VINDICIAE MINISTERII EVANGELICI REVINDICATAE: OR THE PREACHER (pretendedly) Sent, Sent back again, TO Bring a better Account Who Sent Him, and learn his ERRAND: By way of REPLY, To a late BOOK (in the Defence of Gifted brethren's Preaching) Published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: So far as any thing in their Book pretends to Answer a Book published, 1651.  
CALLED Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici; WITH A Reply also to the Epistle prefixed to the said BOOK, called, The Preacher Sent.  
By John Collinges B.D. and Pastor of the Church in Stephen's Parish in Norwich.  
London, Printed by S. G. for Richard Tomlins, at the sign of the Sun and Bible near Pie-corner, 1658.   

To my Reverend and much Honoured Brethren, the Authors of the late Book, called, The Preacher Sent.  
Dear beloved Brethren,  
I Have seriously perused your Epistle directed to those professing the Order of Church Fellowship, and Government, called Presbyterian, of which number I must own myself to be one (though the least of all the Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, who walk in that way) together with your Book to which it is prefixed; and must profess myself, as to several particulars in either of them, very much unsatisfied, both as to the truth of the Notions you contend for, and to the mediums by which you endeavour to establish them; putting therefore away all wrath, prejudice, or bitterness, as in the following sheets I have endeavoured to show you your mistakes, as to the matter of your Book, so I shall in this Epistle do the like, as to what is contained in your Epistle: In the mean time professing myself (to use your own expression) bound for peace, as far as the shoes of the Gospel will carry me; and longing for that dispensation (if it may be expected in this life) when all the Lords People shall be blessed with One heart, and guided into one way, only desiring to divide my zeal equally betwixt truth and peace, knowing that God is as much the God of the one, as of the other.  
I rejoice to see my dear and Reverend Brethren sensible of the great abuse of that Liberty, for which they plead. I know our Brethren have not been such Strangers in Israel, but they have seen and observed, that most of those spurious notions, which in ●hese times of Blasphemy have been found in every Street, and with an impudent forehead have called the holy Spirit of God Father, and the lovely Virgin Truth mother, have been found lying at the door of this Liberty, and have really been born in her house. That most of those sad Earthquakes, which have rend the bowels of the Church, and overturned some Churches of God, both in Holland, and in Old and New England, have been caused by the wind of this Liberty, which they still endeavour to keep up. I know they cannot but have heard the cries of many poor people in this County, who are fed with these husks instead of bread, with the chaff of these exercises, instead of the more substantial wheat of public Ordinances. And surely, if an Argument from the blast of Providence, or the general disrelish of judicious Christians, be worth any thing, we have as good a plea as against any licentious practice in the worship of God.  
It was said once by a Learned Person in this Nation, that if a Book were composed of all the English Sermons, preached by men of worth, containing the choicest matter contained in them, which had been Preached within some few years, he believed no Book in the world would be to be compared with it: I believe our Brethren judge, that if all the Errors, Crudities, Nonsense, impertinencies, blasphemies, self-contradictions, which (by virtue of the exercise of this Liberty they plead for) have within these fifteen or sixteen years' last passed, been vented in open Pulpits, were summed in one Book, the Turkish Alcoran would scarce afford such a rhapsody of error, nonsense, blasphemy and impertinency. To give our Brethren a taste, I have a Letter still by me, wrote by a gifted Brother, who took upon him to tell me, that he heard me such a day, and I did not open my Text aright (my Text that day was, Eph. 2.— Aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.) He told me, if I had rightly opened it, I must have told my people, 1. What the wealth of Israel was. 2. How it came to be common. 3. How far forth it was common. With much more such nonsensical stuff; and very teachy he was with me, that I had not fallen upon his notions: if either this person had understood the Greek, or our Translation had Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 polity, all the jest had been spoiled, which probably he would have made three Sermons upon.  
I should have really thanked our Brethren, for acknowledging an abuse of this Liberty, if I could have seen, 1. That any use of it (other than I had granted them) were not an abuse of the greatest Ordinance of the Gospel.  
2. Or if I could have seen that our Brethren could have fixed a rule of regulation, it would have done something with me; but when you tell us, you plead for none but such as are really gifted, and then tell us none have to do to judge whether they be so or no, it is convenient the Church should, but if they Preach without, it is no sin. To my apprehension ye do but complain of a Floodgate, that stands  too deep, when yourselves put in a bar that it may not shut down more close. It is true, the abuse of a thing plainly necessary by a necessity of precept, is no argument to take away the use, but where no precept is plain, the general miscarriage, and accursed consequences of it, are a strong topic to prove it is not according to the will of God. And I hope our Brethren upon second thoughts, will not judge any one Text quoted by them plainly concluding the Case. All your Arguments run either from the use of gifts, to the use of this gift (when as yet you will not allow all gifts to be so exercised) nor any judgement to be made of the gift) or from examples where there is no parity, as you will perceive by the following Discourse.  
You rightly apprehend, that the singular notion you have entertained of a Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this, and many other unhappy Controversies; you are therefore pleased in your Epistle, to endeavour to make the light of your notion concerning a Church to reflect upon our faces. You tell us,  
That a Church is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual Fellowship in the means of worship appointed by Christ, 
Ep. Dedic.  for the glory of God, the edification of their own souls, and the good of others. This you say is the only Church that is capable of Officers to be immediately set in it, and over it.  
That this is a Church we grant, but that only this Church is capable of Officers we deny: I shall have liberty to enter my dissent, in examining the six particulars you instance in for the explication of this description.  
First, You say it is a company, that we grant, Ecclesia properly is nomen multitudinis, one properly and strictly cannot be called a Church.  
Secondly, You say it is a particular Company, and that there never was, nor ever will be existing in rerum naturâ, any other than a particular company. I must confess to my dear Brethren, that I cannot fathom their notion of particular: we use to say, particularis is opposed both to universalis and singularis, I suppose our Brethren here oppose it to Vniversalis. An universal theme in Logic is that (as our Brethren know) which is apt to be predicated naturally concerning many: I think Church is such a Theme. Thus much our Brethren I am sure will grant, that their Congregations at London, Norwich, Yarmouth, may each of them be called a Church. Now the Question is, whether all these Churches may not be considered together, and called a Church: Or if you will, Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth, may not by an universal notion be called a Church, or is not called a Church in Scripture. You acknowledge it in a reformed sense an universal company, but not an universal Church, that is (as I suppose you mean) a body capable of Officers, otherwise it were a strange thing that seven persons, who are visible Saints should be called a Church, 
Mr. hudson's Vindic. p. 31. ad. p. 40.  and seven hundred should not. If our Brethren will please to read what Reverend Mr. Hudson hath wrote, he will show them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be understood of particular Churches, Acts 8.3. Gal. 1.13. Acts 26.11. Acts 9.31. compared together, Acts 12.1. Acts 2.47. 1 Cor. 10.32. Gal. 4.26. Eph. 3.10. 1 Cor. 12.28. All these Texts will prove, that the Scripture hath not restrained the notion of Church to a particular Company so called.  
But you will say, This is a Church not capable of Officers to be set in or over it. Brethren, have you read what Mr. Hudson saith, to prove Ministers Officers to the Church Catholic? Do they not (when they Baptise) admit into the Catholic Church; 
Pag. 232:  why else are not your Members baptised again, when they are translated from the particular Church into which (according to this principle) alone they were Baptised? Do they not by Excommunication cast out of the Catholic Church? Or will our Brethren say, that a Church may lawfully admit to its Communion, a Member which another Church hath cut off from her Communion? Were the Apostles (think our Brethren) Officers only to a particular Church? If to the Universal, then there was an universal Church once existing, capable of Officers. Nor is that irrefragable Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. (as our Brethren say) pressed to the service of the Catholic Church. No, it comes as the Lords Voluntier willing to engage for this Truth. You say Brethren, that what it is written, ver. 18. of that chapter, God hath set the Members every one in the body, doth as much prove a Catholic or universal Body, as God hath set some in the Church, proves a Catholic Universal Church. I know my Brethren aim at greater things than quibblings about a word: that passage God hath set the Members every one in the body, together with ver. 12. and all the members of that one body, being many are one body, will prove that the body is Totum integrale: So also saith the Apostle is Christ, i. e. the Church of Christ. If our Brethren will but grant us this, That the Church is a Totum integrale, you must grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum. If you say there is no other Totum called a Church, but only the particular Church, I have proved the contrary, that the term of Church is applied otherwise than to a particular Church. If you say, this Church hath no Officers, that Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. confutes you; neither will your consequence follow, that because an universal body is not proved from ver. 18. therefore an Universal Church is not proved from ver. 28. viz. from the whole verse. If it had been said v. 18. God hath set the members every one in the body; and then the Text had made an enumeration of such members, some of whose use and office was not confined to the service of that particular body, but would serve any other particular bodies, as he doth of Church Officers, ver. 28. I hope it would have proved an Universal body. You tell us (Brethren) you renounce the name and thing of an Universal or Catholic Church, you must then renounce the Holy Scripture (witness the Texts before mentioned) and renounce right reason, and renounce the most learned and judicious of your own Brethren, who generally acknowledge, both the name and thing, only deny it to be Organical: But you think, you have five Arguments will prove, that a particular Church cannot be a part, but a Totum.  
1. You say first, every part is in power incomplete; But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church— And may act in all Church work, not as a part, but as a whole. I must deny your Minor (Brethren!) I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod, and to consult (at least) a piece of Church work, to which Gods word gives a power, Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again, you will not say that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod. We say the like for Ordination (except in cases of absolute necessity) and for excommunication (where the Church is very small) there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church. See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudson says to all these in the Book before cited.  
2. You tell us next, that every whole is really distinct from every part, and from all its parts collectively considered, they are constituting, that is constituted; but where that Church is which is really distinct from all particular Churches, or wherefore it is you know not. This is Brethren such a fallacy, as scarce deserveth an answer; the body of a man is a whole, all his members are parts; now when you have found out where that body is, which is really distinct from all the members, and wherefore it is, you will have answered yourselves. The Nation of England is a whole, every Parish is a part, find us where that Nation is, which is distinct really from all the Parishes taken together. We use to make this a Maxim in Logic, 
Totum reipsâ non differt à partibus suis simul sumptis & unitis.  That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts taken together and united.  
3. In the next place you tell us, there can be no visible universal Church, because there is no universal visible meeting: and that the Greek word translated Church (in all Civil and Sacred usage) signifies a meeting, in fieri or facto esse. But you began to think that the invisible Church, are never like to have such a meeting; and therefore (to salve it) you heal this wound in your Argument (in my opinion) very slightly, when you say, it doth meet invisibly & in Spirit. If you will but grant us that Brethren, that the name of Church in Scripture, is given to those that never locally meet, but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit; you have by an unhappy heel, kicked down all that good milk, which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church. And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it, it speaks of the Church of the firstborn. There is an universal meeting of the Catholic visible Church, at the throne of Grace (before their great Pastor) and in Spirit (as it is only possible for a Catholic Church to meet) whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances. For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first, you have quitted your plea for the visibility, to save the Church of the firstborn from Excommunication; and we hope it will also save the Church Catholic, visible, from any hurt by this Argument.  
4. You go on (Brethren) and tell us, There are no distinct Officers for a Catholic Visible Church: Ergo, there is no such Church. If you had expressed the Major Proposition, I should have denied it; the assertion of a Church Catholic visible (though we add Organical) doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church; it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches (which as parts constitute that whole) have power to act as Officers in any of those parts, which united make up that whole: I am not willing, but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren, that this is no fair play, to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholic Church, and to mention only the Antichristian, and Prelatical Notion of it. Let any one read Mr. Hudsons' Vindication, p. 129, 130, 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church, as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head, and Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. for his derivatives. But this we say, that the whole Church (all the particular Churches in the world) make but one body of Christ; and as it is one (una) so it is (unita) united in a Common Profession of the Gospel; & as there is this union, and communion of members, so there is a communion of some Officers, particularly Ministers, who may Preach as Christ's Ambassadors, by virtue of Office, any where, and may any where Baptise, and Administer the Lords Supper, upon occasion; and we say our Brethren in practice grant this; for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those, to whom he is not in Office, as his particular Church, and this is a Common practice with our Brethren; how consistent with our brethren's principle let them judge: while our Brethren say they do this by virtue of a Communion of Churches, they do but blind the Common People with a dark notion, that signifies nothing: What mean they by a Communion of Churches, if they do not mean this, that by the word of God, one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another? If they have so, there must be a Communion of Offices, as well as Gifts, for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office. If that it be not the will of God in his Word, that the Officer of one Church, should do an act of Office in another Church, or to a Member of another Church, it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches. If this be his will, it is as much as we ask; for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church, and the members of it, but also to any particular Churches in the world, or to any of their Members. We ask no more. This is the Catholic Organical Church we plead for. Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol, and pretend to abhor it, in the notion, they do not in practice bow down to it, and commit Sacrilege.  
5. You tell us in the last place (Brethren) That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine, and hear offences, Mat. 18.17. But that is a particular Church. Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae, and you have taken as good care as you could, to strengthen it, by saying, it cannot be meant of both; and to exclude the Congregational Church, is unscriptural, irrational, absurd.  
But I must crave leave to tell you, 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question; for it is not, whether be greater the Church Catholik, or the Church particular; but whether there be any Church Catholic or no, greater or less.  
Object. But you will say, if there be any it must be greater.  
Answ. Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater, whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality: If in respect of quantity, number, etc. the Major is apparently false. If in respect of quality, as you seem to hint by the term, having power, than your Argument is this,  
There is no Church hath a greater power, than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches:  
But the particular Church hath that power, Mat. 18.17. Ergo.  
I will give you Brethren such another Argument, judge you whether it be good or no, and if it be not, you must prove your own better.  
There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation.  
But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences. Ergo, that is as great a Court as the Court of Common. Pleas.  
You must therefore put in finally determine, and all offences, in any part of the Church, or else your Major is false, when you have mended that we will deny your Minor, and tell you, that admit that Text, Mat. 18.17. should be meant of a particular Church, yet it proves no such power, either finally to determine, or all offences, as well those betwixt Church and Church, as those betwixt party and party, or party and Church. Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text, (according to the nature of the offence) nor do I think your saying, that to exclude the Congregational Church, viz. some Congregational Churches, is unscriptural, irrational, absurd, amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case. I think it is far more rational, and far less absurd, to say that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth, it should be done by a Church, made up of several Churches in association and upon a Common consultation, and by a common act of many Reverend and Judicious persons, then by seven persons, none of which possibly hath reason enough to judge truly of the merit of the cause. And in reason it should seem more like to be the will of Christ, who is very tender of all his people's souls. Our Brethren know we could give them sad instances of particular Churches, excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pastors, who are sufficiently known to have deserved no such things.  
You tell us Brethren, that the Officers of Churches met together, are no true Church. Zuinglius (you say) said some such thing, but it was in a case no more like this, than chalk is like cheese: We are disputing now, whether the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod, may not be called a Church, they being sent to represent the particular Churches. We have a Rule in Logic, Cui competit definitio convenit definitum. I therefore argue.  
A Church say you, Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowship in the means of Worship appointed by Christ, for the glory of God, the edification of their own souls, and the good of others.  
But a justly-constituted Synod is such a Company— Ergo, they are a Church.  
1. They are a Company, one cannot make a Synod.  
2. They are a particular Company, they are but a part of the Church, not every individual; nor (say our Brethren) did ever any other company exist.  
3. They are an holy Company, at least should, or may be so.  
4. They are united, their consent to meet and sit together unites them, so doth the consent of the particular Churches sending them.  
5. They are united unto fellowship in means of Worship, we will suppose them while they are together, to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear, pray, receive Sacraments together, etc.  
6. The end of this fellowship, is the glory of God, the edification of themselves, and the whole Church, and the good of others.  
So that in Answer to our brethren's expression borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differing case, Representativant esse credo, veram non credo. I return, Aut veram esse credo, aut falsam esse vestram credo definitionem: Either they are a true Church, or your definition of a Church is not true.  
Thirdly, you tell us, a Church must be an holy Company. I Answer.  
1. So was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned Acts 19.32, 42. But concerning the Church of Christ, we grant it (sano sensu) upon some of your Arguments, which I think are conclusive enough.  
2. We say, God himself calleth the whole Jewish Nation holy, Exod. 19.6. The Apostle calls the seed of those Parents holy, where one of them was a believer, 1 Cor. 7. In this sense we grant every member of the Church must be holy, separated from a Paganish conversation, and under an external Covenant with God.  
3. We say, it is their duty to be holy by sanctification, this they are to labour after. But we deny,  
1. That they must necessarily be all real Saints, or no Church, and this our Brethren will not own.  
2. That a visibility of saving grace, is necessary to the constitution of a Church in all the members of it.  
1. Because our Brethren (we hope) will own the Infants of their members, to be members, in whom is no such visibility.  
2. Because special saving grace is a thing invisible, and of which we can make no true judgement.  
3. Because we find no ground in Scripture for it; we cannot see what visibility of saving grace the Apostles could act by, who admitted three thousand and five thousand in a day, Acts 2. Acts 4. more than their being baptised upon their owning the Gospel.  
Fourthly, our Brethren themselves say, that filthy matter may be found in a Church constituted, which is not fit matter in the constitution: We look upon the Companies of persons in our Parishes, as they have united themselves in means of worship, Churches constituted, not to be constituted; and do not understand (while the form, which doth dare esse continues) how some decays in the matter annihilates the Church, any more than the rottenness of some pieces of Timber, yea though the major part of those pieces be hardly sound, makes the house (while it stands and keeps the form) not to be an house.  
But fifthly, we grant to our Brethren, that such as err in the fundamentals of the Gospel, or are affectedly ignorant of them, or are guilty of lewdness in their lives, aught to be cast out of the Church, though we dare not determine any single acts of wickedness inconsistent with grace, remembering the failings of Lot, Noah, David, Solomon, and Peter; yet we say by virtue of the Command of God (though they may have a root of grace) they ought to be admonished, suspended, and excommunicated, and this for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the good of their own souls, not because they have no saving grace, or no visibility of it; for it may be we may have seen formerly so much of them, as to make us of another mind.  
We therefore grant you (brethren) that the visible Church, is the Kingdom of Christ, the body of Christ, and yet there may be subjects of this Kingdom, who give not due homage to him, members of this body, real members, and yet must be cut off, branches in this Vine, and yet not bringing forth fruit, John 15.2. You desire to know what reason we have to justify a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace, in order to the Communion in the Lord's Supper, and yet to blame you for such an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints. The Answer Brethren is very easy, Because we find, that a man should examine himself before he eateth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup: but we no where find, Let a man examine himself, before he comes into the fellowship of the Church; and we think the three thousand and five thousand had scarce any leisure before their admission, to do it very throughly. But our Brethren know no Rule they say, for an ordinary suspension of complete and owned Members of the Body from the Sacrament. If you consult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6. He will show you plain Scripture for it; if the incestuous person had been excommunicated, St. Paul needed not to have said, sufficient is the punishment which is inflicted, for they had punished him as much as they could. Nor was there any thing to be remitted. See Beza on the Text more fully. However our Brethren (as I hear) ordinarily practise it, when a person is under admonition, and the Church waiting to see the issue of it, we plead for it no further.  
5. You tell us fifthly (Brethren) that a Church must be an united company; if you had told us in what sense you understand united, we could better have told you our minds (at least I could have better told you mine) concerning it. People may be united by cohabitation, by common profession, by mutual consent, this you seem to understand: this again may be either explicitly, by Covenant, or implicitly, by a constant joining in the same practice which our Brethren contend for, or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell: this being premised Brethren, I conceive.  
1. Every company called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be an united company, either as to an union of judgement or practice: the rout, Acts 19 called by this name were not.  
2. Every Religious Company or Church of Christ (called by this name in Scripture) were united, but neither by cohabitation, nor yet by consent to walk together in the same individual Ordinances, but every such company must be an united company as to profession of the same Doctrine, and acknowledging the same specifical Ordinances of the Gospel; all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudson to prove the universal Church prove this.  
3. There is no need that every particular Church (if not organised) and under the exercise of Discipline, should be united, by consent as to practise, in the same numerical Administrations; every particular company of the universal Church may properly enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without such a consent; you often read of the Church in a particular house, Col. 4.15. Rom. 16.5. Phil. 2. of which no such thing can be proved.  
4. Indeed it seems reasonable, that a particular Church, organised, and in which Discipline ordinarily should be administered, should be a company united by consent; for my own part I can allow you this, though I know some of my Brethren will not.  
5. That this Union must needs be by an explicit Covenant, or consent is neither to be proved by one Text, nor yet by one sound reason, and to impose this as necessary, is a mere humane invention, and not to be endured, because there is not the least warrant in God's word for it.  
But lastly, we hearty wish, that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exercise of power, the members of our Churches would submit to such an explicit consent. And we cannot but commend our Worcestershire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it, though we suppose they will be tender of Excommunicating such, as seeing no command of God for it, shall not think fit to submit to it: Thus far I can yield our Brethren, that a particular Church is an united Company. And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Societies to be true Churches, not (as some would (ridiculously) fasten upon us) because they live within such local limits, but because they are societies of baptised persons, who by a tacit, and implicit consent, have united themselves, waiting upon God in the same numerical Ordinances of instituted worship. And this Union holding, we say they are to be looked upon as true Churches, although (as the Church of Corinth) corrupted in some of their members, and therefore not to be separated from, nor disowned as no Churches, but to be purged, and the old leaven put out, that they may be a new lump.  
5. For what our Brethren say in the fifth and sixth place, That they must be a company united unto fellowship in means of worship appointed by Christ, and this for the glory of God, etc. I freely grant, nay it may be I will grant more, viz. that they must be a people, who either have elected or submitted to the Officers of the Church for the Administration of the Ordinance of Discipline.  
But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren, if I tell them, I have almost made my head ache, with studying the connexion of a passage which you have in the last page of your Epistle (save one) and do what I can, I understand not how it relates to the former Discourse, or is brought in upon any easier terms, than they say, The Fellow brought in Hercules, viz. by head and shoulders; for undoubtedly) if it had been led by the conduct of sense or reason, it would never have come there: The passage is this,  
But we shall say no more of this, Our Brethren not being baptised into the belief of the same truth, asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven, although the confidence of our late Assembly could say no more but this: The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government. May be! they would have said, must be, had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it.  
I must profess myself (dear Brethren) to be so ignorant, that I can neither understand the sense of this passage, either copulatively, or disjunctively; will you give me leave to sift it a little? possibly (though it all looks like chaff) some kernels of sense or truth may be found in it.  
But we shall say no more of this (you say) Our Brethren not being Baptised into the belief of the same Truth. Of this? of what? You had before been speaking of the Papists, making their Decrees and humane inventions, equal with the ten Commandments; and told us, you believe Revelations of new matter are ceased, and that Christ hath ceased from his work, etc. Now you tell us, you shall say no more of this: your Brethren (viz. We of the Presbyterial persuasion) not being baptised into the belief of the same truth, asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven: what's this to the making of Church Canons of equal authority with God's word? Do any of us make them so? Or had our Brethren a mind to make the world believe that of us which never entered into our thoughts, nor was ever expressed by us in any of our Books. Doth [the same truth] relate only to what follows, that we are not all of a mind, as to the Divine Right of Church-Government: what needed our Brethren have added this in this place, or what is the meaning of those words? [But we shall say no more of this] and then adding the other as a reason. But let us see if there be more truth in what followeth, That the Presbyterians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven: They are foully to blame then, for I should think Popery, as to Government, better than Presbytery, if I did not think Presbytery came from heaven. But it is yet more wonderful (Brethren!) which you tell us, that the Assembly did not so believe, yea, expressed as much; for they only say, Many particular Congregations may be united; and you note, they would have said must be, if they had so judged. Our Brethren have indeed said in their terms no more than it may be, but they have also in the same place proved that it was so, both in the Church of Jerusalem, and also in the Church of Ephesus.  
If they only say it may be, but prove it must be, I hope it is enough; our Reverend Brethren loved to use soft words, and hard Arguments: But indeed they could not well say it must be, for there might be but one particular Church in a Nation, and then it was not necessary; but surely our Brethren would not have said, it may be, if they had thought there was no particular or general ground for it in God's word, and surely, what hath such a foundation in God's word, is jure Divino (not withstanding our brethren's critical observation.) Our Brethren of the Assembly do not say it may be, the sense of the Texts they quote to prove it, yet you (Brethren) must remember you tell us so for some if not all of your Texts for Election, where all you pretend to, is our sense may be the sense; yet I hope you will say that Election is jure Divino. Our Brethren know that they have pretended a Jus Divinum too for gifted men's preaching, and yet for fear of their ask maintenance (and to avoid our Argument from thence) tell us, they may preach occasionally, but will not say, They must preach constantly.  
In the last place Brethren, you fear we may be provoked against you, and therefore you favour us with your Reasons, for engaging in this service, and excuse for coming into it so late. A pit you say hath been digged, and a long time stood open, and divers have fallen into it, and you come out in charity to cover it. Whether you have indeed covered, or uncovered a Pit, Let every judicious Christian judge, yea let the experiences of all the Churches of Christ testify. I beseech my dear and reverend Brethren to lay their hands upon their hearts, and consider whether they have not uncovered that pit, into which some years since, many (supposed) Brethren in New England falling, sank, and risen up no more to a visible repentance for their Errors and Blasphemies. That pit, into which many Members of our brethren's Churches in Holland fell, & that sadly too. That pit into which many Members of their late Churches in England, yea in Norfolk fell, and are come out Quakers, pleaders for the Jewish Sabbath, for the power of Miracles (as not ceased) conferring (as they pretend) the Holy Ghost, etc. That pit which the most learned, judicious, & godly-wise Brethren, Pastors of our brethren's Churches in England, will not endure to stand open where they have to do; which the reverend Pastors of the Church's in New England dare not let stand open without a Teaching Elder present to watch it. This pit our Brethren have endeavoured again to uncover, and I hope it will appear as vain an attempt as his who would needs rebuild Jericho (as to the issue of the work, though not as to the punishment of the persons, whom I desire to love & honour, for their work sake, though not for this works sake) I could have hearty wished, my Brethren had left this Idol to plead for itself, and I dare say, they might have done it without offending, one humble, serious judicious Christian, (at lest who is known to me)  
I most humbly beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren, to hear the cries of many sober judicious persons, lamenting the sad condition of the Parishes wherein they live, which instead of able and godly Ministers, are served with none, but such as mend their trading on the week day, by assuming this unbridled liberty on the Sabbath, who are both obtruded upon them, and unable to speak the word of God as they ought to speak; so that they are forced (in these days of Reformation too) to go from Parish to Parish, to seek one who can speak to them in the name of the Lord, or to whose preaching they can go in faith, and attend upon it as a public Ordinance. Doth not this Liberty dead the hearts of sober men, as to acting in any Reformation, by casting out scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient Ministers? While they see little more good from it, then casting out one ignorant insufficient man, to make way for some others; or the casting out one that would prophesy of wine and strong drink, to make way for others, who shall prophesy the vain imaginations of their own hearts, or the errors of Millenaries, Anti-Ministerial persons, and high flown Anabaptists; and who would not judge, that if people must be under this sad destiny to have a snare for their souls stand in their Pulpits, it had better be one that every one knows, and would avoid, than one that is covered over with the hypocrisy of a little hay or stubble, and is no less dangerous and more hard to be discovered by vulgar eyes?  
Dear Brethren! I beg your pardon, if in this case, the zeal of my God, his House, People, Truth's glory, hath eaten me up, in this Cause in which I think all of them are so deeply concerned, and sad experience hath proved it.  
As to your excuse, for coming so late into this Dis-service to the Church and Truth of God, I have no reason to be troubled at it; as thinking you have at last come too soon: And I am apt to believe the Rebukes of your own Conscience might retard your expedition: I have endeavoured to follow you with more speed, observing it a piece of Wisdom of the GOD of Nature, to plant the Antidote within view of the Poison. I can truly say that while you have a just Answer of your Book (so far as I am concerned in it) I have the Answer of a good Conscience, having spoken nothing on this Subject, but what I believe to be the Truth of GOD. Nor have I willingly shown any passion.  
So praying that those honest Hearts (of which I persuade myself you are all possessed) may hereafter be found enditing a better matter. I commend you to the LORD, and to the blessing of his Grace: Being  
BRETHREN, Your Servant for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, John Collinges. Chaplyfield-House in Norwich, Febr. 12. 1657.   

