ingenuous reader, who shall compare our arguments and their Answers. Nevertheless I will not wholly omit this task also, but, where I can pick up any thing that requires an answer, and hath not been already dispatched, I shall here take notice of it: They offer divers arguments to prove this proposition: That in a Church which wants officers, some believers may lawfully ordain without officers. 1. Else ordination were unattainable, for there is neither precept nor precedent of an ordinary officers acting in ordination out of the particular Church he is over. In the places which speak of ordination, to wit Acts 6. and 13. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. the persons ordaining were all extraordinary, and so no precedent for ordinary officers: And for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we see nothing to convince us that it was an ordinary Presbytery. Answer. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used (even in our brethren's judgement) which yet we find no precedent for, but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in: I will instance but in one, and that is excommunication, which we never read practised but by the authority and concurrence of an extraordinary Officer. Paul practiseth it; I have delivered him to Satan. And the Church of Corinth practiseth it, but not without Paul's express command, and positive warrant and concurrence, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4. For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit having judged already, etc.— when ye are gathered together, and my spirit: And yet our Brethren allow, and infer this as a precedent for the practice of excommunication by ordinary Churches, and ordinary persons: And therefore good reason they should allow us the same liberty. 2. And the rather, because this makes against our Brethren as well as us; It is their own grant, that Ordination is an Institution of Christ now in force, and that it is to be managed by the Officers of the Church, where there are such: So that both they and we are thus far agreed, that ordinary Officers may ordain. Now if what they say be true, then there is neither precept nor precedent for the Ordaining of Officers, and so it follows from hence, not only that none but Officers may ordain (which we assert) but also that Officers may not ordain at all (unless they will say Officers may do that for which they have neither precept nor precedent) so that our brethren's argument, either doth not praejudice us, or else it enervates their own principles. 3. The true way therefore to discern what acts of extraordinary Officers are presidential to ordinary, and what not, is this: Those actions which were proper to those times, those actions which were the results of extraordinary gifts, those actions which were appendants to an extraordinary jurisdiction; those are no precedents for us. The Apostles healing the sick by anouncing with oil, their preaching without study, their ordering of the Church affairs by their single jurisdiction, these things are unimitable by us. But now on the otherside; Those actions of extraordinary Officers which are common to all the ages of the Church, those, which may be transacted by ordinary gifts, and ordinary jurisdiction, those are precedents for us: The Apostles public praying, and preaching, administering the Sacraments, authoritative rebuking, ruling, censuring, etc. I say, their acting of those things, is and was ever by the Church taken to be a precedent for ordinary Officers acting the same things. Now forasmuch as Ordination is allowed by our Brethren, to be one of those New Testament practices yet to be continued, by virtue of these instances, etc. It follows that the practice of the Apostles therein (though they were extraordinary Officers) is a precedent for us, only here is the difference (wherein I am willing any indifferent man should be umpire) whether it is a precedent for the people's ordaining, (who, though in things belonging to them, they did act distinctly from, and concurrently with the Apostles, as in the business of Election, yet never do we find them ordaining or joining with the Apostles in the work of Ordination) or whether it be not rather a precedent for Ministers Ordaining, who are the undoubted successors of the apostles, and who did act with them in such works. 4. And Lastly, for that 1 Tim. 4. 14. how faintly and impertinently do they speak? What if you meet with nothing that convinceth you, that this was an ordinary Presbytery? sure I am you meet with nothing that convinceth you they were extraordinary: And it is a great deal more rational for us to think they were ordinary persons (of whom we read nothing which was extraordinary) then to fancy them to be extraordinary, (of which we have no evidence at all) the proof lies upon their side. I need no positive proof to persuade me to take a man for an ordinary person, he is justly presumed so to be, till some indicia, or discoveries of an extraordinary state break forth: But now, if one will assert, that another is an extraordinary person, he must have positive proof for it, which if our brethren can bring, to prove this Presbytery to be extraordinary, we shall submit to them, but, till then, they must not take it ill, if we believe them to be ordinary. Thus much for their first and principal Argument. 2. They argue thus; Those that may act in making Decrees in a Synod, they may Ordain; But Believers (who are not Officers) may act in a Synod, etc. Acts 15. 2, 22, 23. I answer to both Propositions. 1. The Major may be questioned, because all those things are to be regulated by Scripture, now if we have Scripture precept or example for the one, i e. for acting in a Synod (which they say here is) and not for the other, which we have proved there is not, than believers may do the one and not the other. 