To every Christian Reader.  
Reader,  
THere are three or four great Truths of God, the Tutelage of which, from their enemies (at least in these parts) I have formerly undertaken, 1. The Divine Ordinance of Gospel Preaching, in the administration of which, all who thought themselves gifted men pleaded a right of intercommonage with those, who according to Gospel-Rules are separated to that work: 2. The liberty of Christians, from the observation of Holy Days. 3. The pure administration of the holy Sacrament of the Supper: and 4. The Divine Right of Church-Government in the hands of Christ's proper Officers. My discourse concerning the first, I have already once vindicated; what I said upon the second (to my knowledge) none hath yet answered; as to the two last, there hath been something published to the world, under pretence of answer. John Timson and Mr. Humphrey have pretended something by way of answer to the third: and Theoph. Brabourne to the fourth. And now three Reverend Brethren have undertaken me the second time, in the defence of the Preaching of gifted men's Preaching. I shall only give thee a true account, why I have said nothing to the three other Answerers, nor have any thoughts to do it. As for John Timson had he fallen upon me but with his Cart-whip, I think I should have turned again, but falling so foully upon me with his plow-staff (upon a maxim I have learned from some Gentlemen, that a Rapier is no weapon fit to engage a Carter upon the Road) I thought it prudence to runaway: Besides that, perceiving he had got the Art to answer himself by more than one manifest contradiction; I thought it pity any one else should be put to the trouble, especially considering, that after I had drawn seven or eight sheets of an Answer, my Stationer assured me, he had not sold above one of his Books, and it was pity by an Answer, to commend his Book to the world's Enquiry Mr. Humphrey indeed discovers a reverend opinion of his Book, I suppose for the Notion he in the main drives, not for his way of handling of it, which I think scarce deserves such a character. As for Mr. Humphrey, I perceived him sailing in his last Book at a lower rate, and I was loath by an answer to serve him with a wind, which might have tempted him to have spread his sails to their former wideness (I remember the ill influence, learned Spanhemius his Answer to Amiraldus had upon him to this purpose.) Besides that, I saw I must have differed with him in more momentous matter then that of the Sacrament, if I had given him a strist answer: and I was not willing to raise more dust of Controversy than is already raised in the world. As for Theoph. Brabourne, as I could find nothing in his Book besides error and nonsense: so I perceive the world had no better opinion of it; the Stationer returning him his Printed Copies for New-years-gifts for his Friends, because he could sell none of them, or but exceeding few, and though I have often met the Books at my Friends Houses, where he had given them, yet (that I know of) I never found any of them made fit to read, or otherwise used than to kindle Tobacco. Besides that, immediately after his publication of that Rhapsody of impertinence, I saw some Papers he had scattered up and down this City, to prove there were three distinct Gods, and to the will of which of them he had calculated his Book I could not tell. The GOD whom I serve is but one, he that can blaspheme the Living GOD, may be excused for that crime towards his Truths and Servants, and deserves not to be mentioned in a Christians mouth.  
As for this last Book, called The Preacher Sent, I find it written by grave and sober persons, with a good show of Argument (indeed as much as their Cause would bear I think) and dictated by a sober composed and gentle Spirit, and the concernment of the Book to be of exceeding Moment, especially in relation to this County, which (I believe) hath more of that sort of Preachers than any three Counties in England have: I have therefore thought it worth the while to examine their Book, so far as I am concerned in it; with what success (Reader) thou must be Judge, and the Lord guide thee in Judgement, both as to this, and every truth: So prays,  
Thy Faithful Servant in the Lord Jesus, J. C.   

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

CHAP. I. Containing an answer to the three first Chapters of our brethren's Book, Concerning Preaching without Ordination. In which, the terms Minister, Ministry, and Office are considered and explained, and three Questions discussed: 1. Whether gifted men not ordained can be called Ministers, and in what sense. 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the work or no. 3. Whether the Office of the Ministry be a relation to the Universal Church; The Negative part of the first, The Affirmative part of the two latter is defended; And whatsoever our Brethren have offered on the contrary is fully answered and proved fallacies; their description of Office proved faulty, etc.  
1. THat two of the Books lately Published, against the Preaching of persons merely gifted, and for Ordination (as that which gives the call unto the work of the Ministry) should (as our Brethren say) contain the substance of all the rest, is no great wonder, considering that (I trust) they were all wrote by the same Spirit, and (for the most part) made use of the same Scripture for the Sedes of their Arguments: But that our Brethren should take my Vindiciae ministerii Evangelioi to be one of them, either speaks their (too much) respect for me; or their policy to magnify that Enemy whom they conceive they have conquered.  
2. For my Pamphlet; it was written seven years since, commanded (almost) to the Press by an holy and eminent servant of God (now with God) Mr. Jeremy Whitaker, who was with me, when I was writing; and arguing the need, or expedience of such a Pamphlet, he told me he was of Augustine's mind, who would have every body write against Pelagius. It was occasioned at first, by the troublesomeness of a gifted man (as himself judged) in communion with me, who had a great ambition to be expounding Scripture; and (in a teach) because we would not allow it, afterwards left us, and joined himself, with a Congregational Church, who had no better opinion of his gifts than we had before, & restrained his lust in that ambition too; and in a like teach, he left them and turned Quaker. For the satisfaction of those Christians in communion with me, upon the trouble given us by this person, I first (at private meetings of Christians in communion with me) discoursed the things in my Book; afterwards Printed them. It pleased God so far to bless my endeavours, that since that time, none of those committed to my charge have presumed to attempt any such practice; and it hath pleased God so far to give my Printed Book success, that I think it hath been twice Printed, and several persons (some of quality) have returned me thanks, for my poor labours in it. And our Brethren having singled me out for a combatant once more in this quarrel; I shall endeavour to discharge the duty they have imposed upon me, and to do it with the same moderation, and spirit of meekness, which they profess, and (for aught I observe yet) have practised.  
3. Our Brethren in the first Chapter do two things. 1. They Open the term Ministry. 2. The term Office. 3. They raise two Questions:  
1. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the work, or to the Church? If our Brethren would have been content, that it should have been in its relation divided, we should not have opposed it: But affirming it is not relate to the work, but only to the Church, I must profess myself dissatisfied.  
2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Universal, or only to the particular Church? Our Brethren say, Only to the particular Church; If our Brethren would have been content with a division again, that the Minister should be related to both, we should have granted it; or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholic Church, as had constant standing Catholic Officers, we know no such Church, and should not have disputed the or pro non ente: But (as they state it) I must profess myself also in this of another mind, viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church: And therefore to trial we must go.  
In the opening of the term Ministry, Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination, Mat. 20.25, 26, 27. that those who do acts of ministration, are Ministers; that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry, are applied, in Scripture, to others beside Ministers in Office: that their constant performing acts of ministration, entitleth them to the denomination of Ministers; and their work should be called Preaching, as we usually call them, Brewer's, or Bakers, who brew, or bake constantly; and therefore Christians should so call them. This is the sum of what they have, p. 2. & 3. To all which, I shall crave leave to answer. For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction, which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will by't him  
1. That the terms Minister, Ministry, and Office, are of various interpretations both in civil, and sacred usage, is unquestionable. These terms therefore falling into the questions, the explication, and limitation of them, to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary. An accurate discourse of a question, requires, that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication. In plenâ tractatione, vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda (say Logicians.)  
2. For the first term therefore [Minister] that it is a Latin word, none can doubt, nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant, one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master; so called, either because he is to his Master a manibus, an hand servant, quasi manister (as Perottus will have it) or because he is less than his Master, quia minor in station; (which is Isiodore's notion, and preferred by learned Martinius.) In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and profane Authors, Infimi homines ministros se praebent, saith Tully. l. 1. de Orat: and again, lib. de Amicitiâ,— Libidinis ministri, so Ovid 
— illo dicunt Mactata Ministro  
Corpora—   
3. The holy Penmen of Scripture, (either moved, from the congruity of the native signification of the word, or the notion of it accrueing by general usage) have sometimes used it to signify one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the great work of Preaching the Gospel; at lest our translators (interpreting what they wrote in another language) have done so. The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which are of as various signification, and two of them (at least) as variously applied, by those holy Penmen, as the word Minister is by other Authors.  
The first word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies, one who roweth in a Boat, or Ship, under another, and thence any one who is servant to another) is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament; and I think, but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers, they are Acts 26.16. 1 Cor. 24.1. In the first Paul saith, God raised him to be a Minister; in the latter, they are called Ministers of Christ: for I cannot believe that the phrase, Lu. 1.2. can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers (for I think they had no Text before that time) but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christ's words and actions, and so were Servants to the holy Penmen, in communicating what they saw, and heard, to them. There are indeed two other Texts, which some may mistake into this sense, Lu. 4.20. Acts 13.5. In the first, it is said Christ clozed up the Book, and gave it to the Minister; in the latter, John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas. Those who writ about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer, belonging to the Temple (something I think akin to our Parish Clerks) who was wont, to bring, and carry away the Book of the Law, to or from the Priest or Levite, or other person that expounded. In all other Texts of the New Testament, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, 
Mat. 26.58. Mar. 14.54.  it signifieth Civil Officers, either domestic, as Servants; or Politic state Officers, such as jailers, pursuivants, or the like; in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament.  
The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In its native force, it signifies no more than a servant, called so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as some would have it) or which pleaseth Eustathius better, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect.) It is in Scripture applied to Christ, Ro. 15.8. and the Apostle (using this word) saith of him, Is he the Minister of sin? 2. To Magistrates, Rom. 13.4. To ordinary Servants in a Family, Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11. Mark 9.35.10.43. Jo. 2.5.9. To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ, John 12.26. Phoebe is called thus, Ro. 16.1. Deacons by Ossice, in the Church, have their name from this word, and it is applied to express those Officers, Philip. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.8.12. It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel. To Paul, and Apollo, 1 Cor. 3.5. To Tychicus, Eph. 6.21. Col. 4.7. To Timothy, 1 Thes. 3.2. These again are called Ministers of God, 2 Cor. 6.4. Of the New Covenant, 2 Cor. 3.6. Of Righteousness, 2 Cor. 11.15. Of Christ, 2 Cor. 11.33. Of the Church, 0.0.0.0. Our Brethren, p. 2. tell us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers. But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1. for that: so they may consider, that no Preaching Saint, in Scripture, who was no Officer, was ever so called; though if he had, it had not signified much as to the present question; for any one that served but his Master's Table, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word, than they do but play with an Equivocal term.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What it signifies in Scripture.  The third word used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The most restrained word of the three, both in civil, and also in sacred writ: yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate, Rom. 13.6. To the Minister of the Gospel, Rom. 15.16. to a public Person, but ministering in a private manner, Phil. 2.25. To Angels, Heb. 1.7.14. To Christ himself, Heb. 8.2. Some note, that it is always a title of public performance, but Philip. 2.25. It is otherwise used. Yet there are that think, that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office, and in that ministration to Paul so acted; if any credit may be given to civil Authors, for the proper usage of this word, it signifieth, both a public office, and a sacred Service. So Suidas and Scapula assure me; and the Etymology of the word as much: It is true, in civil Authors, it is sometimes used otherwise, but Suidas saith it is abusively. I think, we may say there is this difference betwixt this word, and the other; that whereas other words primarily signify, ordinary, private, civil Service, this word ptimarily signifies sacred public Service; and in all holy writ, is not applied to a private person; Sure I am, that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as public persons in sacred Services.  
5. But, though both Minister in the Latin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, and Minister in our English tongue, are equivocal terms; Yet we must cum vulgo loqui, speak according to vulgar usage, not according to equivocal notions of the word. 
Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers.  We will grant to our Brethren, that the persons they plead for, may be called Ministers, if they do but wait at their Master's Table, or be but under-Commissioners to the State, or the like, though they should never Preach (according to the signification of the words) but as the Church of God, hath in all late ages used the term Minister, we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister; we do not deny, but that every General of an army may be called Imperator; and was so; but as the term hath lately been used, and is used, we deny he can be called an Emperor; we do not deny, but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading, may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer, but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer; we do not say, but our Brethren though not ordained, may be such Ministers as you read of, Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5. but not such as you read of, 1 Cor. 4.1. Acts 26.16. And (by vulgar usage) such only (for a long time) have been so called; to distinguish persons in office, from such as only do acts of Service Civil, or Sacted. I must confess, I must commend people, for keeping that term still as distinctive; if every one should be called Sir John, or Sir Thomas such a one, in time, there would be no difference betwixt a Knight, and a beggar, and names are given for distinction sake. If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers, should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers, or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench, should say, there sit a dozen Ministers, people would not understand what they said, and according to vulgar speech, it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment; yet if our brethren's Argument were good, that gifted men should be called Ministers, because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it would justify that new dialect in other things as well as this. For Magistrates are called Ministers, and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I am much against this removing of the Ancient Landmarks, which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with; and think it a very ill design, which would produce nothing but confusion. Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture, where a gifted man (not ordained) is called a Minister of the Gospel; a Minister of Christ, etc. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much. 
Preaching without ordination. p. 3.  Nor will a general course of acting, (as they would hint) entitle them to that name. It is true, constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker; for neither of them are titles of office. But suppose now a Rebel should overcome his Prince, and for seven years together, exercise the Acts of his place, he would not yet by bare acting, be entitled to the name of a Prince or King. The Conclusion is, that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense, according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister, be called Ministers; they may be called Speakers if you please.  
Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister, and of the Greek words so translated; 
Second Term, Ministry.  let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports. And this also we shall find Homonymous.  
1. Every one will conclude, that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify a Minister; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs signify their service or ministration; and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture, which we translate Ministry, I mean two of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first only in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple, the latter very often, Eph. 4.12. Col. 4.17. 2 Tim. 4.5, etc.  
And indeed I think, this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture, to signify the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers, Acts 1.17, 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19. 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18. Eph. 4.12. Col. 4.17. 2 Tim. 4.5, 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching, administering Sacraments, etc. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church, who more strictly are called Deacons, Rom. 12.7. 1 Cor. 16.15. (though there be some question upon that Text:) So Christ's execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry. And the old service of the Priests and Levites, is called a Ministry, Heb. 9.21. But in this sense, I take not Ministry in the Question: yet if our Brethren contend for words, I can state the question so, viz. Whether that work of the Ministry, which the Scripture mentioneth, eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel, be the work of persons merely gifted.  
2. But there is another usage of the word, which use at least hath procured it, according to which, we call the Ministry, A certain order of persons, set apart according to the will of God, for the dispensing out of Public Gospel Ordinances. In Analogy to the description of the High Priest, described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus. The Minister is one taken from amongst men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, for the dispensation of Public Ordinances; and ministerium is but a collective term, as we call the company of Magistrates, the Magistracy of a Nation; So we call the company of Ministers, the Ministry. So Aretius, Bucanus, Vrsin, etc. So Martinius, ministerium est ipse quoque minister. So Ravanella, Munus vel functio vocatur ministerium, for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture; and so interpreteth many of those I before cited; the 2 Cor. 6.3. and that in 1 Tim. 12. seem very inclinable to this interpretation.  
And here again, our Brethren seem to play with an equivocal term, when they tell us, that the speaking of gifted Brethren may be called Ministry, for there is ministration in their service; so there is too in their Servants waiting upon them at their Tables; yet I hope, they will allow common people, not to call the work of their Servants, waiting at their Trenchers, the Work of the Ministry; which yet follows by the same argument. If our Brethren say, that the gifted persons minister unto the Church, so doth he that sweeps the Church; yet his work is not the work of the Ministry, as we have learned to speak. If they say, they minister unto Christ, Sub judice lis est; That question is yet to dispute upon the Apostles maxim, His Servants you are whom you obey; and it is still to be argued betwixt them and us, whether in their ministration, they obey the commands of Jesus Christ, yea or no.  

Third Term.  The third and last term is that of Office; A term as ambiguous as any other, it comes from the Latin word Officium. He that will look that word in Martinius his Lexicon Philologicum, will find at least eight significations of it. Our Brethren of London, in their Jus divinum ministerii Evangelici, p. 3. have given us a description of it, so far as to limit it from homonymy, and to give the sense of it in the present question, which description, our other dissenting Brethren have faithfully transcribed thus.  The Office of the Ministry is a spirtual relation to the whole employment of the Ministry, in a person qualified, founded upon a special and regular call. 
Our Brethren, p. 3. apprehend this to be faulty, and they declare their dissent, and the grounds of it, because (as they rightly apprehend) much of the controversy hangs upon this hinge.  
They grant that Office is a relation with respect to an employment as its end.  
But that it is a relation to the employment of the Ministry as its Correlate they deny; the Church they say is the Correlate; and they say, the London Ministers confess this, p. 151. where they say the Minister hath a relation to the Catholic, as well as to the particu-Church, so that they seem to contradict themselves. This is the substance of what they say, p. 4. Whence they propound to speak to two questions.  
1. Whether Office be a relation, to the work of the Ministry, or to the Church.  
2. Whether Office hath relation, to the Church universal, or to the particular Church.  
They are (both of them) very important questions. To the first of them our Brethren speak, Chap. 1. where they undertake to prove, That the Office of the Ministry, is not a Correlate to the work of the Ministry, But to the Church; and this they endeavour by four Arguments.  
That the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the persons towards whom it is to be executed, is most freely on our parts confessed: But that it should be no correlate to the work, is (I confess) such an absurdity in my ears, as will offer too much injury (I think) to common sense. 
Officium est relatio personae, ad certi operis necessariam effectionem. Martiniis Lex. Philol. ad verbum Officium.  Learned Martinius, (if this be an error) is in the same mistake with our Brethren in London; he says in terminis, that an Office is the relation of a person to the doing of a certain work. If I remember my Logic right, those things are Relations, which either have their whole being in their respect to another, or any other way referred to it; this I learned out of Aristotle, Burgefdecius, etc. now Cui convenit definitio, ei convenit definitum, if the definition of Relations will agree to the Office of the Ministry and the work, they must be Relations, or else we understand not our brethren's meaning. I then thus argue for our Brethren of London (to maintain their skill in Logic.)  
Arg. 1 If the Office of the Ministry either hath its whole being in relation to the work, or be any other way referred to the work; Then the Office and employment according to Logic are relations.  
But the Office, and work of the Ministry, have at least one of these references each to another.— Ergo.  
If our Brethren deny the Major, they deny the Logical description of Relations; and so can build no arguments from the Canons of Logicians about them.  
If they say the Office neither hath its whole being in the work, nor is any other way related to it, I think they deny common sense.  
Arg. 2 Again, The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated: But the Office of the Ministry is terminated in the work; Therefore the work is its Correlate. If our Brethren deny the Major, they again deny all Logic. If they deny the minor, it is that which every one apprehends; and it is all one, as to deny the Sun shineth at noon day.  
But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments, it is fit we should examine them. For the first they say, the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office, Because Relations cannot be separated; they are simul naturâ, take away one, and you must take away the other: but the work of the Ministry, by the sickness, death, imprisonment, or rejection of the Minister may cease; and yet according to our principles, the office doth not cease, a man is a Minister in office, though he cannot do the work. Hence they observe, that whereas our Brethren of London, thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office (because, a Minister may be separated from his Church) they had secured the permanency of the office. These Brethren think, that they have deeply fallen into the same pit, because the work may cease. This is the substance of p. 5. which in form, is thus.  
Relations and Correlations, exist and perish together.  
But (according to your principle) so do not the office and work of the Ministry. Therefore they are no relations.—  
The major they say, is the Certain rule of Relations, (in Logic.)  
The minor they prove, because we will not say, the office of the Ministry in a man ceaseth, when he is kept from doing his work by sickness, imprisonment, banishment, rejection, etc. I answer,  
1. They call the major, the Certain rule of Relations. But neither tell us of what Relations, nor in what sense, Logicians understand that rule and reason will enforce for the understanding. I will therefore tell them, we know our Brethren are not to learn, that Relations are of two sorts. The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse, real relations. Such, whose whole being (as relations) lie in their relation; such are the Relations of Father and Son, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant. The Father (as a Father) hath no other being, but in his relation to a Son, and so of the rest; this is called Relatio praedicamentalis, of these Relations, their rule (rightly understood) is true.  
2. But secondly, there are other Relations too, called in Logic, Relata secundum dici, nominal relations, yet such as have a reality of Relation, but not such a one, that all the being of the Relations (as such) is wrapped up in their relation; this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis: As now, Scibile & Scientia, A thing to be known, and the knowledge of this thing are relations; and instanced in as such by most Logicians.  
Yet neither the one, nor the other of these relations, have all their being in their relations. Of these Relations, we say (and all say) the Rule is false, and reason will enforce it. For example. This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclipse, but the Eclipse which is the thing to be known is not existent. The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent: But it doth not thunder. So that our brethren's Argument runs upon a supposition, that we say, the office and the work are Relata secundum esse, Relations of the first sort, but we are not of that mind; for we think, the whole essence of office lieth not in its Relation; But in that authority, wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination, which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it.  

2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu, vel ut Ens in potestate. Zabarel.  Secondly, saith Zabarel, the Rule is true, that Relations exist and perish together, as to the same degree of being. A man is not actually an Officer, when he cannot do his Office, but the habit remains in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it. The Mayor of Norwich, is my Lord Protectors Officer, for the Government of the City; and none in their sober mind, but will say, he is Mayor, and the government of the City are related each to other. Suppose the Mayor now sick, or in prison, is he not an officer, because at present he cannot execute his Office? According to the first answer, we deny the major; and by virtue of the second, we deny the minor. And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion.  
Hence (Christian Reader) thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee, when they tell thee, As well may you affirm a man to be a Father, who hath no Son, nor child; or a man to be an husband, who hath no wife, as you may affirm a man to be a Minister, who hath no employment. For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work. A Father, (as he is a Father) is a thing hath no being without a child; and so cannot be: but an officer, if at present he hath no work, yet hath (as an officer) an authority and power to do such a work, when he hath opportunity. I would fain know of our Brethren, whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel, though at present, he hath neither men to make up a Regiment, nor consequently the government of them: It is his Commission makes him an Officer, and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment, and execute his authority, as soon as he hath opportunity. Neither do we say, a man can be no officer, who hath no employment, but we say, a man may be an officer, who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment, and he is by his office authorized unto. And now I suppose, every Reader will understand the weakness of our brethren's first Argument, which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter: Their second Argument is in sum this.  
Relations and Correlations exist together; but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work; because it is a means in order to the end. Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates.  
The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logic, which was the foundation of the other Argument. We grant that the office is a means, in order to the work as its end; and we say, that the office must be before, the work. But we say, these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ, and exist together; except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu, and so sunt simul, they are together, though they do not exist together; consider them as Entia in potestate, they are Simul Natura, and so it is not necessary, that the means should be before the End; In short the very same answer serveth as before.  
Arg. 3 Our brethren's third Argument lieth thus.  
That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office, that is the Correlate.  
But the Gospel owns the Church, not the work, as Correlate to the office.— Ergo.  
The major we confess, but say there wants a word in it. That which [alone] the Gospel owns, is the only Correlate.  
The minor we deny, we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry, Acts 20.27. But we say, it owns the work too, Eph. 4.11, 12. he gave some Apostles,— some Pastors and Teachers.— For the work of the Ministry; and I hope, Eph. 4. is as much Gospel, as Acts 20.17. Our Brethren say here again, That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry. Christian Reader, it must surely offend thy Ears, surely we would not much desire such Officers. The truth is, they do Dividere componenda, which is a fallacy in Logic. Officers are related to Church, and work too; and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire, to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians, they would have acknowledged it with half this stir.  
Arg. 4 Our brethren's fourth Argument in form, lies thus.  
If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture, be such as proclume them relates, to the Church, not to the work, than they are so related.  
But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclaim that officer and Church are relates, not officer and employment.— Ergo.  
To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors, Teachers, etc.  
1. To all which we answer, 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles, definitio nominis doth only terminate the question quid nominis, not the question quid rei; the definition of a name is not always adequate to the definition of a thing, Notatio saepe est inadaequata, modo latior, modo angusti●r (saith the Logician.) But,  
2. Except our Brethren will have their major understood universally, viz. All the titles, and all the names, we conceive their Argument very faulty: for because the name of the Mayor is a relate only to the Aldermen and City, it doth not follow, but that his title of Justice of the Peace, hath the keeping of the Peace, and the Statutes concerning Justices, for the Correlate; or but that his title as the Deputy Lieutenant to the chief Magistrate, intimates him to have the supreme Magistrate as his Correlate.  
3. If our Brethren do say, that all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate; we shall desire by the next to know, whether their title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Criers or Preachers, in the following Texts, have the Church only for their Correlate, 1 Tim. 2.7. 2 Tim. 1.11. 2 Pet. 2 5. Rom. 10.14. Philip. 1.15. Nor will it serve our brethren's turn, to say, that if the Question be asked, To whom are they Officers? the answer must be, to the Church 
* 1. For first the answer may be most properly to Jesus Christ 2.  Suppose the question be asked, what is their office? for what work is the office ordained? The answer must be, for the Preaching of the Gospel, for the work of the Ministry. The truth is, The work is objectum quod, the Church is objectum cui, Both the Church, and the employment are the Correlates to this Relation, the Church are the Correlated persons, the work of the Ministry, is the Correlated thing. So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Reverend Brethren of London; for both the Church, and the Employment are Correlates.  
Nay (under favour) not the Church alone, but every rational sublunary creature is the Correlate of the office of the Ministry, as to Preaching. The office of the Ministry was instituted, as well for the gathering of the Saints, as for the edifying of them; as well for the perfecting of their number, as for the perfecting of their graces. Till we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, etc. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13.  
We can never believe, that when the Church sends out one to Preach the Gospel to heathens, that person Preacheth only as a gifted Brother, but as an officer of the Gospel: Nay more, God himself is the Correlate to this office; and therefore they are called the Ministers of God; the Ministers of Christ; not Elders of the Church only, or Ministers of the Church; they are Gods Ministers in the Church, and the Ministers of the Gospel, in, and for the Church, and world too. Let our Brethren show us but one Scripture, where a Preaching Minister is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Minister of the Church. We can show them many, where they are called the Ministers of Christ, of righteousness, of the Gospel of Christ. Now it is a rule, Relata reciprocantur, a Father is called the Father of such a Son, and the Son is called the Son of such a Father. But I say, our Brethren speak no Scripture phrase, when they call Ministers (i. e. Preaching Ministers) Ministers of such a Church; they are the Ministers of God, and his Gospel in such a Church; and they have some relation to the Church, but not a more relation than they have to the work; they are called Ministers of the Gospel, and the Gospel is called their Gospel; My Gospel, saith Paul twice; here is a plain reciprocation; let them show us the like, if they can, for their assertion; otherwise we hope, our Christian friends will hardly be induced by such kind of argumentation as this is, to believe the office of the Ministry is not related to the work of the Ministry, but only to the persons whom the ministation doth concern.  
And I earnestly beseech our Brethren, that they would not endeavour to abuse simple souls with these woeful fallacies, which have not (as you see) the least foundation; either in Scripture, reason, or usage of any approved Authors.  
In the mean time, we will grant them, that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Ministry and the Church in which they execute their office.  
But if we would grant our Brethren, that the office of the Ministry is a Correlate, not to the work, but to the Church, I perceive this would not give them satisfaction; unless we would also yield them, that it is a Correlate only to a particular Church, In opposition, not only to the Church Catholic invisible, viz. the whole number of the Elect scattered abroad; But to the Church Catholic visible, in any notion. 
The Preacher sent chap. 2.  This they now come to assert Chap. 2. This indeed is the great Diana-Notion, but we can by no means bow down unto it. And therefore, that's the next thing we must bring to trial. Only before we do it, Give me leave to inform our Brethren, in our notion of a Church; though I shall better do it, when I shall return to answer their Epistle.  
The word, which we translate Church, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
Coetus evocatus voce praeconis.—  of which our Brethren can make no advantage, either from the Etymology, or from the usage of it in Scripture; according to the first, it signifies no more, than a company called out; it is both used by the Seventy interpreters, to express the congregation of evil doers, Psal. 26.5. And by the Evangelist Luke, to express a rout, neither lawfully assembled, nor yet united, Acts 19.32. This word (in itself as unhallowed as any other) the penmen of Scripture have indeed used to express the numbers, company, or Companies, of those whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven, Heb. 12 23. Or out of the Paganish world to the profession of his gospel, Eph. 4.11, 12. Or out of a state of darkness into a marvellous light  
Hence the Church in a sacred sense is usually distinguished into 

Invisible.  
Visible.    
The invisible Church is either 

Triumphant in heaven,  
or Militant here upon the Earth.    
The Visible Church is either 

Universal, or  
Particular.    
By the Church universal, quatenus visible, we mean The whole number of people, over the face of the Earth, called out of the Paganish world, to the owning of the gospel of Christ; which being an integral Body, cons sting of homogeneous members, or parts, each part beareth the denomination of the whole; hence that part of this body which is in a Nation, Province, parish, etc. is properly called the Church of God, in such a Region, Nation, Province, parish, etc. Thus Paul is said to persecute the Church, Acts. 8.3. Gal. 1.13. that is, all that ownned the gospel, whether in Jerusalem, or in Damascus, or the strange Cities, Acts 8. chap. 9 chap 26.11. all that called on Christ's name, whom he could come near, Acts 9.14.  
Now besides these more general distributions of a Church, the Church as Visible, is capable of several states, from whence arise 3 other notions of it.  
1. There is a more imperfect state of it as considered without Officers, this Divines call an Entitive or Material Church, which is nothing else, but any particular number, any part of that company before mentioned, who are found in any Nation, Province, City, Parish, so called out of the paganish world, agreeing in the profession of the Gospel. In this sense I always thought, that we and our brethren of the congregational persuasion had been agreed, that there are National, Provincial, and Parochial Churches.  
2. There is a second notion of the Church, resulting from the consideration of this body, as having some set over it clothed with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, authorized as his ambassadors to preach the Gospel, and to Baptise, etc.  
To open this notion a little. We consider, that it seemed good to the wisdom of God, to commissionate certain persons to preach the gospel, that by it the people of God might be gathered together in one; Hence Christ when he ascended up on high, gave gifts unto men, Eph. 4.11, 12. He gave some Apostles, these were to lay the foundation, and then Prophets, these were to be Instrumental in the building. And by the Apostles, he constituted Evangelists (who were as to power) little less than Provincial Apostles, and by these Pastors and teachers: Hence the Apostles created Evangelists, Philip, Timothy, Titus; and both the Apostles, and these Evangelists, ordained Pastors, and Teachers, Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. by fasting, prayer and imposition of hands, and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (containing the standing rules, for the settling of Churches, in their permanent state) Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists being shortly to cease) rules are given for the constitution of these officers to the end of the world; now when in any place, God hath called a people from Paganism to the profession of his Gospel, and set over that people any of these persons set apart for the preaching of the Gospel, we say there is in such a Nation, Province, City, Parish, a Ministerial Church, which is a state of of the Church more perfect than the former, and differing from it, we (I say) for distinction sake) call it a Ministerial Church.  
That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Gospel of Christ, among whom also, are some clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ, for the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments. According to that commission, Go Preach and Baptise. Indeed as to the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in regard that none are to be admitted to it but such as can examine themselves, and the steward of Christ's mysteries must be faithful, in order to which, there must be an act of Judgement pass upon the Receiver, which is jurisdiction; and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not where committed to a ●ingle person, it seems that in such a Church (according to perfect rules) it cannot be administered, except there be more than one officer, nay I think there should be some Ruling Elders or a Ruling Elder at least concur in this judgement; yet Number making a Church, in case Ruling Elders cannot be had, I conceive in case there be more than one Teaching Elder in a Church (who also are ruling) or in case 2 or 3 such particular churches can in such extraordinary cases unite, they may also ordinarily administer that Ordinance. Nay farther, in such an extraordinary case which is the present case of many in England this day, I think an extraordinary power may be by one assumed, rather than people should want that Ordinance, as in Hezekiah's , the Levites for every one not clean killed the , which else had been against God's order. 2 Chron. 30.17. Exod. 12.3, 4, 5, 6.  
3. But lastly, the most perfect notion of a particular Church, is when it is perfectly Organised. A particular church considered in relation to the Universal, is any ●●r● of it, whether that in a Nation, Province, Parish, or ●he like, each of these is but a particular, because no more than a part of the whole. But we usually take particular in a more restrained notion, For that part of this universal company which can, or may, or doth, ordinarily meet together in one place at the same numerical administrations; or who have by an explicit or implicit consent chosen, or submitted to the same officers, as those whom God hath set over their souls, and this is a Church perfectly Organised, and the most perfect notion of a particular Church. This Church either without officers, or with, is the only Church our Brethren can see (we hope the fault is in their eyes)  
Now the question is, whether he that is a preaching Elder in such a particular Church, or indeed, rather whether all the preaching Elders in all the particular Churches in the world, have any farther relation, or be in any office, to any but that particular company, over which they are (respectively) more especially set, because they cannot watch over all, etc. We affirm they have, and in this sense we assert, not only a Church Catholic Visible, but a Church Catholic Visible Organical too. By which we mean not, (what our brethren dream of) viz. An Universal visible society of Christians, actually subjected to one or more Universal Pastors, or guides, from whom subordinate's must derive their office, and power, and with whom they must sometimes meet, and communicate in some general sacred things, which may make them as the Jews one Church, and which same general acts, or sacred services, can only be performed by that Universal head, or those Universal officers. No Nor, that all the whole Church should be subject to one Grand senate of officers erected and constantly sitting: Mr. Hudson hath in our names long since disowned this same Abominable thing. Our Brethren indeed, dress up some in this dress to the world, and show them for Presbyterians. But we defy their notion of a Church Catholic in this sense; and say that it is but an odious representation, nothing corresponding to our principles. Our Brethren do, or may know, we are equally (with themselves) engaged, against Popes, Patriarches, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, with all the rest of those Antichristian Derivatives; And learned Mr. Hudson hath long since told our Brethren, that by Church Catholic visible Organical we mean no other than,  
An habitual, Politico-Ecclesiastical society, body, flock, in one and the same sheepfold of the Militant Church; in uniform subjection to the same Lord, the same laws, united in the same Faith, and under the same Baptism, performing the same worship▪ and service, 
Mr. Hudsons' vindication, etc. p. 127. etc.  in kind, concerning which body we say, that although the members of it be dispersed far and wide, and divided into several parts, places, societies, and secondary combinations of vicinities, or Parishes, for actual, constant enjoyment of Ordinances, (as particular Corporations, in a Kingdom are) yet still, those Ordinances, administrations, admissions, ejections, have influence upon and into the whole body, as it is a polity, and the members of any part, indefinitely, may, of right communicate one with another, yea, any company of Christians may, though every person so meeting (and that but occasionally) may be of a several particular Church; and the Minister dispensing a particular Pastor to none of them all: yea, though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation; nor the Minister dispensing fixed in any particular congregation. And this by virtue of their general membership, and of the habitual indefiniteness of the Ministers office, And the common donation of the ordinances to Christ's whole visible Kingdom.  