2. For the Minor, I deny, that the brethren may act in making Decrees in a Synod, I deny they did so in this place, we read not a word of it: All that we read is, that the whole Church consented to the decrees, and resolved upon the execution of them, which they might do, though they neither acted nor were present at the making of the Decrees: Even as thousands consent to Acts of Parliament, that have no hand in the making of them. And if our brethren think to prove this, they must bring better Arguments than any they have yet brought. Another Argument they urge is this; That Ordination consisteth in such Acts is may be done by the people; The people may fast and pray, and (which may seem to be most doubtful) they may impose hands if that be a rite still to continue, as appears from Numb. 8 10. where the children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levitieses. To this Instance, the Assembly gives such satisfying Answers, that I wonder how our Brethren could resist the evidence of them; and indeed their Replies are so inconsiderable, that I count it but lost time to make a rejoinder, and all that I shall desire of the Reader is this; That he would but use his reason, and lay aside his passion and prejudice, and compare what is said on both hands together, and I doubt not he will see, that all their assaults against them, are but like the dashings of the waves against a rock, whereby they break themselves to pieces. But if all that satisfy not, I shall add two Answers more. 1. Extraordinary instances are no precedents for ordinary cases. This was apparently an extraordinary case. The Levites and Church-Officers were not yet instituted: and to argue thus, that, because the people did lay on hands before those Church-Officers were created (who were afterwards to do it) therefore they might do it when such Officers were created and appointed for that work; It were as if a man should argue, Gifted men may preach where there are no Apostles nor Ministers to be had, therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers: Or thus, David might eat the shewbread when he could get no other, therefore any man may eat it when his table was spread with other bread. 2. Forasmuch as it is ridiculous to think that all Israel did lay their hands upon the heads of the Levites, therefore this was only some of them, and those some (no doubt) were the firstborn. Now it must be remembered, that as the Levites were taken instead of the firstborn, Num. 8. 16, 17. so the firstborn till then were in stead of the Levites, and till God instituted the Ecclesiastical Offices and Officers in Israel, the firstborn were Officers; and so it concerns not the people at all, nor proves any right in them to do the same thing. In the next place they come to answer some Arguments which are urged by the Assembly, to prove that Ordination did not belong to the people. Their Answers to the two first, are nothing else but repetitions of what hath been already discussed, and therefore I here wave them. For the third, the Assembly observed; That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the party ordained, is mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, who were Church-Officers; not in those Epistles which are written to the Churches. They answer. 1. Charges may be directed to Officers, and yet the people required to concur, as Rev. 2. and 3. If Timothy and Titus were to act these alone as Evangelists, than they are no precedents for us, if, with others, why not with the people as well as the Officers? Reply. They were to act alone in Ordination as Evangelists, and yet are a precedent for us. For, here are two things to be considered. 1. The work, viz. of Ordination, which was common and ordinary, and this is imitable. 2. The manner of doing it which was extraordinary; i. e. by their single power, and this is inimitable. You will say, If the manner of this Ordination was extraordinary, than Timothy's practice in Ordination is no more a precedent for ordinary Officers Ordaining, then for the people Ordaining. I answer, Yes; There is a different reason, because Timothy was one of the Officers or Persons ruling; and an extraordinary one, who alone might stand in the room of all other Officers; it may be there were no Officers present when Timothy did ordain; however his acting in this as an Officer, though extraordinary, may well be precedent for his successors, such as are Officers for the doing of the work (which is ordinary) though not for the doing of it by his single jurisdiction, which was extraordinary. But now on the other side, for the people or the persons rulled, Timothy was not one of them, but sustained a distinct person from them, and there were people at that time unquestionably present, when ever Timothy and Titus Ordained; and the people even in the days of those extraordinary Officers, did retain their distinct liberties, and exercise those things, which did belong to them as people, as is plain in the case of Election, which they enjoined and practised. And had Ordination belonged to the people as well as Election, certainly (notwithstanding the agency and presence of the Apostles therein, yet) we should have heard somewhat, at least, concerning the people's concurrence; which because we hear not a syllable of, we therefore justly conclude, that Election did, and doth, belong to the people, but Ordination doth not. I add only this; That look what reasons our Brethren have to look on the Apostles, etc. Baptising, etc. to be a precedent for Ministers Baptising, and not for the people's baptising; the very same reasons have we to conclude, that their Ordaining is a precedent for Officers Ordaining, not for the Ordination of the people. 2. They say, All may be written to Timothy and Titus, because they were to direct others how to act in them. And therefore the Apostle writes to them about other things (which yet were not to be acted by them alone, but by the people) as the making of prayers for Kings, clothing of women in modest apparel, etc. Reply. By this Rule, all things should have been written only in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, for they were to direct the people in all other things. But it is not simply the putting of a thing in this Epistle, which makes that act peculiar to Officers; But this is it which is justly insisted on, and which our Brethren should do well again to consider, that, Paul, who was so careful to order the affairs in every Church; yet in all his Epistles to those Churches, speaks not a word about the business of Ordination. Surely the Scriptures silence is argumentative as well as its speech, and it is oft urged in Scripture: Melchisedek is said to be without Father, &c because the scripture is silent as to his geniallogie, so Heb. 6.— our Lord sprang of juda of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood. And surely, it is not to no purpose that the Scripture is so silent, as to the point of direction about the mission of Ministers, in all those Epistles to people, but insinuates thus much to impartial Readers, that the Holy Ghost looked upon the people, as persons not entrusted with that work. The last thing urged by the Assembly was this; That Ordination is an authoritative mission, an act of jurisdiction, an act which gives the essentials of the Call. Private persons can no more convey power to another to administer Sacraments, than they can do it themselves. They answer. That Ordination is no act of jurisdiction, nor would it be so though it did convey the Office-power: Freemen do convey Office-power to their Bailiffs, etc. yet do no act of jurisdiction. Reply. 