Ibid.  Now the tru●h is, there is no Civil Society, or Kingdom, that in every thing correspondeth with this; but there use in the Kingdoms of the world to be some general officers, and offices; And some officers inferior, and subordinate, receiving from them power, and authority, by derivation, and subordination. And the inferior are of less extent as to place, and power, than the superior. As the Lord Chief Justice of England is above other inferior Justices.  
And this is it (as Mr. Hudson hath noted) which hath made so many stumble at the notion of a Church Catholic Organical; and upon this stone, our Brethren have stumbled in their Epistle. First, making a man of Clouts; and then writing over his head, This is the Presbyterians Catholic Church; and then crucifying him with Arguments, which we are not concerned in.  
But (as Mr. Hudson proceedeth) as in other things Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, nor like unto worldly polities, so neither in this: But every Minister of the Church, in his particular place, serveth the Church Catholic, admitting of members into a general freedom in it; ejecting from general communion with it; he prayeth publicly for the whole body; and manageth his particular charge in reference to, & so as may stand with the good of the whole body (of which his Congregation is but a member) The Ordinances there administered, are the Ordinances given to the whole, not as a genus, (which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it) but as unto a spiritual kind, of an habitual body, and Organical polity. As to a sort of men, so, and so qualified, bound up in an union, and unity, of the same head, laws, seals, worship, communion.  
Thus had we discovered our minds, before our Brethren published this book; and it had been fair for them, to have disputed against this, not to deceive their Readers with fallacies, Ex ignoratione Elenchi, as Logicians speak; disputing against what their adversaries do▪ not say. In this sense we say, the office of the Ministry correlateth to the Universal Church. And what ever our Brethren say, in practice they will own this; for,  
1. I would fain know of our Brethren, whether one Church may according to Gospel rules, receive into her bosom one whiom another Church hath cast out? if not, the officers that cast out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church, but of all particular Churches, and so consequently from the universal Church, which is but a whole made up of those parts.  
2. While our Brothers baptise into their particular Church, I wonder whether they do not also Baptise into any other particular Church? if not, when any person so baptised, is translated into another Church, why is he not again Baptised? his relation to the former Church ceasing.  
3. I would fain know with what consistency of principles, our Brethren say a minister or pastor is in office only to a particular Church, and yet say, he that is in office to this Church, may administer the Sacrament of the Supper to the members of another Church? Oh but they do this (they tell us) by a communion of Churches, by a communion of membership only, or of offices and officers only; the first alone may give the member a right to take, but not the officer a right to give, except there be also a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers, and Acts of office.  
4. Although these 2 or 3 Brethren somewhere indeed say, that when the pastors of our brethren's churches preach out of their particular Church, they preach but as gifted men, yet I am sure others of our Brethren, and those (to speak modestly) no way inferior to our Brethren, will own no such thing: for who should be then obliged to hear them, or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance, a public ordinance of Christ, I am yet to learn. So that in practice our brethren do every day own, what in words they deny. But to come close to the question stated by our Brethren thus. p. 8.  
What Church office hath relation to? 
Preacher sent eap. 2. p. 8.  whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only, or whether they be officers of an universal Church. I observe our Brethren in the same page altering their phrase, instead of saying, We deny office to be a correlate to the Universal Church: they say, We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an Universal Church.  
We hope our brethren have no design to play at so small a game with us, as that must be which is only won by the homonomy of a term, however we will endeavour to prevent it.  
For those new terms Pastors, and Teachers, in ecclesiastical use they have obtained a double signification.  
1. In Scripture the terms are taken more largely for any such as have authority to feed people with spiritual food, whether it be occasionally or constantly, so pastors is to be understood Eph. 4.11. (the only place where it is used in all the New Testament) so also Jer. 3.15. so Paul is called a Teacher of the Gentiles, and 1 Tim. 2.7. so Teachers is used Isa. 30.20. and Acts 13.1. 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. yea that term is used sometimes to express the Private duties of private persons. Heb. 5.12.  
2. By a modern usage these terms are used to express persons chosen or accepted by particular churches for the work of the ministry amongst them, and restrained to that sense (by what warrant I cannot tell.) If our Brethren state the question in the latter sense concerning Pastors and Teachers qua tales, as such, they have no adversaries, for he that is pastor, or teacher, of a particular Church (as he is such a pastor or teacher) undoutedly hath not the Church universal for his correlate.  
But our Brethren of the Province of London say truly, that a Regular Pastor or Teacher of a particular Church, hath (besides a particular relation to them as their pastor and teacher, (which their election or submission to him or both have made them) a relation also to the Church Universal, as he is the minister of Jesus Christ, set apart and ordained for the preaching of the gospel, etc. which he may do as an officer of Christ in any place of the world. We do not say he is bound to do it in all places, that is impossible, nor to travel up and down (as the Apostles were) for that work is ceased, at least as to those places where people have received the gospel. But we say he may do it as opportunity is offered. And we believe, that in case it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England, The Church might by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands, set apart some particular persons to the office of the ministry, without a particular designation of them to this or that place, but only designing them as the officers of Christ to preach the Gospel amongst the Indians, and to baptise such as should receive the Gospel; and (though not by their single Act as the Apostles) yet by the advice of the Church, and with their assistance, these might ordain Elders in their Cities, and form them up into complete Gospel order; yet the office of such would differ from that of the Apostles, both in regard of their mission being more ordinary, and also in regatd of their power being more limited.  
These things being premised, let us consider our brethren's Arguments: their first reduced into form is this, 
" What the Gospel knoweth not, no Gospel officers can be correlates unto. 
Of Preaching without ordination. cap. 2 p. 8.   
" But the Gospel knows no Universal visible Political Church. Ergo   
1. At the first dash, our Brethren here take away the subject, or at least the suppositum of the question: The suppositum of the question is, That there is a Church Particular and Universal. The question is to which of these the office of the Ministry is related? They say to the Church Particular, we say to the Church Universal: to prove their assertion they tell us there is no Church Universal. This is foul disputing.  
2. But secondly, The whole may be granted, and yet nothing proved by it: for whether the Gospel knows a Church universal under a political form or no, is not the question, it is enough if it knows a Church Universal under any notion.  
3. Thirdly the minor is false, as Mr. Hudson abundantly proves: the Church universal is in scripture set out under the notions of a political body; it is called a Kingdom, a City, & Jews and Gentiles are called fellow-citizens; it is called an Army terrible with Banners, Cant. 6.10. see Mr. Hudson more p. 133, 134, 135, etc. for it nothing concerns me as to the present question, as I said before.  Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto these officers, viz. Pastors, teachers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. Overseers, Acts. 20.28. 1 Tim 3.2. Titus 1.7. 
Themselves form their argument thus, or at least should have form it thus. Arg. 2  
That Church alone which is committed to ministers charge to feed, teach, and oversee, is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate.  
But the universal Church is not that Church which is committed to a Minister to feed, teach, and oversee,— Ergo,  
I am sure that the Argument must run thus, if it concludes the question, which at present is not, whether a particular minister, but whether the office of the ministry (residing in all ministers) be a correlate to the particular, or to the Universal Church. And therefore our Brethren may see a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the question stated by themselves.  Now to the argument thus form I answer, By denying both the propositions. I deny that, That Church alone which is committed to a ministers charge to feed, teach, and oversee is the Church to which the office of the ministry is a correlate. 
For I suppose that our Brethren mean, which is more especially committed to his charge, as pastor thereof, in a restrained sense; if they do so, I say that Church alone is not correlate to his office, or to the office of the ministry, because another Church, viz. the catholic Church, is also in some sense committed to his charge, viz. so far as pro re natâ (as occasion serveth) he may and aught to feed others besides that Church, yea such as are of no Church, but may (for aught he knows) be members of the invisible Church of Gods elect, and so his office doth relate to them.  
But secondly the Minor is apparently false, viz. That the particular Church is that alone which is committed to a ministers eharge, to feed, teach, and oversee. Go preach the gospel to every creature, is a commission which hath put all the reasonable world under the charge of the ministeral office. And although (as our Brethren of London say right) that no minister is an Actual Minister to the Universal Church, viz. in these two senses, 1 None can be here and there and every where, thus the Spirit of God is only an Universal actual teacher. Nor secondly is any Minister (set in a particular Church) bound, as the Apostles, to an itinerant Execution of his office: yet our Brethren of London do not say but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens, the Church may by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands confer the office of the Ministry upon some persons with a special designation of them as Christ's officers to carry the Gospel to people all over the Nation; or over the world. Neither do our Brethren of London say but that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church, wherever he preacheth, preacheth as an officer of Christ in the work of the Gospel, whom people are bound to hear; nor do they say that he who is a fixed minister in a particular Church may not by virtue of his ministerial office (so far as his opportunity, strength, and finite nature gives him leave) feed and teach by the word, and as a minister oversee any others that are not members of his particular Church, Though indeed that be in a more special manner committed to his trust, care, and oversight.  
But I observe that our brethren's argument, though put into the best form I could, and cured of one fault, yet is sick of another; and indeed the Argument should have run thus.  That Church, or those Churches alone which are committed to all ministers respectively to feed, teach, and oversee, respectively are the Churches to which the office of the ministry is a correlate. 
But those Churches are only particular Churches.— Ergo.  
As they put it, there●s a great fallacy in it; for suppose this or that particular Minister had no work appointed him by Jesus Christ to do, but only in his particular Church, and so the office of the Ministry, as it resided in that single man, were only a Correlate to his particular Church; Yet it would not follow, That the office of the Ministry, as it resides in every particular Minister in the world, had no other Correlate; for all the particular Churches in the world, make up the universal Church.  
Though the office of a Justice of Peace, as it resides in this, or that particular person, is limited by his Commission to such a County, is only a Correlate to the people of such a County: Yet surely the office of a Justice of Peace, as it resides in the whole number of Justices of the Peace in England, is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate, because the whole Nation is made up of those Counties, and the office residing in some or other of them as to every County, must needs relate to the whole. It is true, this is not all which we assert; for we say, that in God's Commonwealth, Ministers (though ordinarily charged more especially as to some part with the feeding, care and oversight of that part) yet as to some ministerial acts are authorized also, to the whole, or to act in any part, not that they must act in all cases, but that they may act, at lest in some cases. But there was enough said before to the Argument; this only to fault the phrasing of it to impose a fallacy upon us.  
I find nothing more in their 10, 11, 12, and 13. pages to prove their minor, save only one Text, Acts 20.28. Where the Apostle speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, bids them to take heed unto themselves, 
Nor is it granted, that the Church of Ephesus was a particular Church. See the Assemblies Propos. and Reasons, etc.  and unto all the flock of which Christ had made them overseers. This Text indeed proves what none denies, viz. that every Minister is to take care of every soul, over whom God hath given him a special charge; but I cannot see how this Text proves, that the people of the Church of Ephesus were those only to whom the Ministers were set in relation. If God should say to a Minister (as in effect he doth in his word,) Take heed to every soul, in this Parish, which is thy flock; would it follow, that he need not take heed to any other? The words do not import that the Church of Ephesus were all the flock they were to feed; but that it was their duto feed all them, as being more specially committed to them. If the words indeed had been thus, The people of Ephesus are all the flock of which God hath given you any oversight, they had been something to our brethren's purpose: This is all our Brethren have argumentative in this case. Let me now try in a few words, if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Ministry relates not only to the particular Church, but to the Catholic Church, viz. That they may do acts of office and authority, beyond the bounds of that particular Church over which they are more especially set.  
Those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body Arg. 1 of Christ, are related to the Universal Church.  
But God hath given Pastors and Teachers, for the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4.12, 13. The minor is the letter of Scripture, the major I prove.  
If the Universal Church be the body of Christ; and those who are given for the edifying of it are related to it; Then those whom God hath given for the edifying of the body of Christ, are related to the Universal Church.  
But the Universal Church is the body of Christ; and those who are of God given for it, are related to it.— Ergo.  
The Consequence is unquestionable. The Assumption consists of two assertions; one I suppose that none who knows the definition of relata, will deny, viz. Those whom God hath given for his Church are related to it. If any deny, That the Universal Church is the Body of Christ (there meant) I prove it. Either the Universal Church, or the particular Church is there meant. But not the particular Church— Ergo.  
I prove the assumption. If Christ hath but one mystical body, then particular Churches (which are many) cannot be there meant.  
But Christ hath but one mystical body? I prove the minor.  
If the Scripture speaks but of one mystical body of Christ, and says Christ is not divided, than we ought not to assert that he hath more bodies than one, or that he is divided.  
But the Scripture mentions but one body of Christ, and saith Christ is not divided, Ergo. Those who deny the minor must produce those Scriptures which ascert Christ to have more than one body.  
Besides, it is plain from this argument, that the Apostle speaks, in Eph. 4. of the Universal Church. From this argument.  
That Church for which God gave Apostles and Prophet for, he also gave pastors and teachers for, Eph. 4.12.  
But he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholic Church— Ergo.  
I think none will be so absurd as to say that Apostles and Prophets were given for a particular Church: for then according to our brethren's principles, their work must have been terminated there.  
Arg. 2 A second argument is this.  
Those whom God hath commissioned to preach and Baptise all Nations, are not related only to a particular Church, but to the Catholic Church, yea to the whole world.  
But God hath commissionated his ministers to go preach and Baptise all Nations. Ergo.  
The major is Evident, for all Nations signifies more than a particular Church. The minor only can be denied.  
In proof of which we bring that known text, Matth. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations— etc. I am with you to the End of the world. If our Brethren shall say this was a commission only to the Apostles, they shake hands with Socinus, Smalcius, and Theophilus Nicolaides; who indeed tell us that the Apostles were fundamentum Ecclesia, and could have no successors: and desert all protestant writers, and are confuted by the promise annexed, for Christ would not have promised a perpetual presence to a temporary employment. What else our Brtherens say to this text, shall in due place be considered.  
A third Argument I shall draw ab absurdo.  
That opinion which dischargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publicly preached by a Minister out of his particular Church, & makes it impossible for any people (not of that Minister's Church) to go in faith to hear any such Sermon, and makes it sinful for any Christian to receive the Sacrament, otherwhere than in his own Church, or of his own pastor, and dischargeth all people (save members of particular form Churches) from hearing the word publicly preached, and makes private reading equivalent to it as to any institution, and denies public ordinances to any people but such as are fixed members of particular Churches, that opinion is absurd, schismatical, and false.  
But this opinion that a Minister is only in office to his particular Church doth all this.— Ergo  
I presume our Brethren will easily grant the Major, I will prove the Minor.— Ergo.  
The proof of the Minor depends upon these two principles.  
1. That the authority of him who preacheth, is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty. This is so rational that none can deny it; for sin is the transgression of a law, and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural, divine, positive or humane: now this is certain, that God's law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse, or reads a chapter, he must be specially authorized to preach, or I shall not be specially obliged to hear.  
2. The second principle is this, That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer. I think that none in their right wits will deny this; hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow, from this principle.  
1. That in all places where are no particular Churches form, let who will preach none are bound to come to hear, but they may all stay at home, and read a good book if they please; for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach, and so none under an obligation to hear.  
2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts, ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lord's day wait upon any public Ordinance, which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls, than reading a chapter at home doth. The reason, is because no particular Churches are form, and there can be none in office. It is not the place, or company, but the person administering, who makes the ordinance public.  
3. Where there is a particular Church form, it is true, the members are bound to come on the Lord's day and hear their officer, but for all others, if they do stay at home and read a chapter, or a good book, they sin not: for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them, than they have to preach at home one to another.  
4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach, if he be not a member of his particular Church, he cannot come in faith, believing upon the account of any precept or promise, that the word heard shall profit him; any more than if he had stayed at home, and heard his servant read a chapter: for he that preacheth stands in no office, is clothed with no more authority toward him. No he is only in office to the members of his own Church.  
5. If any pastor of any particular Church, at any time, upon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person, who is not an actual member of his Church, he sinneth against God, doing an act of office, to a person to whom he is in no office, and hath no authority. And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of.  
And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren, to consider to what Atheism and confusion this one principle improved, would in a short time bring us. And I am verily persuaded, that most of our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion, are of another mind from these three in this point: for so wise, and learned men can never (surely) think, that when at any time, they preach in any place, or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches, they preach but as gifted brethren, so that a weaver's discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom, is under as much appointment of Gods, for the salvation of souls, as theirs, is, yet this is a true conclusion from this principle; up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct, as never to have communion Each with other in any act of public worship to be performed by an officer: which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world.  
As for their third chapter, I might spare my pains in answering of it, for it is but a conclusion from their premises, in the first, and second chapter, and it is too much to deny the premises, and conclusion too. In this third chapter, they give us the description of office, then endeavour to prove it, and lastly draw two conclusions from it; their description is this.  Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified, 
Preaching without Ordination p. 14.  founded upon a special and regular call. 
1 This definition offends two logic rules (say we) which are these. 
Aristot. l. 6. top. cap. 5.   
That all definitions should be adequate. That is, nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined. A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel (as I proved before, yet that is put into the definition; secondly, Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted (unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified, or in the notion of a regular call, which I suppose our brethren will not grant.) 
Arist. top. l. 6. a p 1.   
2. A second rule is this, That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species. The ministerial office is a Genus, here defined, but there are diverss ministers (say we) that have no such particular Church, for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work, though at present he hath no place: the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo (without a title to a place) was no divine order, but prudential; to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministry, and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus; because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church: we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense, doth relate to a particular Church, but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense, and as it is used in Scripture, both in Jeremy 3.15. & Eph. 4.13. Our Brethren expound their description.  
For the Genus, we allow what they say. Office is a Relation. Their terms of relation we deny, we say the particular Church is not the only correlate, but the Universal Church is also a correlate to the office, yea and the work, yea God himself, and all Nations (of which before.) Here's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered, besides that term Angel of the Church, used Rev. 2.1.8, etc. To which I answer, that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est, it is very disputable whether a single person, or the Presbytery be meant by that term. 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches.  
The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord, and the Church. But not the flock, as our Brethren say. The Apostles ordained the Deacons, not the flock. It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch, Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas; Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy, 
Acts. 6.  and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete.  
As to the formal cause, we cannot agree with our brethren, that a special regular call is it (in the sense they understand (all), we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External, and the Apostle proveth it, How shall they preach except they be sent? that is, they cannot, 
Rom 10.10.  Now, Forma dat esse.  
Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation, and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5. where they argue thus, If the Church should choose a Deacon, much more their pastor. Our brethren's argument is here a comparatis, from the lesser to the greater, and they argue affirmatively, 
See more as to these texts in ●●y last chap.  If the Church might choose the lesser officer, than they ought to choose the greater. But this is false Logic, our brethren will easily see it in other things: will these things follow? If a man can carry an hundred pound weight, then much more a thousand. If a band of men have right to choose a Sergeant, then much more a Colonel. Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater, but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively: those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching. Besides, did the people's choice there make them officers? surely the text says no such thing, the constitutive act is by the Apostles expressly reserved to themselves, ver. 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained, not chose, as our Brethren do. The word signifies to stretch out the hand; and by that sign to choose, 2 Cor. 8.19. but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen (in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here: Not always, witness, Acts 10.41. Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining,) and so it signifies (saith Stephen) when it governs an accusative case.  
But allow it to signify choose, they were Paul and Barnabas that chose, not the Church in our brethren's sense. Let any one one compare v. 20, 21, 22, 23, and ell me of whom that word is predicated. So that both ●ur brethren's texts fail, with all that is built upon them in their book— As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general, That the work of the Ministry is the End, and so far allow their proof, Eph. 4.11, 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant. I am sure the text says no such thing, nor any thing like it: except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches.  
Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries, or inferences. First.  
That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister, 
p. 17. 1 Conc.  and a Minister to this or that Church: The second is this.  
That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono, by office and by gift, is founded on Scripture.  

2 Conc.  As to the first, I have already proved the contrary, for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the work, but to the Church: Nor to the Universal Church, but to the particular Church: which foundations (I think) I have shaken so, that till they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure.  
As to the second, we allow it in two cases, first for Trial sake, for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons, 1 Tim: 3.10. and we may argue à minori ad majus negatiuè, If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved; then much more the higher officer, I mean ordinary officers, for Apostles, etc. were not the same species of officers.  
2. In cases of Necessity. In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had, which was the case, Acts 9 Necessity we say, hath no law; In such a case as I said before, the Levites killed the sacrifice, at Hezekiahs' , which else they ought not to have done. We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono, by virtue of gifts only. Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us.   

CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say, by way of Limitation or Explication of the question, is summed up; their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value: their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the air. Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced; from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed, and stated.  
IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question: and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains, from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us. In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject, and the Predicate. For the Subject, they tell us, it is not every Christian, but every one that hath gifts. 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts, but who really hath, and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no, according to Acts 6.3. but for aught they know a man may lawfully preach (especially in some cases) without such approbation. As to the Predicate. By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truths to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to, be it in public, or in private, to a Christian, or to an idolatrous assembly; thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify, Lu. 16.16. 1 Cor. 9.16. Acts 13.32. Rom. 20.15. Acts. 5.42. Acts. 8.35. Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching, Jus divinum p. 77. & much they say to them (who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves) etc. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively, they say authority is taken for a right, and lawful power, Lu. 20.2. Secondly, for majesty and gravity, Mar. 1.22. Tit. 2 15. Thirdly, for office-power. In the last sense they grant it, in the two first, they say gifted men may preach authoritatively, this is the substance of what they say in many words. To all which I answer.  
1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question (if I mistake not) it amounts to no more than this, Every private Christian may not preach, but every one that can or will may, for what should hinder him? who shall be judges of his aptness to teach? shall the Church? but by what rule? Secondly suppose he will not submit, shall the gifted man sin? no say our Brethren. It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents, but for aught we know it is lawful. So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a mind to speak. Our Brethren tell us, the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 4.31. A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members: In short, all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time; and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities; will it follow that every particular Church is? so that our Brethren, by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter.  
2. Secondly for the predicate, we will easily grant to our Brethren, that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture (wanting proper words) made use of words to express the public duty of preaching which are used in many senses, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald, in their native signification.  
And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both; who ever denied to our Brethren, but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour, or to his child? But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term, Our brethren may call this preaching if they please, and in that sense their question is granted them, a M 〈◊〉 ●te may in this sense preach to his people, a Colone● 〈◊〉 ●is Regiment, etc. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching, by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words, we mean, that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be dispensed in the public assemblies of his people, to which all people are bound in conscience to attend, and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of souls. If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description.  
Authoritative preaching, is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel, to be dispensed in the public assemblies of people, by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God, which he hath appointed, as the ordinary means of faith and salvation, to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend. Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator, whether it be every one that hath gifts, or only such as are ordained; we contend for the latter, we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach, nor aught to undertake it in this notion. We say this is office-preaching, for none can thus preach but who is in office. The Authority of this preacher doth two things. 1. It obligeth him to preach. Woe to me (saith Paul) if I do not preach the Gospel. 2. It obligeth people to hear; for the preacher is to that purpose sent; we say then,  
1 A gifted man may in public or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice, and it may be Vox & praeterea nihil  
2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speak of the good things of the Gospel, either more publicly, or more privately— But we say,  
1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth, for who hath required his service at his hands? Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach, much less immediately said it.  
2. He may preach, But he may preach to the walls too if people please; no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him; they may go if they please, but God's word requireth them not to go, nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go, any more than he can command me to go to my neighbour's house to hear him read a chapter: nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such, when they may hear others, it is a sin unto their souls, as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters; for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul, as my private reading is.  
3. For other day's men may go and hear them if they please (if no scandal be in it, nor other circumstances make it unlawful) but they cannot go in faith as to a public appointment of God, for the saving of their souls. On the contrary, he that preacheth authoritatively, 1. Is bound to preach, if God gives him opportunity.  
2. If upon the Lords days he preacheth and people will not hear, he may shake off the dust of his feet against them, and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people.  
3. People may and aught to go out to hear him in faith, 
Lu. 10.11, 12.  believing that his preaching is the public Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls.  
We say, and say again, that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon. And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching; it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching, as to precarious preaching, in which the preacher may beg but cannot command either auditory or attention.  
If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated, Let them speak on; what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi, not knowing, or not willing to own what we understand by preaching.  
And if this cannot be proved on our brethren's part, I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers, or particular persons, to send men to places, to take heed whom they send, and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day, and put them upon some kind of necessity to hear none but such, as the Lord never sent, never promised his presence with, and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear, viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation. My soul aches to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account. But not to digress.  
Let us come in the next place, to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach.   

CHAP. III Containing an answer to our brethren's book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments, for Non-ordained persons preaching, wherein the necessity of a particular Church's Election, as antecedaneous to Ordination, is examined, and denied, and disproved; the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10. is enquired, and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text, and their Agrument from it proved insufficient.  
OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments, for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination, p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his. 
Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. add p 60.   
If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers, than persons not ordained may ordinarily preach.  
But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination.— Ergo.  
Both propositions in this argument may safely be denied. They prove the Consequence from the reasonableness that good experience should precede Election, for they must be persuaded that he is gifted, and qualified, or they cannot in faith Elect, now this persuasion cannot be wrought in them without a man's frequent preaching, to give them this experience. This is the sum of p. 30. To which I answer.  
1. Surposing that Election is necessary to precede Ordination, we deny that ordinary preaching is necessary in order to Election. I know no need of any preaching at all, but only to try his utterance; his soundness in the faith, and other qualifications are better tried by ordinary converse than by many Sermons. Those who chose the Deacons had not 6 months' experience of them, as is plain from the Chronology of the Scripture; twice or thrice preaching is enough to try that single gift of utterance surely.  
2. Secondly we deny the Minor, such Election, viz. the Election of a particular Church is not necessary to precede Ordination, nor have our Brethren a title of plain Scripture for it, they only quote, Acts 6. v. 5, 6. 
See more Ch. 6. of this treatise.  To which I said enough before; but let me add, Do our Brethren think that the election there was by the whole multitude? let any one in reason judge whether 8000 people & odd (for so many was the number at that time, and those of different languages too, Acts 2.41. Acts 4.4. Acts 2.6.) can reasonably be supposed (being also divided amongst themselves Acts 6.1.) to have agreed in that choice; the Apostles indeed spoke to some (probably the most judicious of them) to commend persons to them, whereas our Brethren say I grant, Ordination is but Actus ultimus; he that looks the place [Vindiciae ministerii p. 18.] will see my sense. I say 1. In case he be pastor of a Church. 2. I say examination, etc. must precede. Our Brethren here desire one text to prove Ordination antecedent to, or without Election. On the contrary we want one Scripture to prove Election necessary: we grant it indeed upon parity of reason, for the Pastor of this or that Church, and judge it highly convenient, but I must profess I see not one clear Scripture for it. Doth Paul give any such instructions to Timothy or Titus to be observed before their Ordinations? If there was any, Acts 14.23. Paul and Barnabas made them; what election do we read of upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas? Acts 13. Weigh these things (Christian Reader) and judge how much this first argument is worth.  
Our brethren's second argument is this.  All that by Gospel commands are required to preach, they may & aught to preach. But some men merely gifted are so required. Ergo. 
The Major we grant the Minor we deny. They proceed.  
" All that have preaching gifts, and graces, or are apt to teach, are required by Gospel-commands to preach.  
But some men merely gifted, not ordained, are apt to teach, etc. Ergo.  
The Minor we grant, the Major we deny. Our Brethren instance in two texts to prove it: the first (upon which they most enlarge) is 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. I will crave leave to transcribe the 9 too.  
v. 9 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 man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever. Amen.  
Here our Brethren observe several things.  
" 1. That the text is to be meant of any spiritual gift.  
" 2. That v. 11. There is a particularising of that special gift of speaking to others for Edification in the things of Christ.  
" They say p. 33. That the nature of the direction how to speak, and the reference the 11. v. hath to the 10. argue it is not common speaking here meant, but some special gift of Scripture-interpretation, and so it is usually carried by interpreters. And it followeth the 10. v. so immediately, that it must needs be an explication of it.  
" 3. There is a divine command to exercise such gift, " This commund is universal. Every man.  
This is the Sum of what they say. To all which I answer. 1. If it be not plainly proved that the gift here is preaching parts, a spirituul gift, and that spiritual gift, and 2. That the term every man must be understood in the latitude. I say in case any of these fail, every one seethe that our brethren's argument falls to the ground.  
As to the first question then.  
Quest. 1. What is meant by gift there.  
The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is used in the New Testament 16 times, (of which this is one) the learned observe it is a word that is not to be found in any heathen Author, so that from the Scripture alone we must understand the import of it, where (as by comparing all the texts will most evidently appear) it signifies,  
Any good thing which is freely given us of God; whether in a way of special providence or common or special grace.  
1. It is used to express gifts of special grace. Justification, Rom. 5.15, 16. Election, Rom. 11.28. Eternal life. Any experiences which may be imparted for Edification, Rom. 1.11.  
2. It is used to express extraordinary gifts, 1 Cor. 12.9. 1 Cor. 12.28, 30.  
3. To express any gifts common or special, 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4.  
4. To express common gifts. The gift of continency, 1 Cor. 7.7. Paul's deliverance from danger is called a gift, and expressed by this word, 1 Cor. 1.11.  
5. To express office, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. as appears by the distribution, v. 7, 8. So 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. (for the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery did not confer other gifts ordinary or extraordinary) The question is now, in which of these senses this word is to be taken, 1 Pet. 4.10.  
It is plain that it cannot be meant of those gifts of God which we cannot Minister to others, so that it cannot be understood of Election, as Rom. 11.28. nor of justification, as Rom. 5.15, 16. nor eternal Life, as Rom. 6 23. These are indeed Free-gifts, bestowed on the Elect, but not to be by them ministered to others; but of any of the rest (except that 1 Cor. 7.7.) it may be understood, that is,  
1 Either of extraordinary gifts, such as those of healing, called by this name, 1 Cor. 12.9, 29 30.  
2. Or of Experiences of God's goodness to us, in a way of common providence or special grace, or of outward good things, or inward, which by our hand, or tongue we may administer, as Rom. 1.11. 1 Cor. 1.11.  
3. Or of Acts of office, as Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.  
4. Or of the gifts of knowledge and utterance or any other, 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4.  
If it be to be understood here in any of three former senses, it will not serve our brethren's turn; for extraordinary gifts are ceased: For telling one another what God hath done for us, or distributing to those in want, we allow it to private persons. If by gift, Office is meant, than none but those in office have received the gift.  
As to the last, we grant that he who hath received the gift of utterance and knowledge, may impart it, and aught to do it in his place, and station, but this may be done, by private conference, admonitions, exhortations, etc. But this lies upon our Brethren to prove.  
1. That the gift here meant, must needs be the gift of preaching in the public Assemblies of people, and that they may do this without Ordination.  
We have told them it may be understood,  
1 Of Office. As any one hath received any office, so let him minister in it, as Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6.  
Or of common gifts of providence. The good things relating to this life, 2 Cor 1 11. then it is a command for alms, according to the connexion, v. 10, 11. Our Brethren must show us good reason why it must be understood of spiritual gifts, and this gift of preaching.  
3 Or if he be understood of the gift of opening Scripture, it may be understood of the extraordinary gifts of prophecy, or at least must be limited to a due time place & manner. Or lastly, it may be understood by the gifts called by this name, 1 Cor. 12.9, 28, 30. We do not say it can be understood of all these, as our Brethren seem to hint out of a fondness to find a contradiction in me: not of Alms, and office too, this is but a childish reply of theirs in their first answer to my first objection. p. 35. of their book, it is enough for us if it be understood of one of these. For if I understand any thing of sense or reason, those who affirm this text to be a precept for the exercise of preaching gifts (as our Brethren do) must prove either,  
1. That that gift is specially meant here, or, Secondly  
2. That the precept is general, and not to be limited to this or that gift, but understood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others.  
Now which of these our Brethren will stand to by their answer, I cannot learn; for one while they tell us the next words are Exegetical of the former, another while they tell us Preaching is one of those gifts. But let them take which they please. Is this then our brethren's sense, That the import of that text is  
That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift [that is any ability to do good to his brother] should do it?  
1. Why then p. 32, 33. do our Brethren come in with their [i. e. Spirituul gift] by the same rule they restrain the text to spiritual gifts, we restrain it to Office, as Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.16. Or to outward good things, the word is so used in Scripture; the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren: ver. 10. Use hospitality one to another, & that is out of question meant ver. 11. If any man minister, let him do it of the ability God giveth.  
Object. But this say our Brethren, is not the manifold grace of God; Charity is but one Grace,  
Answ. Though Charity be but one grace, yet there be manifold Free gifts of God, by the distribution of which we may exercise Charity: The gift of Miracles was but one gift, yet Heb. 2.4. you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, various or manifold miracles. The body of lust is but one body of death, yet there are many lusts, 2 Tim. 3.6. A man may minister from the grace of charity, by giving money, meat, , etc. and every one of these is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God to him.  
2. If any one who hath ability may dispense the gift, then gifted. Brethren may administer Baptism, and the Lords Supper too (by virtue of this Text) for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in those acts; but this our Brethren will not allow: And why? Because these are Acts of Office (say our Brethren) so say we is the Preaching we contend about. Our Brethren may see by this, a necessity of restraining this Text: Either as we contend,  
1. To such Gifts as other Scriptures authorise them to administer: Or,  
2. To an Administration of this Gift, according to due Gospel Order, which (we say) cannot be without preceding Ordination.  Will our Brethren take the Second, and say, That an ability to Preach, is the Gift here only meant: and this Text will warrant a Ministering of that gift without any more ado? 
1. Then we ask them by what authority they impose this upon us; why may it not as well be expounded by the words immediately going before, as those immediately following after? then the Gift is the good things of this world: The sense of the coherence will not constrain this interpretation, it makes as much for us, as it doth for them, nay more.  
2. For the next words limit him that speaks, to a speaking as the Oracles of God; but he who never had the Oracles of God committed to him, is not like to speak the word as the Oracles of God; he may speak the Oracles of God, but he cannot speak them as the Oracles of God, because not sent by God.  
3. Suppose we should allow this, that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant, How doth this Text prove, either a Liberty for, or a duty to d● this in public Assemblies? otherwise our Brethren know we allow it.  
4. Lastly, to whom doth Peter speak this? read ch. 1. v. 1. To the strangers scattered through Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Bythinia. Our dispute is not, what may be Lawfully done in the scattered state of the Church, where no Ministers are at hand, but what may be done in ordinary Cases, to which this Scripture speaks nothing (If it be so to be understood) we do not doubt but in such a persecuted state of the Church, a private person Gifted may Preach, and people ought to hear, as well as the Levites might kill the Paschal Lamb at Hezekiahs' : but (blessed be God) that's not our Case. Thus the Reader may see how inconclusive our brethren's Argument is from this Text, upon more accounts than one.  Our Brethren have entered exceptions against two material things which we insist upon, for the interpretation of this Text. 
1. Against what we say, that if this Text may be understood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking, yet it may be done privately.  
2. Against what we say, That by Gift, very probably is meant Office.  
Let us consider what our Brethren say to either of these.  They say first, that private exercising cannot satisfy this precept, nor can this exercise be justly so limited. 
1. Because as a Church member, he may admonish and exhort severally, and then why not when they are met together?  
2. Because a public Gift, cannot be fully improved in a private way: A man in such a case hideth his talon.  
3. Public actings are not peculiar to Office, they say.  
4. Charity binds men sometimes to go out of their callings to help others.  
Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach.  
5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach. And then he goeth not out of his Calling.  
6. " They have a Divine allowance, Heb. 10.25. therefore they go not out of their Callings.  
" This is the sum of what they say to the first, à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer.  
1. We will not contend with our Brethren, that it is unlawful for a private gifted person to speak in the public Assemblies of the Church, provided it be not on the Lord's day, which ought to be spent in people's attendance upon public Ordinances, of which nature their Preaching cannot be: but we deny, that any are bound to hear them, or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching, which lies under the great appointment of God, to save people's souls. And we say, the Church of God hath had no such custom.  
As to the Second, We do not understand our brethren's notion of a public Gift, it may be taken in a double sense. 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men, willing them to use it publicly. 2. For a Gift which if used publicly might be of public service. If our Brethren understand it in the first sense, we deny any not ordained have any such public Gift: if (as they must) they understand it in the latter sense, we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin, in not improving it, without public exercise: How many hundred men in England, have gifts for the Magistracy, that might be of public use (were they so employed) yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text, to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publicly: Why? Because God hath required another Order, and a special regular Call for the exercise of those public Gifts; and we say the like for the Ministry.  
To the Third, We grant that all public a●●ings are not peculiar to Office; but we say, the administration of public Ordinances, is peculiar to public Officers; and t is scarce sense, to say a private person may administer ● public Ordinance,  
To the Fourth, we say, That we grant that Charity may bind men to go out of their Callings to help another, and so Charity may bind a gifted man to Preach, in case of necessity; but this is not Ordinary preaching, of which the question is stated.  
To the Fifth, We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling, but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling: the Church, say our Brethren, must choose him too, he must be ordained (say we.)  
To the Sixth, Our Brethren say, they have a divine allowance, Heb. 10.25. But to do what? Is it said to Preach publicly and ordinarily? But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to mere Gifted men; they indeed must not forsake assembling together: but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort? however our brethren make that Text a warrant for private meetings, and then it is nothing to the question.  
But to the Second, whereas we have told our Brethren, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably is meant Office, as in Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.16. 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here, for these Reasons.  
1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained; the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety, watchfulness unto prayer, ver. 7. to charity, ver. 8. to hospitality, ver. 9 These exhortations concern private Christians, and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same.  
2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely [a gift] now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals (they say.)  
3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not restrain it unto Office, because it is oft used otherwise; nor doth the term Stewards limit it, nor the terms exhorting and ministering.  
4. " The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter, ver. 2, 3.  
To all which I again answer.  
1. We do not peremptorily determine that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Office there; it is enough for us to say, it may be so; for our Brethren must prove it cannot, or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence.  
2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here, is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said. The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant, ver. 11. Why may not the Apostle, after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties, subjoin this to Officers? he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter? Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them? How do our Brethren prove, that the persons spoken to ver. 9 and spoken to ver. 11. ●elthe same individuals? and why may not the gift then be the same too, and so neither office, nor gifts of this nature meant?  
3. Our brethren must not tell us, that indefinite propositions are most usually equipollent to universals, because it is no Logic.  
Their Logical Rule is this.  
Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universalibus, interdum particularibus, 
Keckerman, Syst. Log. c. 5.  illis quide in materiâ necessariâ, his vero in contingenti: nay with that restriction (saith Keckerman) it will not always hold true. A living creature is not a man; turn this into an universal negative, No living creature is a man, and it is false. Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely, as every one hath received a gift, so let him minister; it doth not follow he must understand every gift; for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Nations, Armies, etc. or to abilities to Baptise and administer the Lords Supper? But to come to an issue.  
I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the latitude, and to think this the sense. As any man hath received any communicable gift; so let him minister it unto others, in that due way and order, and upon that regular Call, which God in his word hath required for those to exercise gifts that have them: If it be a gift of Government (when God hath called him to Magistracy) let him use his gift; if it be a gift for opening and applying Scripture, for administering Baptism or the Lord's Supper, let him first be duly ordained, and set apart for the work of the Ministry, and so let him use his Gift. When our Brethren have said their utmost, this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utterance may forthwith Preach, than it will prove, that by the authority of this Text, he who hath a gift of wisdom may use it in the Magistratical service, or that he who hath a gift of knowledge, or zeal, may administer the two Sacraments, merely by authority of his gifts, without any more ado. And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter.   

CHAP. IU. Containing a short Answer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted men's Preaching, in their Sixth Chapter, from a (pretended) promise annexed to it: The preaching of Apollo, and the scattered Saints; and the prophesying, and Prophets mentioned in 1 Cor. ch. 12. ch. 14.  
OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter, produce three Arguments, to prove the Lawfulness of persons Preaching (if Gifted) though not Ordained. Their first is this.  

The Preacher sent, chap. 6.   
That practice which hath a Gospel Promise annexed, is warrantable.  
But the Preaching of some such, hath a Gospel Promise annexed:  
Ergo.  
The Major we grant, the Minor we deny. They prove it from Mat. 25.29.  
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance.  
Let us put it into Form.  What the Gospel promiseth unto him that hath a talon, i. e. that improves it, That it promiseth to Gifted men's Preaching without Ordination. 
Here's enough: Let me have the same Liberty, and our Brethren will quickly see the vanity of this Argument.  
What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talon, i. e. that improves his talon; that it promiseth to every one that will (having a gift of wisdom and justice) execute justice, though not any other way called to it than by his gifts. But the Gospel promiseth, etc. Or thus.  
What the Gospel promiseth to him that hath a talon or ability, i. e. that by practice improves it, that it promiseth to gifted persons that have ability to baptise and administer the Supper, and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them. Therefore gifted men, not Commissionated for the Magistracy, nor ordained to the Ministry, may execute justice, and administer Sacraments.  
I believe my Lord Protector will hardly allow the first, and I think our brethren will not allow the latter; and when our Brethren have found out a distinction to help themselves, we hope it will help us. Our Brethren, pag. 63. say plainly, they restrain not the Text to preaching Gifts. But they must do it, or else our Arguments from it are as good as theirs: and if they do restrain it, we shall hardly rest in their sense without good reason to justify their restriction. And this is enough for their third Argument, to which the same answer may be applied which was given before, to that drawn from 1 Pet. 4.10.  
Let us see if they be more happy at a fourth.  
Their fourth Argument is drawn from Gospel Presidents, thus form. 
The Preacher sent, or preaching without Ordination, p. 66.   
What is holden forth by Gospel Precedents with Divine allowance may be practised. But the ordinary exercise of preaching Gifts in public Assemblies, etc. Is so holden forth. Ergo.  
I can neither allow the Major nor the Minor: I cannot allow the Major (in the terms our Brethren have put it) for they might as well assume.  
But Apostleship, or an universal inspection and government of all Churches, is holden forth by Gospel Presidents, Paul and Peter. Therefore we may have Popes, Archbishops, and Bishops. Or thus, But the Holy kiss, and anointing with oil, are held forth by Gospel Precedents with divine allowance. Ergo, Mr. Tilham, and Mr. Pooly are in the right.  
If our Brethren understand the Major thus (I shal● allow it.)  What is holden forth by Gospel Presidents, to be in ordinary Cases a standing practice, may be lawfully practised. 
Then we deny the Assumption, viz. That the preaching of Gifted persons (in the sense before expressed) is by any Gospel Precedents held forth as a standing practice to be continued in the Church of Christ. Our Brethren prove it.  
1. By the instance of Apollo, upon which they descant à p. 66. ad p. 73.  
2. By the instance of the scattered Saints, Acts 8. & 11. upon which they descant ad p. 88 It must be granted, that the Scriptures say, that Apollo spoke, and taught diligently, Acts 11.24, 25. and that some of the scattered brethren preached. But to answer all in short, Every understanding Reader will grant, the Argument being ab exemplo pari, If these examples prove not (paria) matches, the Argument falls to the ground: If either there were not a parity of species, in their gifts, or in their acts, or not a parity, in the state of the Church at that time, with that which is the present state of it; now we say, that in some, if not in all these their argument from hence halteth.  
First, I say, there must be a parity in the species of their gifts: for I hope our brethren have no design to put this fallacy upon their Readers; if those who were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, suited to the first plantation of the Church, might preach, than those who have but very ordinary gifts, according to the size of these times, and the opportunities of that little leisure they could get from their Trades, may do the like; this were just such an Argument, as if one should conclude, that because one who had the gifts of healing, might go to a sick person, and anoint him with oil, and lay hands on him, and pray, and by a faith of miracles, believe he should upon this recover; therefore one may do so now: So that if it appear that Apollo, or those Acts 8. or 11. had gifts of another species; either Office, or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which all grant to be now ceased, our brethren's Argument sinks. Now let us examine the instances by this rule, According to which our brethren have been told concerning Apollo.  
1. That he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1.12. called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3.5.  
2. That it is very probable his gifts were of another species, from that which our gifted men now adays have; it is said he was mighty in the Scriptures.  
Our brethren say nothing to this: but let those who say it prove it; but as I take it they assert, and should prove; however we have proved, that he is called a Minister, and ranked with Paul and Peter. But say our brethren, this was afterward. A very little time it seems; for the Text saith, he went soon into Achaia; and in the first verse of the next chapter, he is reported in Corinth. So that it is plain that he preached only in order to Office, that he might be proved; in which case our brethren know we allow preaching ex dono.  
But Secondly, for the scattered Christians, they have been told,  
1. That it is the opinion of some, these were some of the 70. whose Office-gift was of another species, being an extraordinary Mission.  
2. That the Sctipture saith expressly of one of these, Philip, he was an Evangelist, Acts 21.8. and he is the only Preacher named.  
3." That those were members of the Church of Jerusalem, some of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, and might speak the word with boldness, Acts 4.31. If our brethren have any endued with gifts of that species, God forbidden we should deny them liberty; but we conceive them ceased, and with them the strength of this Argument too.  
Now what say our brethren to take off these Answers?  
I shall not meddle with what they say to the first; it being an answer not to be rested upon, and supernumerary. As to the second, they tell us p. 81. The consequence is feeble, because one was an Officer: Ergo, all were. It is an easy thing our brethren know to break a man's legs, and then say he is lame: This Argument was not brought as demonstrative, 
Pag. 81.  but as a good topic; but the strength lay here, Every one of them whom the Scripture names was an Officer; and therefore it is not probable any preached but Officers, and what ever Office Philip was ordained to, Acts 6. certain it is he was an Officer, and so our brethren grant. As to the last Answer (which alone is sufficient) they have said nothing. So then upon this enquiry, our brethren's Argument lies thus.  If Apollo who was soon after to be made an Officer of the Church at Corinth, preached in order to Ordination, and some scattered Members of the Church of Jerusalem, who had received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost preached, amongst whom (we think) there were some no Officers, then private persons, who have but very ordinary gifts, and intent no such Ordination, may preach too. 
To which we must crave leave to answer.— Non sequitur.  
But our brethren's Argument is sick of more Non sequiturs than one. To proceed therefore.  
Secondly, In case there were no parity in their acts, than our brethren's Argument is naught, for I hope our brethren have no design to serve us with such a fallacy as this. If the scattered Christians, wherever they became in private houses commended the Gospel to people, than gifted men may in the public Assemblies of the Church, or any people, perform that Ordinance of Christ called preaching. That were just such an Argument as this. If John a Nokes may turn a servant out of communion with his Family, than he may excommunicate him out of the Church. Our Brethren in that Text, Acts 8. have found the word preach; but nothing to evidence it was in public Assemblies, nor will God's blessing their labours prove it; God may, and oft doth bless private means when public cannot be had. The case was otherwise indeed concerning Apollo, it is said, he preached in the Synagogues; but so might any one, according to the corrupt state of the Jewish Church at that time; and besides (as I said before) he was to be proved in order to office, which our Brethren grant he afterward had.  
But thirdly, There must be a parity in the State of the Church too, or else their Argument will not hold: but this there is not. 1. It was an infant state, and is is a true observation of Didoclavius, that many things may be lawful in the infancy of a Church, which are not to be imitated nor induced in a settled Church. 2. It was a persecuted State. This is indeed the best answer, and therefore our Brethren spend most pains in trying to answer it, pag. 85, 86, 87, 88 Let us consider what they say.  
1. They grant that necessity may legitimate an action otherwise not lawful.  
2. They say, though they were necessitated to traevel, yet they were not necessitated to preach. What do our brethren think we mean by necessity? or how comes necessity into the question, which is whether it be not lawful for private persons to do something in a persecuted State of the Church, which is not lawful in a settled state of it? But to take our Brethren at their own rebound.  
Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest; there is a natural necessity, and there is a moral necessity: We never thought this necessity was natural; and yet against that our brethren argue. There is an absolute necessity, and an hypothetical necessity. In short, we say, they might be under a manifold necessity.  
1. A necessity of the precept; they were filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and those extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive impression, Acts 4.31.  
2. There was necessit as medii; there was no other ordinary means of salvation for those people where they came, than that extraordinary course of theirs, the Apostles being yet left at Jerusalem.  
3. Upon this supposition, that it was the will of God his Gospel should at that time be made known to those people, it was necessary; for there were no others in office to do it.  
Thirdly, Our Brethren question whether necessity can legitimate an action, in itself unlawful: but grant, it may legitimate an action unlawful at this or that time. Not to dispute the first, which yet we might by our Saviour's instance of the Shewbread taken by David, etc. The later part granted, is enough for us, if our Brethren mean ingenuously: We do not say it is against the light of nature to preach without Ordination.  But it is unlawful at such a time when the Church hath plenty of Ministers, and there is no need of their extraordinary actings, being calm and settled. Now that which is unlawful at such and such a time, our Brethren grant necessity may make lawful; we ask no more at their hands at this time. 
3. Our Brethren inquire when is there such a case of necessity? and conclude, when Ordination cannot be had in God's way.— And they can find no lawful Ordination without a preceding election to a particular Church: And therefore all Gifted men lie under such a necessity. Let us put this lose discourse into form; It must be thus:  
If Gifted men may Preach in a case of necessity, and it be a case of necessity when they cannot have Ordination in God's way, and this cannot be till they be chosen Officers to a particular Church, then till that time their Preaching is justified by necessity. But, etc. Ergo.  
But our brethren know, that although they say they cannot, yet we can see regular Ordination, without a Call to a particular Church; we are at a loss to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, of Timothy, of any one preaching Elder in Scripture.— Our Brethren go on.  
They that preach in such cases of necessity, are either officers, or no officers. If no officers, then preaching is not a peculiar act of office; then there is a difference betwixt Preaching by Office and by Gift.— If they be Officers, than Ordination is not essential to office: Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination; then Baptism is valid without Ordination, etc.  
To answer to all this. Those who preach in such Cases of necessity, where people can have no ordained Ministers to hear, may be said to, Preach by an extraordinary authority, which the word of the Lord hath in such cases given them, which may be called a Mission, and they may be Officers, as to that time, and state; yet it will not follow but in another state of the Church Ordination is essential to an ordinary Minister, that is, to one who according to the Rule of Christ in ordinary cases ought to preach. All this arguing is nothing to the purpose: for our brethren are to prove, that Gifted men may ordinarily preach in a tranquil, and settled state of the Church, where are Ministers Ordained enough to supply the place, or at least to ordain and authorise them. Their Argument à pari here, is no Argument, because of the disparity of the Churches State. If our brethren can bring us any Texts out of the Epistles wrote to settled Churches, requiring, commanding, or allowing such a practice for persons not in office, nor furnished with extraordinary gifts to preach publicly, and ordinarily, they say something; all this is no better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or go round about the bush, but never strike one blow at it.  
I come therefore to their fifth Argument, p. 88  
All that are Prophets may publicly (they should have put in ordinarily too) preach.  
But some men [they should have said some such Gifted men as we have now] who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; Ergo.  
If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propositions, I will deny the Conclusion, because the question is not in it.  
If they will allow my corrections, I deny their Assumption, and say, No such Gifted men as now live (for whom our Brethren must plead) are Prophets.  
They prove it, p. 89. All that have the gifts of prophecy, are Prophets.  But some such Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecy; Ergo. 
The Major I grant; The Minor I deny.  
Three things our Brethren undertake to prove; p. 90.  