1. This hath been answered before, to wit, Freemen have that power by a Constitution, but there is not any Constitution for the people's conveying the Office-power to Ministers. 2. If the word jurisdiction be taken strictly, there is a difference made between Ordination and Jurisdiction, but if by an act of jurisdiction they mean nothing else but an act of Authority (for that is the thing in question) than we have before proved that it is an act of Authority, and it were easy to make it good by Arguments. We never find Ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament, but by persons in authority towards their inferiors. Moses Ordained Aaron; Aaron his sons, Christ his Apostles, the Apostles other Ministers: And if in all these it be granted to be an act of Authority, surely to deny it to be so in other Ministers, carrying on the same work, is an assertion neither true nor probable. Again, Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in Office, and therefore must be an act of authority: But I must remember my work is not now to prove, but to answer, and therefore I forbear, and shall give myself and the Reader a writ of ease. Only that the Reader may see the fruit of our brethren's opinion (as indeed posito uno absurdo, sequuntur mille) I shall present him with a list of some novel and strange assertions which they have been hurried into by the force of their principles. Novel and strange passages. 1. They implicitly deny Jesus Christ to have preached to the jews as a teacher by Office, for thus they say, p. 13. A man is not a teacher by Office to all that he may preach to: If he preach to Heathens— such as will not receive iustruction, yet they are said to be taught, though they stumble at the Word, Mat. 13. 54. He (i. e. Jesus) taught them, and yet v. 57 they were offended at him. But a man is not a teacher by Office unto such heathens. And the Apostles, according to them, were no Officers to Heathens; for they thus argue, pag. 18. That such are no Officers to people as cannot exercise Church-government over them: But (say I) the Apostles cannot exercise Church-government over heathens. What have I to do to judge them that are without. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ergo. 2. One that is really gifted for preaching (for aught we know) may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church, or others, p. o. 3. It is the work of God and Christ only, to send Preachers, let it be proved wherever a Presbytery was empowered to send. pag. 126. And the Church is in no better case with them; for they say, The person sending is Christ, neither a Church nor a presbytery, pag. 125. And afterwards. Sending is nothing else but Christ commanding to go and preach, not by a Presbytery, but by the word. And how a Presbytery can send, but by exhorting to follow the command of Christ, we know not. And in such a doctrinal way (for aught we see) a private Christian may exhort to go and teach, pag. 130. So that now both Presbytery and Church are thrust out of Office, and every one that is apt to teach, is commanded to preach, though neither Presbytery nor Church send him; And every private Christian hath as great a power to send Ministers, as either Church or Presbytery, which who can read without wonder? 4. If the Major part of a Congregation be wicked, we suppose than it is no true Church; and if once it were a true Church, yet now it ceaseth to be so, or is unchurched. pag. 237. 5. They talk of Pastor's administering the Sacraments not as Pastors; for thus they say, If Pastors preach and give the Sacraments to their own flock, they act as Pastors, but if they perform these acts to any, not of their own Congregation, they do it not as Pastors, pag. 280. Then they do it as gifted-men, for that is the other branch of the distinction. He that preacheth to strangers not as a Pastor, preacheth as a gifted-brother (that they grant). And therefore he that administereth the Sacraments to any not as a Pastor, doth it as a gifted-brother. 6. We see no inconvenience in asserting that heathens converted to Christianity may be a Church, before they be baptised, pag. 288. 7. A minister as oft as he changeth his place and people, needeth a new ordination, pag. 290. 8. They say, It is our mistake, when we assert that Baptism doth admit, or make a man stand in relation to a Church, whereas baptising is not into a Church, but into the name of Christ, pag. 292. 9 They say, If a people turn heretical, or starve a Minister, or combine to vote him out; the sin of the people doth nullify the office of the Minister, pag. 296. And, that I may tread in our brethren's steps who were so ready to catch at the appearance of a contradiction in the Provincial Assembly, I shall put them in mind of two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming repugnancies at least, if not gross contradictions. Self contradicting passages. They say, pag. 20. that one that is really gifted for preaching may (for aught we know) lawfully preach without approbation from a Church or others, pag. 20. And they urge 1 Pet. 4. 11. to prove it the duty of gifted persons to preach, and surely if it be a duty, than it obligeth whensoever a man may do it lawfully. And yet, pag. 149. they say, We grant, that to a man's exercise of his gifts in this or that place, there is praerequired a call from the people, or Magistrate: And how can any man preach but he must preach in this or that place? Quod nusquam fit non fit. 2. They say, When an ordained Minister removes from one charge to another, They choose him not as one that is to be made a Minister, but as one already made and now to be made their Minister, pag. 300. And yet, pag. 302. They say, when he removes, he is to have a new Ordination, and a new Election. The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister, and making him their Minister. pag. 302. 3. They say, Men to be sent to the heathens to convert them, should be Ordained, because the conversion of souls is a proper work of the Ministry; pag. 300. And yet, pag. 302. they say; When men are sent to heathens, if they be Officers, yet they preach not as Officers: The conversion of souls is the work of the Ministry, not the proper work. FINIS.