1. That prophecy is a Gift, not an Office.  
2. That some have the gift of prophecy, and that gift still continueth.  
3. That some persons not ordained have it.   
I shall only premise this, that I hope our Brethren understand by prophecy, such prophecy as the Apostle speaks of in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, otherwise they deceive their Reader with an equivocal word; and then I deny all three of their Positions, and shall proceed to examine their proof of them.  
1. That prophecy is a gift, not an office, they prove,  
1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain prophets.  
2. Because they cannot be ordained, till they be discerned to have the gift of prophecy.  
3. Because some have this gift, who are no officers. This last I deny, they pretend to prove it hereafter.  
As to the two first, our Brethren dispute ex ignoratione Elenchi, against what none deny; who ever said those Prophets were ordinary Officers? We say they were extraordinary Officers, who were furnished with an extraordinary Gift, either to foretell things to come, or else to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit, without the use of such means as we now must use; and being thus furnished, were made Officers at that time by an immediate Mission, to which Ordination was not necessary.  
So then two things we insist upon. 1. That Prophets were extraordinary Officers. 2. That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost. The first is enough for this place: That they were officers, appears from 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, 12. Acts 13.1, 2. And that they were extraordinary, appears in that they are set before Evangelists, Eph. 4.11, 12. and from their extraordinary gifts, Acts 11.27, 28. 1 Cor. 12.9, 10, 11. and from 1 Cor. 14.26. from which text it is plain, that they spoke from revelation, this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of London, 
Jus Divinum, pag. 97, 98. Vindiciae ministe●ii, p. 50, 51, etc.  & by myself. Now for our Brethren to argue against this, because they were not ordained, is a pitiful Non sequitur; for none ever said Ordination was necessary to the constitution of an Apostle, or any extraordinary Officer.  But our Brethren judge that they can prove, that prophesying was not an office, but a gift, p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments, p. 91. etc. 
Their first Argument in form is this, 
If all who have the gift of prophecy are Prophets, than prophecy is a gift, not an office.  
But all who have the gift of prophecy are Prophets; Ergo.   
We deny the Consequence, and say our Brethren have not proved it; for this it all they say,  
They must first have the gift before they can be made Prophets. We deny that. God in the same moment clothed them with an extraordinary Authority, & furnished them with an extraordinary gift. So he did Jeremy, Amos, and all the Prophets of old. I wonder which of them could be said to have the Gift of prophecy one moment before they were Prophets by Office too? this is still a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi; to extraordinary Officers, no such thing was needful.  
Our brethren's second Argument is this, 
That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in Corinth, was a gift only, not an office.  
But Prophesying might so be coveted; Ergo.   
Before I give a direct answer to the Argument, I conceive prophesying (to speak properly) to be neither a gift nor office, but an act by which either is exercised, which act we say none could exercise, but he who had the gift for it, and also the extraordinary authority which empowered him to it; and that prophesying is in no sense to be called a gift, but as an office is a gift, being constituted for the good of the Church, and an honour to them that have it. But to speak to their Argument.  
In the first place, I deny the Major. That which ought in those times to be coveted, and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth, might be an extraordinary office. But say our Brethren.  The Lord had not where promised to make every member of the Church of Corinth a Church officer, therefore it could not be an office. 
1. Our Brethren did not consider, that the same Argument will prove it was no gift, except they can show us where the Lord had promised to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecy, 1 Cor. 12.29. Are all Prophets? The Lord no where promised to give all Christians a power to work miracles, or to speak with tongues, yet surely, they might covet it, as it is plain from the next words, where though prophesying be preferred before tongues, yet that is left upon record as one of those gifts might be coveted.  
2. God hath no where promised that John a Styles should recover of his sickness; doth it therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith? We use to teach our People, that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation, should be prayed for with submission to Gods will, and the prayer is in Faith, while he that prays believes, God will do that which is most good for him; so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift, that he might be able to prophesy; but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will, and wisdom of God; and doing so he might pray in faith, though there were no such particular promise.  
Object. But say our Brethren, this was impossible to be obtained, 1 Cor. 12.17.  
If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?  
If I should tell our Brethren here, To God nothing is impossible, they would think I equivocated with them, yet it is the coin they have much used in payment to me; but where lies the impossibility, in respect of Gods revealed will? they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17. If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?  
That Text indeed proves, that all the Members of a particular Church, cannot be officers to that Church (and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text, who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word, ears to hear, and heads to govern, whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage) But surely it will not follow, but that all those who are members in this particular Church, may yet be in time Officers to other Churches, there is no impossibility in this at all: yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection.  
Besides, universal holiness (our Brethren know) may and aught to be laboured for, yet it is not promised, nor can be attained.  
We allow also that Text, to prove that all the Members of the universal Church, should not be ordinary Officers.  
But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers: Much less doth any thing they have said, prove that all Christians in that Church, might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office, when God should set them in such relations. Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound, which our Brethren hint, pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts, as (if God pleased so to employ him) he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit, and speak with tongues, or be able to heal the sick, provided his End were right in desiring. For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel, and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for, them they might pray for: but 1 Cor. 14.5. I would that you all spoke with tongues. They proceed to the proof of the Minor: viz.  
That the prophesying spoken of, aught in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth; this they prove from the terms, ye, and all, v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer:  
1. Having denied the Major, and made good our denial of it: I need not trouble myself with denying this.  
2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always. Are all Prophets? 1 Cor. 12.29. Let us hear what they say to our Arguments, to prove that these prophets were Officers.  
1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. Eph. 4.11, 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people, and enumerated amongst officers, placed before Evangelists, and next to the Apostles. To this they answer, p. 93, 94, 95.  
1. " That priority of order is no infallible Argument.  
2. " That some not Officers are enumerated, 1 Cor. 12.28. and prophecy is called a gift, Rom. 12.6.  
3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets, such as Acts 11.27, 28.  
To all which I shall give a short answer.  
1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argument, where there is any other Scripture, or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Penmen, to express the Order; but we say our brethren have no such Text, nor reason neither, and that the Apostle in that Text, Eph. 4.11, 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers, according to their dignity, beginning with Apostles, then reckoning Evangelists, Thirdly, Prophets, Fourthly, Pastors, Fifthly, Teachers: And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints, and the common Members of the Body of Christ.  
2. We say, there are none but Officers mentioned, Eph. 4.11, 12. Nor any, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But such as were either officers, or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost, from whence we conclude, That Prophets were either extraordinary officers, or ordinary officers, or gifted with extraordinary gifts (peculiar to that state of the Church.) Now it is indifferent to us (as to the present controversy) of which it be understood; So our Brethren will grant, that one of them must be meant, and so much that Text will evince. If Gifted men be meant, I wonder who are the Church in which they are set? ver. 29. Our Brethren say, prophecy is called a Gift, Rom. 12.6. but there is nothing plainer, than that by gift, is meant office, to him that readeth ver. 7.8.  
3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets, 
Pag. 96.  we take them at their word; and say it is all we have been contending for; only than it lies upon our brethren to prove, that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28. we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case.  
In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church.  
1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it: So say the Prelates for Archbishops, and Bishops; where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office? We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches, and committing government to them, was enough, and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough. So we say for these Prophets, the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience, is a demonstration to us that prophecy is ceased, where is there any now that can without study and meditation, infallibly give the sense of Scriptures, from revelation, or can foretell things to come? we have pitiful experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first, and the year 1657. being come and gone, and the Jews not converted, proves that John Tillinghast (though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for) prove they cannot do the later. As we say to the Prelatical party, so we say to our Brethren, St. Paul's charging Timothy to study and meditate, etc. was a certain proof, that this prophesying is ceased.  
Secondly," Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift, and therefore it continues; the gift of tongues, and healing in those days were ordinary, yet none of them is continuing, I hope.  
What else our Brethren mean by ordinary, I cannot tell; for if they mean it was given by God for a standing Ordinance, it is yet to be proved; for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford, (a man whom I honour, but am not of his mind in this thing.) It was indeed his opinion, that the Apostle by prophesying, 1 Cor. 14.1. means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers, though from an extraordinary principle and faculty; so that still he thought, the gift was extraordinary, which they by their prophesying did exercise. For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford, recited by our brethren, p. 99, 100 we say they were no other than rules of order, which extraordinary officers, as well as ordinary were to be limited by. But I wonder our brethren should quote Mr. Rutherford, and set down his words too, which plainly say, he thought the gift extraordinary, though their acts were but the acts of ordinary Officers. These are his words as quoted by our Brethren.  Only the internal principle, to wit the infused gift of prophesying, made them extraordinary prophets in fieri, as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry; but in facto esse, and according to the substance of the acts of prophesying, these extraordinary Prophets, and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie, etc. 
Let any Reader, who understands English, judge whether Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecy was ordinary; he indeed thought the Act was, viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediately gifted the Ministers of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth; but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary; if they remember what they undertook, pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness: The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man; and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana, John 2. (which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon) were both extraordinary, though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred, his seeing was but ordinary as other men, and when the Wine was made, it tasted like other Wine.  Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of arguing from the Act to the Gift, or rather of putting in Act, where they should have put in Gift, pag. 100 
1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary, what is this to prove the gift is so? the Act may be ordinary, and yet the Gift not so; as in the case of the blind man before mentioned. The work of extraordinary officers and gifts were to come under general Rules of order, I hope.  
2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordinary: What if it be? The question is what the description of the Gift would be: the description of the Gift of seeing, and the Act of seeing are two things, I hope, so in this case; but where is that description? They tell us, 1 Cor. 14.3. He that prophesyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort. heat they tell us is the Act, Exhortation, 2. The Ends of it, exhortation and comfort. Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say; the Text is,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that prophesyeth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and comfort.  
1. (So far as it is a description) It is a description of the Act not of the gift.  
Secondly, Our Brethren if they had pleased, might as well have said edification, or comfort was the Act, as they say exhortation is; for the Text proves the one as well as the other.  
The truth is, the Apostle by these words only expresseth the end of prophesying, and such ends as were common to that, with other ordinances & duties too. If I should say, Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers; would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel?  
In the third place they tell us, That one great end of extraordinary prophesying, and their main and proper act, viz. foretelling future events, is denied to this prophesying: This they say, but they have not told us where that denial is to be found, and I cannot find it. All that I can find them saying is this, 1 Cor. 14.22. It is said, Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not; but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not, but for those that believe. Hence they observe, That the antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets, that tongues were for a sign, but not prophesy, proves, that prophecy could not be for a sign. But this is woefully fallacious.  
1. The Antithesis lies not there, that Tongues were for a sign, but prophesy not so: but here, That tongues were for a sign to heathens that believed not; but prophesying was a sign only for such as believed; viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church; this text only proves, that prophecy was no sign to them that believed not.  
2. Though the foretelling of things to come, might bear the nature of a sign; yet this was not the only end of it; but the faith, and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecy was directed; neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any, till they saw them accomplished.  
3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses, 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture, by an extraordinary gift, which indeed to them that believed not the Scriptures, would be of no use; but was to such as did believe them.  
Fourthly, Our Brethren say, Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. But women Prophetesses might prophesy things to come, Luke 2.38.  
1. I answer, that our Brethren do not find women prophetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34. only women.  
2. Secondly, our Brethren do not find that Anna, Luke 2.36. spoke things to come; the Text only saith, She gave thanks unto the Lord, and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel: She spoke of a Christ already born. She was called a Prophetess (in all probability) because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Scripture: So that our Brethren see this kind of public prophesying (by their own instance) belonged to women; and therefore by their own Argument was extraordinary. But the truth is, this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.37. But this is enough to show the weakness of our brethren's Argument.  Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us, come at last to receive a volley from us; to prove prophesy an extraordinary gift, we had told our Brethren, 
1. That ver. 26. it was evident. When therefore you come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, a doctrine, a revelation, an interpretation, (I have put in the word doctrine now, though I think it will not much serve our brethren's turn.)  
2. That prophet's are mentioned with a note of singularity, denying it to be a gift common to all, 1 Cor. 12. 29, 30. Are all prophets?  
3. That prophets in all the Old Testament, and new too, signified extraordinary officers, who acted from immediate revelation.  
4. That prophecy is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had, 1 Cor. 13.2. 1 Cor. 14.16. preferred before Tongues, 1 Cor. 14.1, 2. Paul compared himself with them, 1 Cor. 14.37.  
5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge.  
6. That it is said prophecies shall fail, 1 Cor. 13.8.  
7. That prophesying is said not to serve for those that believe not, 1 Cor. 14.22.  
To the first our Brethren answer, that we left out the word doctrine, 1 Cor. 14.26. The charge falls not on me, but now it is put in, let us see what our brethren get by it. The sense of the text must be, Either that every individual member of the Church of Corinth had all these, and then they all had extraordinary gifts; for surely the gift of composing Psalms, and the gift of Revelation, etc. must be no ordinary gifts. If this be the sense, the prophesying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted, infallibly inspired, and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails, because they argue à pari, where is no parity in the species of Gifts. Or else the sense must be, one of you hath a doctrine, another a Psalm, another a Revelation, etc. If this be the sense, how do our Brethren prove, that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets? Other Scriptures quoted by our Brethren, 1 Tim. 5.17. Tit. 1.9. make labouring in Doctrine, the work of Pastors and Teachers, & if the Doctrine were the Pastors & Teacher's part, either the Psalm, or the Revelation must be the Prophet's work; for the interpretation clearly belonged ●o tongues, or at least related to it, 1 Cor. 14.13. 1 Cron. ●hren take which they will, the Gift was extraordinary. Our Brethren say, that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy, ver. 6. but they did not consider that in the same words, it is distinguished from Doctrine too. What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? From whence we easily conclude, that the prophesying meant, 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine, and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren.  
Object. But say our brethren, It may be meant of ordinary revelation, Eph. 1.16, 17, 18.  
Answ. Let what revelation will be meant, It is not doctrine; these Prophets spoke not by Doctrine, that was another thing, ver. 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine. And that is it to justify which we say no proof can be produced from this Text.  
Secondly, We grant an ordinary revelation (sano sensu) that is, That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people, in the use of due means, such a knowledge of his written word, as is necessary for their salvation; yea, as may be for their consolation, that they may as to their own souls, know the hope of his Calling (as in that text, Eph. 1.16, 17, 18. quoted by our brethren) and know their own grace, and right unto glory, 1 Cor. 2.9, 10, 11, 12. Phil. 3.15. That they may be resolved in their doubts, and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness. But all this as to their own private use. Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture, to prove that God hath promised ordinarily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures, as they may publicly and ordinarily communicate it in Church Assemblies.  Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity, 1 Cor. 12.29, 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching, yet it is an ordinary office. 
Every Reader will consider, that it was enough for us to prove, either that these Prophets were Officers, or that they had an extraordinary gift. It is true, the note of singularity affixed (or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather) will not prove the gift was extraordinary; but it will prove that either the Prophets were Officers, or the gift was extraordinary; for no others are there enumerated, but extraordinary, or ordinary officers, or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.  To our third Allegation, That the title Prophets, and the term prophesying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Officers, and extraordinarily gifted, and generally so in the New Testament; 
Our Brethren answer,  
1. That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers, nor persons extraordinarily gifted are meant; and that chapter speaking chief of Prophecy as the subject is most fit to interpret it. But their several Reasons being answered, no more need be added.  
2. It is questionable they say, whether in some of the places mentioned, the word prophesying be taken, either for an act of Office; or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift; and to this purpose they mention, Acts 13.1. Rev. 10.11. Mat. 7.22. Mat. 13.57. Luke 4.24. Mat. 10.41. Acts 15.32. To which I answer.  
Indeed our Brethren of London, p. 94. and myself (from others) p. 50. did say, that we conceive, where ever Prophets or Prophecy are mentioned in Scripture, some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood. It had been enough for us to have said that generally it is so. But being the word is out, let it go, and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary.  
1. For that Text, Matth. 7.22. Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, we have prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have we cast out devils, and done many miracles: We grant, that it cannot be from hence demonstratively proved, that the prophesying here mentioned was an extraordinary Gift; because the other two things mentioned were; but we appeal to all the world, whether this be not a strong presumption on our side, and such as our Brethren can never disprove. For that text, Acts 13.1. There were certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch. These were such Prophets as were joined with Teachers. 2. Preferred before them, according to the order also used, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. Eph. 4.11, 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas: Let any reasonably judge, whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church; for Rev. 10.11. John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel, and did eat it— And then the Angel said to him, Thou mayest prophesy again, etc. Was this by virtue of ordinary gift think we? Their next is, Matth. 13.57. A prophet is not without honour, but in his own Country; this Rule they say, is true of all faithful Teachers. Saint Paul, 2 Tim. 4.5. commands Timothy to watch in all things, to endure afflictions, to do the work of an Evangelist, and to make proof of his Ministry; these things are the duties also of Ordinary Ministers: doth it therefore follow, that Evangelists were no extraordinary officers? For their two other Texts both to the same sense, Luke 4.24. Matth. 10.41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward. What though the promise here by analogy concerneth all such as shall entertain Ministers, etc. So doth the promise made to Joshuah Josh. 1.5. I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee (witness the Apostle, Heb. 13.6.) belong to all Christians, yet it will not follow, that therefore Joshuah was no extraordinary person, but a mere private person, nor yet that the promise did not primarily concern Joshuah, as to his extraordinary service in subduing the Canaanites. For the Text, Acts 15.32. Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren, and with many words confirmed them. Hence our Brethren conclude, the work of Prophets was exhorting, and say, they exhorted because they were Prophets. 
Page 109.   
Two things, or three must here be enquired: 1. Whether Judas and Silas were not furnished with extraordinary gifts, or clothed with an extraordinary office or authority. 2. Whether they preached or no. 3. Whether what they did, was done by them as Prophets.  
1. As to the first, it is plain from ver. 22. that both Judas and Silas were no ordinary persons, there the Holy Ghost calls them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we translate it chief men amongst the Brethren. The word signifies men in some office amongst their Brethren; compare the usage of it in other texts, Matth. 2.6. A Governor: Luke 22.26. Where it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that serveth, Acts 7.10. Heb. 13.7, 24. Those that have the rule over you: But this is not all, if it were the same Judas mentioned, Acts 1.13. he was one of the Apostles, and yet (might have the gift of prophecy too) we read of no other Judas (but he that was the Traitor) For Silas, Acts 15.40. he was Paul's fellow labourer, and acting in equal work with him, Acts 16.29. they were undoubtedly two of the hundred and twenty, who were all filled with the holy Ghost, Acts 2.4.  
2. But another question is, Whether this text proves they preached, the text says they exhorted, but all exhorting is not preaching: The truth is, they were sent with the Synods Letters, and persuaded them to an unity in obedience to them.  
3. But yet thirdly, Suppose they (being Prophets) preached; how doth it prove that this act was performed by them as Prophets? we may say Stephen being a Deacon preached, yet it will not follow preaching is an act of the Deacons office. 
Pag. 109.  Our Brethren add to the Scripture, when they say, their exhorting is said to be because they were Prophets. The text says no such thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify because. The mention of their being Prophets, 1. distinguished them from ordinary Brethren. 2. It was made to let us know the dignity of the persons sent as Messengers from the Synod; they were no ordinaty persons, no, they were Prophets. For their last Text, Rev. 11.8. concerning the prophesying of the two witnesses, Our brethren grant that they cannot determine what act is meant by it: No more can we, only I observe there were to be but two of them, so that the gift or office was no ordinary gift or office, and that is enough for us: We do not say, but to some single Christian since the Apostles times, yea even in our times, God may have given to know and foretell things to come. Our brethren know there are several rare instances in several Ages to prove it. For our brethren's last instance, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. We have also a more sure word of prophecy, ver. 20. No prophecy of the Scripture is of private interpretation, I cannot conceive the force of any thing in that Text: That the Scripture is partly a word of Prophecy, every one knows; and our Brethren hnow the whole is oft denominated from the name of the part, by an easy trope. We think that text rather fights against our Brethren than for them; for it says, no prophecy of the Scripture (i. e. which is found in the Scripture) is of private interpretation.  
4. As to our fourth presumption that prophecy was no ordinary but extraordinary Gift, because it is reckoned among the rarest gifts of the Apostles.  
Our Brethren answer, 1 Cor. 14.20. 
Pag. 111.  that the reason why it is preferred before tongues, is expressed, there because it is of more public use for edification.  
We say that was one reason, but according to the Apostle (in case he that spoke with tongues did interpret) that reason failed, 1 Cor. 14.5. and then another must be found. And as to this reason, though the Prophet were greater in one respect, yet he was less in another; for he could show no sign for the confirmation of the truths he spoke.  
5. We had told our Brethren, that the formal effect of public edifying, comforting, edifying, convincing, converting souls, are ascribed to these Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. and therefore some thought they were officers. To this our Brethren answer, Pastors and Teachers are ordinary Officers, and their gifts ordinary, yet they are useful to these ends: What doth this prove? Ergo, If Prophets be officers, their gifts also may be so useful: I think that is all. If these Prophets were any species of officers, it is enough for our turn.  
6. We told our brethren, prophesying is distinguished from the word of wisdom, and from the word of knowledge, 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10, 11. To this our brethren answer three things. 1 So exhortation is distinguished from prophecy, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. yet the Prophets exhorted, 1 Cor. 14.3. Acts 15.32. 2. It is hard to determine the special reason, why the Apostles sometimes distinguished those things each from other, which in themselves seem alike, as 1 Cor. 14.6. 3. If because prophesying is distinguished from the word of knowledge, and the word of wisdom, we will conclude, that by prophesying must be meant foretelling things to come, than we must conclude two sorts of Prophets, one whose proper work should be to foretell things to come; Another whose proper distinctive act should be to exhort, convince and comfort, 1 Corinth. 14.  
To all which I Reply.  
1. That there is nothing more clear, than that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. is speaking of a diversity of Gifts, divided (as he saith) ver. 11. to every man severally; from whence it will follow, that prophecy is neither the word of wisdom, nor knowledge, nor faith, nor the gift of healing, nor the gift of working miracles, nor the gift of discerning spirits, nor the gift of tongues, nor the interpretation of tongues; but the formal gift of prophecy, must be some ninth thing, distinct from all these.  
But Secondly, it will not follow, but some persons might have more than one of these gifts, though every one had not more than one, yet some might, as Paul had the word of knowledge, and wisdom, and tongues, and miracles, and interpretation of tongues: So I see nothing to hinder, but he that had the special gift of prophecy, might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge.  
3. Supposing prophecy to have been a gift of foretelling things to come, or explication of Scripture by an infallible Spirit, without use of means; yet they might speak edification, exhortation, and comfort, which is all mentioned, 1 Cor. 14.3. the Prophets of old, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. did all; but the nature of their gift, and the specifical difference of it did not lie in the thing spoken, or the End, but in the principle, enabling them so to speak.  
4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove, that exhortation, etc. was the distinctive act of the Prophet (as they would insinuate) for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers with them, and this is an answer to their third thing. For what they say before, that prophecy, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. is distinguished from exhortation, it signifies nothing, because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets.  
It was told our Brethren, that 1 Cor. 13.8. the Apostle saith: Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, that shall vanish away. Our Brethren answer, ver. 9, 10. it shall be, 
Page 114.  when that which is in part is done away: 2. Not till the ceasing of knowledge in part.  
1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased; for they also are mentioned, ver. 8. as things which should fail, and we know they are failed, and so (we judge) are prophecies too: nor will it help our Brethren (which they say) that ver. 9 it is not said tongues are in part; for the reason is, because they were perfect in their kind, and so need not be done away, when that which is perfect should come; but if we take perfect in a true sense, for a perfection of the Saints in glory, then indeed they were imperfect things, serving only as means in order to that end: Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect, as the moving cause, or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part; he doth not say, that which is in part shall be done away, by the coming of that which is perfect; but he speaks of it as a consequent. The true sense is this, Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven; we conceive by tongues, and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary; By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices, these shall all fail at that day, but some of these shall fail before others. We lay no great stress upon this Text, I have only said thus much to prevent our brethren's using of it, as they here do, though without any just ground; for the truth is, it will serve neither party.  It was told our Brethren, that prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not, and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches. If any thing can be clear in Scripture; surely this is from that Text, 1 Cor. 14.22. 
To this our Brethren Answer,  
1." That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies.  
2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be, but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers, and to serve only for Believers to edify them; but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be useful to unbelievers to convert them.  
To which I answer,  
1. If there were any Prophets indeed, this would warrant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies; but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent.  
But Secondly, It is well our Brethren say no more, than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent; for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words.  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, 
1 Cor. 14.22.  not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, but prophesying, not for them that believe not, but for them that believe. 
Our Brethren would make us believe, that the sense is only, that prophecy was not for a sign to them that believed not, but for their conversion it might be. Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little, and judge betwixt us.  
1. It is plain, that if prophesying were for any sign, it must be for unbelievers, for believers needed no sign, they had already received the Gospel: but the Apostle plainly says, it was not for unbelievers.  
2. Let any Reader judge, whether those words— But prophesying not for those who believe not— do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to unbelievers; if it were a sign at all, it must be for them who believed not: but say our Brethren, it is denied to be a sign for them; and the words are plain enough, it is not for them.  
Object. Oh! But though it be not a sign for them, yet it might be to convert them,  
Answ. Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion; now that prophecy should be for their conversion, and not a sign for it, seems very harsh, considering, that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies. For what our Brethren say, that for 25, 26. prove that prophecy is useful for the conversion of unbelievers, We grant it, but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly, not when the Prophet goes out to them, ver. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place,— and ver. 24. There come in one that believeth not, or is unlearned, he is convinced [or reproved] of all [i. e. those that prophecy] he is judged of all, etc. Mark, the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place: If our brethren's Brethren be of this sort of Prophets, what do they travelling up and down Countries? (whom they think unbelievers) or intruding upon Congregations that are vacant? where there is no Assembly, our Brethren will own as a Church? these Prophets were not (by virtue of this Text) to be sent out of the Church, only to be heard in it.  
This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets, and although I really think their Argument from this Text, the most probable of any they have; yet I hope an equitable Reader will from what I have said, judge it not conclusive in the case. I wonder at the reverend opinion our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this. But let the Reader judge. Only led me add one text more to prove this prophesying an extraordinary gift, not ordinary; it is that,  
Acts 19.6. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied,  
Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text, and con●ider, whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.   

CHAP. V Containing a Vindication of all my Arguments, brought in my Vindiciae against the ordinary preaching of Persons merely gifted, from whatsoever our Brethren have said to infringe them, either in the seventh, or in the tenth Chapters of their Book.  
OUr Brethren in their tenth Chapter pretend to Answer my Arguments against the licentious presumption of the ordinary Preaching of private persons. My first Argument I laid thus, 
Not to observe Gospel-order in acts of instituted worship is sinful.  
But for private Christians (how well gifted soever) to preach ordinarily, i. e. to open and apply Scriptures, in public Church-Assemblies, is for them in acts of instituted worship, not to observe Gospel-Order— Ergo,   
I presumed our Brethren would only deny the Minor, which I thus proved.  
To adventure upon an administration of a Gospel-Ordinance, without such a Mission, as Gospel-precepts require, and Gospel-Presidents hold forth such should have as so administer, is not to observe Gospel-Order in Gospel-Worship.  
But for such to open and apply Scriptures is to do so: Ergo.  
I proved the Minor, because all the precepts we have for the constitution of Elders in Churches constituting, or constituted, required that besides their gifts, they should, likewise be set apart by Ordination; and all the Precedents we have of persons Preaching in a settled state of the Church ordinarily, were of persons so set apart by Ordination.  
Now what say our Brethren to all this?  
1. They doubt whether I would have my Major Proposition understood universally. 
Pag. 194.   
2. But anon, they suppose it, and they deny my Minor, and say, that neither do Gospel-Precepts require, nor Gospel-Presidents hold forth, that all those that preach the Gospel should be solemnly set apart to the work. Then they review the Texts quoted by me: as to the Text, Titus 1.5. they say, it only concerns Elders. The same they answer to Acts 14.23. Acts 13.3, 4, 5. only as to 1 Tim. 5.22. they doubt whether by laying on of hands be not meant, conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost (because laying on of hands was used in that case too) and Timothy was an Evangelist, and as for Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13.3. they were officers and preachers before; this is all they have, pag. 193, 194, 195. as to my first Argument I answer,  
1. That according to our brethren's Logic delivered to us before, That indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals: Our Brethren needed not have doubted, but that I understood the Proposition universally. However, I do not love to trouble my Readers with such fallacies, as arguing from particulars to generals; but I still maintain, that no precept, no precedent in the Gospel allows the ordinary public preaching of persons merely gifted, in a settled state of the Church, unless they were such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; or such (as according to Scripture-direction) preached only probationis Ergo.  
Secondly (this being a negative) I had no way to make a strict proof, unless we had come to an argument viuâ voce, than our Brethren know I should have argued thus,  
If the Gospel-hath any Precepts, or Precedents, they must be found in the Gospels, Epistles, Acts, or Revelations: And so have followed on the Argument, till I had brought them to assign the Place, or the Precedent. If they had instanced in the scattered Christians, Acts 9.11. all would have seen it had been nothing to the purpose; for they were some of those upon whom the Holy Ghost fell; and the Church was under persecution. If they had instanced in Apollo, he was either an officer, or at least a probationer; if they had told us of the Prophets at Corinth, if they were not ordinary officers (as Mr. Rutherford thinks) yet it is plain they had extraordinary gifts (as I have proved) if they had brought that general Text, 1 Pet. 4.10. I had told them (what I have now said) that if they will understand that Text in the general of any gift to be exercised, without any more ado, than the gifted men may command States and Armies, and administer Sacraments; if they restrain it, we have as much warrant to restrain it to Hospitality, executed in the distribution of the gifts of Providence. So that considering the nature of my Argument, it was enough for me (till they had assigned precepts, or precedents) to instance in such precepts and precedents as the Scripture afforded, laying most stress upon what I found in Timothy and Titus (those Epistles containing the standing Rules for the Government of the Churches planted and settled.)  
Thirdly, It was enough for me, who knew no other ordinary Preachers than teaching Elders (besides extraordinary officers) that the Scripture owns; to prove they were ordained; they are those only that were to labour in the word and Doctrine, that was their work, 1 Tim. 5.17. and they have their denomination from it, from feeding called Pastors, and from Teaching called Teachers, and if every one might ordinarily, and publicly feed and teach; I know not for what use their names served, which usually are given to persons and things to distinguish them from others.  
Fourthly, as to what they say, that 1 Tim. 5.22. may be meant of conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost, They should first have proved that Timothy had any such power, his being an Evangelist proves no such thing, but only that he was left at Ephesus, to put the newly planted Churches into order; the Apostles in regard of their travelling, not being able to stay so long, nor do I find any thing to persuade me Timothy himself had received those extraordinary gifts; however, the caution had been needless; for it is plain, there was no long trial of any who received those gifts, Act. 2.4.4.31. Act. 8.17. Neither do I believe those gifts were by the Apostles hands conveyed to any, but upon extraordinary revelation made first to them, directing upon whom they should lay their hands: Hence they prayed, Acts 8.15. That the people might receive the Holy Ghost, and yet laid no hands on Simon, though he believed, and was baptised, Acts 8.13. Besides, I hope our Brethren will not say, the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. was the conferring those Gifts.  
Fifthly, As to that instance, Acts 13.3. I made no further use of than to conclude the great honour God put upon this Ordinance; I granted Paul was an extraordinary Officer, and Preacher before: yet that the Lord may let us know his everlasting will, concerning such as should be mediately sent out by the Church, Paul and Barnabas (though extraordinarily Commissionated) yet being to be sent out by the Church, are (to show what all Churches should do) sent out by solemn fasting, and prayer, and laying on of hands; how much more should others, who can pretend no such extraordinary gifts or office. And this is I think enough to set my first Argument on its legs again.  
My second Argument I stated thus.  

Vindiciae pag. 33.  For any who are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is sinful.  
But for persons merely gifted; to preach ordinarily in public Assemblies in the settled state of the Church, is for persons who are no officers, to take upon them to do Acts of office.  
Not to multiply words needlessly; by Acts of Office I meant Acts peculiar to office; then (say our Brethren) they deny my assumption. Preaching (they say) is not an act peculiar to office; I foresaw this, and therefore laid in some proof for it.  
The proper acts of Pastors and Teachers, etc. are acts peculiar to office.  
But ordinary preaching in public Church-Assemblies, in a settled state of the Church, is the proper act of Pastors and Teachers, etc.  
By proper Acts our Brethren might have concluded, that I meant proper quarto modo, such as are peculiar to them: Then (they tell me) they deny the Minor; and (Reader) this is it that they affirm, That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder, teaching the truth is not the peculiar work of a Teacher; but although Pastors and Teachers be standing Officers in the Church of Christ, who must and aught to Preach, yet others may preach as well as they. Our Brethren do allow, that Pastors and Teachers are needful to feed the flock of Christ; but yet that this flock may feed itself; that Christ hath appointed some, whose ordinary work should be to teach, and whose office it should be, to the performance of which they must be set apart; but yet there are others who may do the same thing without being set apart; this is clearly our brethren's sense, but how consistent with reason, let the Reader judge. As to the making of my Argument good.  
2. My former discourse will make it appear, that i● will lie upon our Brethren to give an instance of any one in Scripture, except extraordinary persons (in respect of extraordinary gifts and offices) who (not in order to Ordination) in a settled state of the Church, did ordinarily preach, or any precept to warrant such for the future. We have proof enough in Scripture that the Elders, and Officers of the Church did it. I can yield it our Brethren, that the name Teacher is to distinguish from him that exhorteth; but the name of Teacher and Pastor too, must have teaching and exhorting, as their proper acts, by the force of the same Text, Rom. 12.7, 8. That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait, that is his peculiar work: but preaching is that work upon which Pastors and Teachers are to wait, Rom. 12.7, 8. That by God's appointment it should be the work and charge of some, to wait upon the performance of an action, which any others may do as well, and as ordinarily as they, is a strange piece of sense: 
Pag. 199.  Our Brethren, p. 199. argue fallaciously, when they say, Distribution is an act of the Deacons office, and yet every one may distribute: Distribution of the Church's stock is indeed an act of the Deacons Office, and this none but they may distribute: They might as well have said, speaking is the act of a man: Ergo, Preaching the word is not peculiar to office: He that breaks Bread, and gives it to another, doth materially (in our brethren's sense) the Acts of him that administereth the Lord's Supper: Yet our Brethren will grant, that the Sacramental breaking of Bread is an act of Office; Distribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office; but distribution of the Church's stock is, and that none may do (if the Church have Deacons) but they.  
I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Office, thus; 
If Baptising be an act peculiar to office, then is preaching such.  
But baptising is: Ergo.   
I proved the consequence, 

1. Because they are both in the same Commission.  
2. The Apostle makes preaching the greater Act, 2 Cor. 1.17.    
Our Brethren of London had used the same Argument, and brought the same Text in justification of it, to which these Brethren endeavoured an answer, ch. 9 pag. 165, 166, etc. To which here they refer me, yet withal, pag. 200. they give me a repetition. I will fairly sum up what they say in both places.  
First, Our Brethren say, 1. That the Argument falleth as heavy upon us; for we will allow Probationers to preach, yet not to Baptise.  
Secondly, Some (they say) think the Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. is given to the Apostles as Officers; and that there is another Commission for gifted men.  
But (Thirdly) they tell us it is a mistake; for the Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. is not that which impowereth men to preach. It was only an enlarging of a former Commission, and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto. For the Apostles preached, and baptised before, Mark 10. ver. 5, 6, 7.— The Apostles (they say) received as much power by this Commission, as any others their Successors could, but they received no Office-power by it.— It can, they say, only be concluded from hence, that those who were in office before, might go and preach to the Gentiles.— Hence they deny, that the joining those two acts together in that Commission doth conclude that all who may do the one may do the other.  
Fourthly (they say) some deny that preaching is a greater work than baptising: Here they quote (a great Friend of theirs) Dr. Homes.  
Fifthly, page 170. they suppose preaching the greater work; (else where our Brethren ingenuously grant they think it is, pag. 233.) yet it doth not follow, that those who do the greater may do the less, because the less may be more limited.  
Sixtly, and lastly, They find, that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts, which have the denomination of preaching, and for the same end, 
Preaching without Ordination, p. 165, etc.  Matth. 18.15. Heb. 3.13. Heb. 10.25. Now they cannot find the Gospel allowing men out of Office, to perform that act called Baptising, and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Baptism is instituted for. This is the sum of all said in many more words, page 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 199, 200.  
Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove, That those who may preach, may not baptise, when as Christ with the same breath said, Go preach and baptise, and Saint Paul saith, he was not sent to baptise, i. e. that was not his main act, but to preach. I shall shortly answer to all our Brethren say.  
1. Under favour, our Brethren are mistaken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us, who allow Probationers to preach: For 1. They were excepted out of the question, as being by a special rule in God's word dispensed with. Our Brethren can show no such Rule for their gifted men. 2. Neither do we allow them to preach ordinarily.  
2. As to the second thing they say, to make their assertion good, they must bring forth that same other Commission for gifted men, before we shall believe it: if it be that Matth. 10. ver. 5, 6, 7. Our Brethren acknowledge they baptised too, the Text proves they had power to work miracles, ver. 1.  
3. As to what they say next, viz. that the Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. is not that Commission which authorizeth any to preach, we must crave leave to deny it. Their Argument is this.  
That Commission which did not give authority to the Apostles themselves to Preach and Baptise, did not give others authority, claiming by and under the same Commission.  
But that Commission did not give them Authority: Ergo.  
The Major we confess (as to the present Commission) The Minor we deny. All they have to prove it is this: 
What authority they had before, that Commission did not give.  
But they had authority before to Preach, and Baptise: Ergo,   
The Minor we grant, the Major we deny.  
1. I say, that if a man hath two Commissions to the same work, he is by both of them impowered, and authorized, and made in Office. Suppose an act of Parliament constituteth some as Commissioners for ejection of scandalous Ministers in the County of Norfolk: and afterwards, another Act passeth to the same purpose, enlarging also their power, to the City and County of Norwich, doth not the later Commission authorise and empower them as well as the first? It is true, that Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. was not the first Commission that impowered them to Preach, but it did empower them surely; for the same authority is in the latter as in the former.  
Secondly, our Brethren grant they were in no office to the Gentiles without that Commission; therefore I think that Commission empowered them.  
Thirdly, our Saviour saw, that after his Ascension, there might be some question, whether they might Preach, and Baptise, as they had done (during his Life) and whether any others might in that work succeed them, by authority from Christ, he therefore reneweth, and enlargeth their Commission, and by making an everlasting promise to those who should succeed them in that work, he doth establish a constant office of the Ministry, to the world's end.  
As to their fourth Allegation, it being that which our Brethren refuse to own, or insist upon, I shall spend no time about it.  
For what they say fifthly, that supposing Preaching the greater work, yet it may be that Baptising, which is the less, may be limited to Officers, and yet not that; I● may be so indeed, but it is not very likely.  
And I suppose our Brethren must produce a very plain Scripture to prove the limitation, before they will make any endued with a competency of reason believe tha● God hath by his will in his word authorized Ministers in office, to Preach, and to Baptise, and in the same word declared, that Preaching is the great, and chief act, to which he hath sent them, and rather sent them for that than for the other, viz. Baptising, and yet it is his will, that any ordinary gifted persons may perform that greater act, but none but those Officers may do the less: He that hath so much, credulity as to afford any to such an assertion may; in the mean time our Brethren have not brought us one title of Scripture, to prove the limitation of Baptism: Some thing of reason they pretend to, in what they say in the sixth place, that they find in Scripture, that other persons besides Officers may do the acts of Preaching, and for the ends; the acts, viz. admonition, exhortation, Mat. 18.15. Heb. 3.13.10.25. for the ends, viz. to prevent sin, build up in grace, etc.  
To which I Answer.  
Sixthly, Admonition and Exhorting, simply considered without reference to the persons or manner, are not the acts of Preaching; ordinary Admonishing, and exhorting in the public Assemblies of the Church, are indeed. The pronouncing of the words, which the Judge pronounceth in passing Sentence upon a Malefactor, is not the act of his Office, unless pronounced in due manner, upon the Arraignment, and condemnation of a Malefactor in an open Court after Trial.  
Object. Oh but it serveth to the same end.  
Resp. This is not enough to make it the same act. An Highwayman may pronounce the same Sentence the Judge doth, and to the same end, yet his act is not the same: But it is they say, materially the same.  
2. Our Brethren in this say nothing, for this doth not Legitimate the action; our Brethren may do actions materially the same with such as are commanded, and yet sin in doing of them, in this or that place, or manner; it is therefore no consequence, that because our Brethren no where read in Scripture that any but Officers did materially the acts of Baptism, etc. But do read that they did the material acts of Preaching, Ergo They may Preach but not Baptise.  
But Thirdly, Our Brethren need no Scripture to prove, that any man may do the material acts of Baptism, and administering the Supper: The material act of the one is sprinkling or powering water upon a face; of the other, a breaking of bread, and giving it to others. None ever questioned but every one may do these acts, and our Brethren oft do it to their children: Therefore this is no ground of restraining those from Administering the Sacraments whose authority to preach we implead. And so much shall serve for the vindication of my second Argument.  
My third Argument was: From the uselessness of the great Ordinance of the Ministerial Office, as to its chief act, viz. Preaching, if this practice be allowed.  
Now the word of God cannot be so contrary to itself, as, first to set up an Office, and then to make it useless as to its chief work.  
To make this good, I had but two things to prove: 1. That Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial Office. 2. That if every one who hath gifts may preach, there were no need of the Ministerial Office (as to its chiefest act.)  
To prove it to be the chief Act of the Ministerial Office, I urged,  
1. That it is the first Act mentioned in the Ministerial Commission.  
2. That St. Paul makes it his chief act, 1 Cor. 1.17. Christ sent me not to Baptise, but to Preach.  
3. Either this is the chief act of the Ministerial Office, or a Minister hath no act proper to him, but that of administering Baptism, and the Lords Supper. But no Scripture shows these more peculiar to him.  
To all this our Brethren answer.  
1. That the order of words doth not prove preaching the chief act, in that Commission, Matth. 28.19, 20. Neither did I bring it as a demonstrative Argument: but I do not think Dr. Homes his assertion true, that Preaching is but a preparation to Baptism; for he will find it must follow Baptism as well as go before it, Teaching them to observe, etc. That same But therefore is a but of the Doctors own setting up, which all Scripture, and right reason will throw down.  
2. But to make my work short, our Brethren, p. 203. at last do grant that Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial office, and that Text, 1 Cor. 1.17. doth evidently prove it: So doth that Rom. 12.7, 8. Take from those two Texts these two Arguments.  
Arg. 1. That piece of the Ministerial work, for the discharge of which God especially designs his Ministers when he sends them, that is their chief work.  
But Preaching is such, 1 Cor. 1.17. Ergo.  
Arg. 2. That piece of the Ministerial working, upon which the Minister is most especially to wait, and rather to neglect other parts than that, that is their chief work.  
But Preaching is that piece of the Ministerial work upon which Ministers of the Gospel are especially to wait, Rom. 12.7, 8. to which they are especially ordained, 1 Tim. 2.7. 
1 Tim. 1.11.  to which they are in special manner to give attendance, both to be prepared for it, and to do it, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and to do it well, 2 Tim. 2.15. 2 Tim. 4.2. they are rather to neglect others than that, as Paul did Baptising, 1 Cor. 1.14, 15, 16, 17. And the Apostles judged it not meet they should leave the word of God to serve Tables, Acts 6.2.— Ergo.  
Therefore I think our Brethren have but done themselves right, in judging Preaching the chief and main work of the Ministerial Office, p. 203. But (say they)  

Pag. 203.  Yet we do not find any Scripture Rule to evidence, that Preaching in itself, is either an act of Office, or peculiar to the distinctive act of Office; to make it so, there is required a being over them in the Lord, who are preached to, 1 Thes. 5.12.— and this they conceive doth make Preaehing an act of Office,— etc.  
What this serveth for, more than to blind the Reader that he may not see the strength of our Argument, I cannot tell. Our Argument was this.  
That which is the main Act of the Ministerial Office, for the performance of which God especially designed it, that is not lawfully to be performed, by such as are in no Office; for it is the peculiar act of Office.  
But Preaching is the main and chief act for the performance of which God hath set up an Office of the Ministry, and designed it, etc. Ergo.  
The Minor our Brethren have granted; so that they must deny the Major or nothing; we prove it, 
God doth nothing in vain.  
But in case he had set up an Office in his Church chief for the performance of an act, which many out of Office might do; he had as to that act set it up in vain.— Ergo, It is false that any other may do it.   
The Minor is evident to common sense or reason; were it not a vain thing for a Prince to establish an Order of Officers (suppose Justices of the Peace, Colonels, and Captains of Armies, Constables in Parishes) if by the Law every man, though in no such office might do the main work that belonged to such an Office?  
Hence we say, that the Lords establishing a standing office of Pastors and Teachers, and declaring in his Word, that the main end of his establishing them, is for the Preaching of the Gospel, doth clearly reveal his will, that this should not be the work of any but such Officers. Now what say our Brethren?  
The Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office.  
This is the sum of what they say. If it be sense, I am sure it is nothing to the question, which is plainly begged in the answer. For what is the Question but this?  
Whether any but such as are in Office may ordinarily Preach?  
We say no, because Preaching is an act peculiar to Office: this we prove, because it is the main and chief act and end, for which God set up the Office. Our Brethren grant it to be the main and chief act, for the exercise of which God set up the Office; and yet tell us, by and by, that Preaching is not so. But the Preaching of one in Office is so. Reader, if thou canst pick out the sense of this, I cannot.  
Our Brethten should have done well to have given us the difference between simple Preaching, as it is an Ordinance of Christ, and Office-Preaching as they call it.  
If they mean by Preaching, An act of a person clothed with the authority of Jesus Christ, by which in obedience to his Command, the Agent openeth and applieth Scriptures in order to the conversion and edification of souls, and that in the public Assemblies, and to which people ought to attend.  
We say, this must be an act of Office, and all such Preaching is Office-Preaching, his authority puts him in Office. If they mean by Preaching,  
Any persons discoursing of the Scripture, either privately, or publicly, in such a way, as that none is by Gods command obliged to hear him, nor can hear him looking upon what he does as the public appointment of Christ, for the salvation of his soul; we allow gifted men may Preach in this sense: But we say, that (strictly) this is no Preaching; it is no more than a private persons reading a good Book, to whom people are not bound to resort to hear, nor ought they so to do upon the Lords days, which should be spent in the duties of public worship.  
Our Brethren, p. 203. justly think, that in the hearts of some serious Christians, there may be some such workings as these.  
If this Doctrine be true, that all gifted men may by the command of Christ Preach ordinarily, as well as Pastors, and Teachers; and all the Brethren have as much to do in ruling tne Church, as ruling Elders, surely both Preaching and Ruling Elders are useless: for to what purpose are they set a part for a work, which they might do without such a setting apart, or any others do as well as they, when made Officers.  
And therefore surely these principles have too much absurdity in them, and bear too much contradiction to the revealed will of God to be true.  
But say our Brethren,  
If all acts which Officers might put forth, 
Pag. 204.  might be performed by members not in Office, yet there would be enough to speak Officers necessary, and of great use.  
1. Though they put forth the same Acts, yet it is not under the same relation: A man provideth for his children as a Father, for the poor under another notion: A Christian friend occasionally gives wholesome instructions to the children of his acquaintance; so doth the Parent of these children; yet the manner is different, the one is under a standing Obligation, the other not. The Bailiffs are needful in Corporations, where the major part carry it without the Bailiffs sometimes, pag. 205. Church-Officers have a special oversight over the flock, pag. 206. they are under a special designation.— If a Church hath Officers, they by their place, are to go before the Church, in directing, and executing determinations.— But the Church may censure without Officers, p. 207.  
2. They say, that we allow such an Office as hath no act peculiar to it, viz. Ruling Elders.  
3. They do not say all may preach, but such as are really gifted.  
4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted men's Preaching, it is needful, whether we can see it or no.  
5. The Preaching of Apostles, and Evangelists did not make the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless; nor è contra, because every Church-member may distribute to the poor, it will not follow the Office of Deacon was needless.  
This is the sum of what our Brethren say, pag. 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209.  
in many more words: To all which I shall give a short answer:  
1. As to the present debate, I have nothing to do with arguing the needlesness of Officers, as to the Government of the Church, of Officers; if others, besides such Officers, may act with them: Acts of Jurisdiction in the Church were never by Christ committed to the single hand of any person, nor yet to any single Office; I think neither the Minister alone, nor the Ruling Elders alone, nor the multitude alone are the Church, to which offences should be told, or who can singly act in any formal censure (except in a very high Case of Necessity.) The work of Preaching is of another nature, it is by Christ's Order to be performed by this or that single hand. It will not therefore follow, that because there is a need of a Pastor, though ruling Elders (as we say) and the multitude as our Brethren say, aught to concur with them in acts of Censure and Discipline; ●herefore there is a need of Teaching Elders, though others may teach as well as they; for the work of teaching may be (as I said before) performed by single hands, without a concurrence to the act of any others, whether Officers or Members, so may not acts of Government.  
2. As to what our Brethren say, That Pastors and Teachers, act under another relation, as set over people in the Lord, this amounts to no more than a notion, and makes no real difference: Let us examine what this signifies. Will our Brethren say these Preach as appointed by Christ, others not so? pag. 209. No say our Brethren, the gifted men are also by Divine appointment to preach, so their authority is the same; Christ appointeth both the one, and the other (they say:) What then, do they not do the same material acts? That they do our Brethren told us, p. 200. they had found that in Scripture: What then? Is not the end the same, to convince, convert, exhort, edify? Our Brethren told us, pag. 112. They knew not wherefore they should prophesy, if there were no hope of such effects. So then, our Brethren say, that gifted men have the same authority to preach, that teaching Elders; and teach the same things, & to the same end. Now I wonder what this different relation, which they here tell us of, signifies more than an empty notion: let us see if their similitudes will help us: A man they say provideth for his children, as a father; for the poor under another notion. But the quest. is quite another thing, viz. Whether it would be necessary, that there should be a special order of persons, called fathers, to provide for the poor, if every one were bound to provide for them; and to do the same acts, in the same order, and to the same end that they should do. A Christian Friend, they say, occasionaelly gives wholesome instructions to the children of his acquaintance, so doth the parents of those children, yet the manner is different; the one is under a standing Obligation, the other not.  
If this similitude runs on four feet, our brethren's sense is this, That there is a need of Pastors and Teachers, though gifted men may Preach, because gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only, may do it occasionally.  
So then the sense is this, gifted men may Preach, & shall not need, except they list; they may preach, & they may let it alone; but Pastors and Teachers, they must do it.  
That they may let it aelone, I most freely grant: But that they may either do it, or let it alone, I can never grant: All the precepts our Brethren pretended to for this Preaching of gifted men, do not only (if they were to their purpose) assert their Liberty, but enjoin it as their duty. See 1 Pet. 4.10. He that hath received the gift is commanded to Minister; he that hath the gift of Prophecy must Prophecy. Our Brethren, say they, preach by Divine appointment, pag. 209. Now those that are appointed to Preach, are not at their liberty, whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore exceeding vain: besides, it gives the gifted man a superiority over the Officer: for Greater is he that sitteth at the Table, and may choose whether he will serve, or no, than he who serveth, and must serve.  
For our brethren's other instance, viz. that Bailiffs in a Corporation may be useful, though the Common Council may act with them, it concerns not the present case; it may have something in it to prove, that although the Members of the Church have a joint power with the Officers of the Church, as to the executing some act of censure; yet there is a need of them as to other acts (and that is all it will do too in that Case) but here it signifies nothing, because Preaching is an act which may be done by a single person, and we argue that there is no need of a special order of single persons, to be in Commission for a work for which all were commissioned, and in which others may act.  
3. It is true that our Brethren say, we do allow such an Office as we say, hath no act peculiar to it, viz. that of Ruling Elders, their work is rule, and in that work they are joint Commissioners with the Teaching Elders: But the question is, whether we allow such as are not Officers to act in it. We say the office of ruling is a partible Office, divided betwixt the Teaching and Ruleing Elder; who (as to that work) make but one office, to the execution of which a double Species of Officers is (ordinarily) necessary. These two (as heretofore the King, Lords, and Commons of England made up the three Estates, all necessary to enact a Law) do make up the two States as it were in the Church, without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth, in ordinary cases. But the case is quite another, as to the work of Preaching, which may be performed by a single person. If indeed we had said, that the Ruling Elder might alone without the Teaching Elder, have (in ordinary cases) exercised acts of Rule, Our Brethren had said something, and we should have thought the Pastor's Commission, as to ruling needless, and so è contra we should have thought the ruling Elder needless, and should so judge it, if we could see that the Pastor (in ordinary case) without them might rule, which is the thing our Brethren plead for, the Preaching of Gifted men.  
Fourthly, Our Brethren say they do not say all may preach, only those who are gifted. But our Brethren dare not say, who shall judge that (as I noted before) therefore it is all that will.  
Fifthly, Our Brethren say true, our reason must veil to the will of God revealed in Scripture. But when the question is, whether there be any ground in Scripture for this liberty or no, and our Brethren have no plain Scripture to prove it, no particular Precept, no Precedents but of persons qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, that ever ordinarily preached, We hope our Friends will judge, that it is no light Argument to prove our Brethren mistaken in the Scriptures they pretend, because their sense of them being granted, a standing Sacred Office of the Gospel, plainly confirmed by many Scriptures, would be made frustraneous, and of no use.  
Sixthly, But Lastly (say our Brethren) we do grant that Apostles and Evangelists might Preach, yet was not the Office of Pastors and Teachers needless. I Answer.  
1. This is no consequence; for Apostles and Evangelists were Officers.  
2. They were virtually Pastors and Teachers, they differed in nothing from them but the extent of their power.  
3. There was a plain need of Pastors and Teachers, notwithstanding these extraordinary Officers: for 1. They were to endure but for a time. 2. They were not to be confined to a place; it had been sin for them to have always stayed in one place. So that notwithstanding them, there was an apparent use of Pastors & Teachers.  
4. We say as to such times as they were resident in this or that particular Church, there was no need of any Pastors or Teachers, because they could do all their acts: But we hope our Brethren will not say so for their gifted men.  
And thus much may serve to have answered all they say against my third Argument.  
My fourth Argument, I laid thus,  

Vindiciae Ministerii, pag. 38, 39   
What things (by Scripture-warrant) are in public Assemblies to be communicated unto others by faithful men, who shall be able to teach others, and to whom such things shall first be committed by God's Timothy's, those things private persons, to whom they are not so committed, may not so communicate.  
" But of this nature are Gospel-truths', 2 Tim. 2.2. Ergo.  
I granted our Brethren that the Greek word, translated Commit, did sometimes signify to propound a thing to others: But most properly such a committing as is of a thing which is committed in trust to one, not to another, as Luk. 12.48. Luk. 23.46. Act 13.43. Act. 20.32. 1 Tim. 1.18. 1 Pet. 4.19. I told them it could not be understood in the former sense here; for so Timothy was to preach to unfaithful men, as well as faithful; but he is commanded only to commit these things to faithful men; and it was not enough that these men were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful, but notwithstanding that they must have these things committed to them, before they taught others.  
Now let us hear our Brethren.  
1. They grant that none but such as are faithful and able may teach others; and such as are learned in Gospel mysteries: This will go a great way; for I hope our Brethren will not judge him able to interpret the Gospel; that is not able to interpret the Gospel out of the Original into his own Tongue. I wonder how he shall distinguish betwixt the Jus Divinum of the Douai Bible, translated into English, and the Bible of our English translation; as much may be said for the Old Testament; So that the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, will be necessary to understand Gospel-Mysteries, so far as to communicate them to others, viz. Revealing the whole Counsel of God to them (indeed in cases of absolute necessity, where enough such men cannot be found) something may be abated, not because they are able, but because none are to be found more able: For other Learning, as much might be said, but this is not directly to our present purpose; our question supposeth them able, yet we say they are not Commissionated.  
2. Our Brethren tell us, that the word translated Commit, is to be taken here for a propounding of those things doctrinally. 1. Because the end is to make them able. 2. Because it doth not appear from any other Scripture, that any other committing of Gospel-truths' (viz. such as I speak of) is required unto a Call, no not to Office.  
1. But our Brethren have nothing in the Text to prove ●hat the end of the Committing of those things to them was to make them able, it says no such thing.  
2. Our Brethren know the Enallage of Tenses is very ordinary in Scripture; the future used for the present, and the present for the future tense.  
3. If Timothy were to commit those things only to them that should be able to teach others, his Rule was very incertain; for how could he know who they should be?  
4. That there is an ordination necessary, was elsewhere proved by me, and more sufficiently by the London Brethren.  
I told our Brethren, That Timothy is commanded to commit these to faithful men only, and such as should be able to teach others; therefore it could not be merely doctrinally, for so they should be committed to all.  
To this I can find no answer, only our Brethren say, that this is to show unconverted men are not to be Preachers. 2. Nor all that are converted, but such as are able: But how this answers my Argument, I cannot guests; for if as our Brethren assert, the committing ●ere but doctrinal that is here meant, it is sure enough, they were thus to be communicated to the unconverted.  
Again, whereas our Brethren say, that it is the committing these things to them makes them able. We grant it in the sense of that known Maxim, Id tantum possumus quod jure possumus. We say the Moral ability of the Preacher is created by his being authorized to the work, by a solemn separation to the performance of it, without which, though many be naturally able, yet none is morally able, as it is the Judge's Commission that makes him able to relieve the fatherless and oppressed Widow in Judgement.  
Our Brethren therefore (as their safest refuge) fly to the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that this was a Precept concerning Preachers by Office. The Text saith no such thing, however, we own no others: whereas they say we must restrain it to public Preaching: We say there is reason for it; for the Apostles business is to direct Timothy in the settling of Gospel Churches, as to public Officers and Administrations. And besides Reason will tell us, that those need not to have Timothy commit the Scriptures to them, who exhort from the obligation of Natural and Oeconomical duty. But we say, that all such public Teachers of others are here meant, as Preach with authority, obliging the Public Assemblies of the Church to hear them, & all such as administer that glorious public Ordinance of God, which we call Preaching, and is the ordinary means of saving souls.  
And this is enough for the vindication of this Argument. My fifth Argument was this.  
Whosoever may lawfully Preach, may lawfully require a maintenance of the Church, to which they preach, 1 Tim. 5.18 Mat. 10.10. Gal. 6.6.  
But all the Gifted Members of a Church cannot require a Maintenance of the Church, wherein they are— Ergo.  
Our Brethren deny the Major, and say, The Scriptures alleged speak of a constant preaching: they say it, but they do not prove it; neither doth Matth. 10.10. nor Gal. 6.6. hint the least of such a thing; the Scripture saith, he that laboureth, he that teacheth; our Brethren add constantly, by what authority I cannot tell.  
But our Brethren have much fault to find with my Minor, it is neither true in matter nor form: A little matter will make it true in both. It is true (by a slip of my Pen) instead of the Church to which they Preach, I put in the Church in which they are: but it is the same thing; for admit that they may prophesy, I proved before from 1 Cor. 14.23. that they had no warrant to go out of their Church to do it. If unbelieves come in thither, well and good, but they have no rule to go out to them.  
Our Brethren here spend many words not to prove, but to speak the same thing over again, viz. That for occasional Preaching, wages, or maintenance cannot be required. But where nothing is proved, nothing need be answered; and all that our Brethren preach upon this subject, is both beside the Texts quoted by me, and without a Text produced by them.  
My sixth Argument was from Rom. 10.15. This they say, they answered before, indeed their whole Seventh chapter was spent in an endeavour to that purpose. It is too large to describe; for it reacheth from pag. 116. to pag. 138. of their Book: I will therefore only lay before my Reader, the Sum of my Argument, and then give a summary of what they answer. I argued thus,  

Vindiciae Ministerii, Pag. 43, 44.  What none may ordinarily do, but those that are sent, that persons merely gifted may not do.  
But none may (ordinarily) Preach, but those who are sent, Rom. 10.15.— Ergo.  
I proved the Major thus,  
What none may do, but those who are sent, that none may do who are not sent.  
" But persons merely gifted are not sent— Ergo.  
The proof of the Minor, brought me to examine, what it was to be sent.  
Reason told me, Sending was the Act of another, or others, none can send himself.  
Those who send, are either God, Angels, or Men; to the second none pretends; of the first, the Text must be understood.  
God's sends either immediately, or mediately: immediately by a voice from heaven; of this the Text cannot be meant; for then farewell preaching, yea, and believing too, according to the force of that Text.  
God sends mediately by his Church, either by his Church electing, or ordaining: Let it be which way it will, mere gifts will not serve the turn. This was the substance of what I said.  
Now let us hear what our Brethren say.  
1. They grant Mission is of ordinary Teachers, pag. 118.  
2 That it continues in all Ages, but deny it essential to the constitution of a Minister by that Text; but say it is necessary to the Act of preaching, p. 119.  
3. They deny the major of my first Syllogism, and the minor of my second, and say, gifted persons are sent.  
4. They say the sending there is not an act, constituting an Officer: 1. Because some who were Officers before had Mission afterwards, Matth. 28.19. 2. Because it may be repeated without losing the office, Matth. 10.5, 6.7. Chap. 28. v 19 3. Because some had Mission, who were no officers, Luk. 10.1. Because all that are instrumental to Conversion would then be judged Officers, Rom. 10.14.  
5. They say Mission is not ordination. 1. Because no Scripture saith it. 2. Because than Deacons are sent, Acts 6.6. 3. Because Mission may be iterated, but not ordination; Matth. 10.5.28.19. 4. Because a Church may Ordain its own Minister, but cannot send to itself.  
6. They grant, bore gifting, is not sending, Matth. 10.1.56.7. Sending doth not make, but suppose them Preachers.  
7. Sending (they say) is Christ's commanding by his word, or assigning Preachers to go and publish the Gospel. 2. Or a providential disposing them to this or that people: Upon this they Comment largely; that this is sending, they prove, p. 129. by Isa. 6.8, 9 Jer. 14.14, 15, 23, 21. Matth. 10.5.  
8. They judge the sense of the Text to be a providential sending, p. 136. except they be ordered by Providence to go to such a people.  
I never love to throw a needle into a bottle of Hay, it is so hard to find it again; in these 22. pages, our little Argument is almost lost; in short, the Question is this, whether gifted men, as gifted, be sent, or no; if they be not they cannot actually (at least) Preach. Let it be naturally or Morally, impossible. They cannot preach, except sent: Our Brethren must say they are sent, and so deny the Minor of my second Syllogism: I proceed.  
If they be sent it must either be by Christ or by Antichrist.  
But we say they are not sent by Christ; I hope our Brethren will say they are not sent by Antichrist.—  
Ergo, not at all. We prove the Minor, 
If they be sent by Christ it is either immediately or mediately.  
But neither immediately nor mediately— Ergo, not at all.   
Our Brethren must deny the Minor, and say they are sent immediately, for if they be sent mediately, it must be by his Church, commanding, electing, or ordaining; which soever of these it is, it is more than gifted: The last our Brethren deny; the second is nonsense, viz. to say the Church sends by electing, choosing, and sending, are two things; as to the first, our Brethren judge it not necessary, though convenient.  
If their Mission be immediate, We always thought it must have been by Christ's own voice, as he sent the 70. and the 12. or by a sign from heaven of his will as in the case of Mathias, or by extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost enabling them, to which was added a power of miracles, to confirm their Mission, and give them credit in the world: But our Brethren have found out two other ways.  

1. By his revealed will in his word.  
2. By his Providence.   
1. As to the first, our Brothers have not proved it by one Text; for all their Texts quoted concerning such Missions as were made, or should have been made by an extraordinary voice, either from God in heaven, in a Prophetical vision, Isaiah 6.8, 9 Jer. 14.14, 15. Jer. 23.21. Or from God incarnate on the earth, Mat. 10.5, 6. But that Gods revealed will in his word, is called sending (as his word is now written) is not proved, nor can be proved. God commands men in his written word, to believe, repent, to do good to all, and to distribute; but we no where find that this is called sending; and we should think this strange language to say, God sends men t● relieve the poor: But be it so at present, We say the written word, commands none to Preach, but such as are ordained. Our Brethren only say, gifted men are allowed, and they may do it occasionally; no more therefore say they, they are not to be maintained.  
2. Besides, sending makes them Officers, who ever I send is my Officer, the King's Ambassador is his Officer; and so by this Rule they are all God's Officers: no man can send another, but he is in office, as to that whereabout he is sent, nor will any thing our Brethren say evince the contrary: If a man be an Officer before, another Mission makes him still an Officer; those scent, Luke 10.1. were Officers by their Mission; though Mission may be repealed, and yet the Office not lost, yet Mission makes an Officer: My sending of my servant to a place about my business makes him my Officer, as to that business, and if I send him a second time, my second sending makes him my Officer too: I see no contradiction in that, when the work is enlarged, as in those instances, Matth. 10.5, 6, 7. Matth. 28.19. Nor will it follow, that then any that are instrumental to conversion are Officers, because it is said, How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard; or how can they hear without a Preacher, etc. Because the Apostle speaks of ordinary cases; else a man may believe without hearing: suppose a man be deaf, and hear without a Preacher too, etc.  
3. Our Brethren therefore must flee to their Providential sending, and make this the sense of the Text. How shall they preach, if God doth not by his providence direct, or permit them to Preach, if God doth not give them legs to stand, and a tongue to speak. Hence it follows,  
" That it is not a Moral but a natural possibility is denied, as if a man should say, How can a man see if his eyes be out?  
And this our Brethren own, pag. 137. for they say all the other interrogations deny a natural possibility. Christian Reader, dost not thou think this had been a great gospel-mystery (worthy of Saint Paul to have told the Romans) none could preach if they had no tongue to speak, or God's Providence would not permit them to come in place where. But to evince this to be a vanity.  
1. If this notion of sending be true, than none can run before they are sent; for all motions are under the providence of God. But the Scripture plainly blames some that run before they were sent.  
2. Then the Creep-houses mentioned, 1 Tim. 3.6. were sent, for they could never creep into houses, but by divine providence.  
Object. But say our Brethren, Gods command in his word must concur with his providence.  
Answ. What command is that? 1 Pet. 4.10. (say our Brethren) As every one hath received the gift let him minister. But say these men, we have received the gift; therefore we are sent; who shall judge now? Not the Presbytery (say our Brethren) nor is it necessary the Church should (say they) Ergo, 'tis enough they say they have, and you ought to believe them, and look upon them as sent, till the great day comes, which alone must try whether they be or no. And is this the order (can any one think?) which Jesus Christ hath taken for his Church?  
But I need not multiply words here, our Brethren will not own a bare providential sending, unless the Person ●o ordered by providence be first commanded by the word; and they can show no command conclusive in the case; but for such as are otherwise sent, then merely gifted, and providentially disposed: Only I must examine their reasons, why they so peremptorily conclude Ordination cannot be the Mission intended, though we only contend it to be the ordinary Mission, and that alone which concerns us when extraordinary calls and gifts are ceased, as our Brethren easily will grant they be. They say:  
1." They no no where find Ordination called Mission. But this falls as heavily on our Brethren, for they cannot find us any Text, where the Command of God in his written word is called sending. 2. We find, Acts 13.3. Upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas. They fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on th●m, and sent them away; if the last words be not exegetical of the former, our Brethren must tell us what further act they put forth, in sending them, that is called by that name.  
2. Because our Brethren find Deacons were ordained; but they do not find they were sent. It doth not follow, that because the Ordination of Officers, by a Church to itself cannot strictly be called sending (on the Church's part) therefore no Ordination is, or may, where the persons are ordained Officers to more than those that are in the Church which Ordaineth them.  
3." Because Mission may be repealed, but not Ordination: According to our brethren's principles, Ordination also may. But our Brethren must consider the Mission mentioned, Matth. 10.5, 6, 7. and Matth. 28. was extraordinary Mission, we do not say Ordination is so. There was a new work to do, but we know no new work one ordained shall have to do, which shall need require a new ordination.  
4. Our Brethren say, None can send to themselves, But a Church which hath a Presbytery, may Ordain its own Officers. Every one will not yield that a particular Church may Ordain its own Officers, no more will I, if it have not a greater number of preaching Presbyters than ordinarily particular Churches have (excepting only Cases of necessity) but although a Church cannot send to its self, yet it may send one to the whole Catholic Church of which it is but a Member: a Citizen of Norwich may properly enough send a Message to the Corporation, though himself be a Member of that Corporation, and the person thus sent is at distance enough too from some part of the Catholic Church, to all which he is sent. And thus I have answered every material thing brought by our Brethren, to infringe my Argument from Rom. 10.15.  
My last Argument was acknowledged by me but a topic. From the contrary practice and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches, and all Reformed Churches. Our Brethren make light of this: But in cases where the Scripture speaks (at best) but so darkly on our brethren's side, and the rational absurdities are so many and weighty, we think it very much, if we can say with the Apostle,  
If any list to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither we, nor the Churches of Christ.  
And in cases which are dark, we follow the guidance of Christ, while we walk by the footsteps of the flock, and feed our kids by the shepherd's tents, Cant. 1.8.   

CHAP. VI Containing a review of some passages in our brethren's Book, and in my answer, where is examined, whether the Baptism of Christ and John, are (according to our brethren's sense) to be distinguished. Our brethren's three Texts for Election, by a particular Church, ar● found to conclude nothing; and the ability of every particular Church to judge of Ministers abilities, is confuted.  
THe remainder of our brethren's Book, concerning our Reverend Brethren of the Province of London, I take not myself concerned to give a strict answer to it, I will only spend this Chapter in reviewing a passage which I before slipped, and answering some things I find in their eleventh Chapter, which may seem to take of my answer, to their greatest proofs, for popular Elections.  
The passage which I slipped, is that which my Reader shall find in our brethren's Book, pag. 68, 69, 70. where (to prove Apollo was at that time no Officer) they fight us with a weapon drawn out of the Popish and Socinian Armoury; and tell us, that Apollo, could at that time be no Officer, because he knew only the Baptism of John, Acts 18.25. and p. 69. they tell us, that the Baptism of John, and the Baptism of Christ, are distinguished each from other. This Argument (as to the matter of it) is purely Popish, and false, as to the form of it, and its usage in this case is primarily Socinian, as to both false, and no way conclusive.  
Bellarmine indeed, and other Jesuits and Papists say, 
Bellarm. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 20. 21. Council. Trid. S●s. 8. Can. 1.  that the Baptism of Christ and John were distinguished, & different kinds of Baptism: so saith the Council of Trent, But I cannot tell that any Protestants said so, before our Brethren. If our Brethren had consulted their Friend Dr. Ames, 
Ames. Bell. Ener t. 3 l. 2. cap. 5.  he would have told them another thing, so would Dr. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 583. in his answer to the seventh Qu. of the 12. general controversy, or Dr. Whitaker in his praelect. de Sacram. cap. 5. which is wholly spent to prove the contrary: Of the same mind are Calvin, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Chemnitius Sadeel, Rivet, Scharpius, Chamier. 
Chamier. p. 4. l. 5. cap. 12. 13.  Let our Brethren weigh their Arguments.  
Arg. 1. All washing of water for repentance and remission of sins, appointed by Christ was the Baptism of Christ: But such was John's Baptism, Matth. 3. Joh. 1. who sent me to Baptise.  
Arg. 2. Our Baptism and Christ's are the same: But Christ was Baptised with John's Baptism. It is the sweetest comfort of a Christian, saith Dr. Ames, that he was baptised with the same Baptism Christ was baptised with; Chamier. Willet, Ames, Whitaker, etc. all insist upon this Argument.  
Arg. 3. If the Doctrine, off●r of grace, and Rites w●re the same, in the one, and the other Baptism, than the Baptisms were the same. But the Doctrine, Rites, and offer of grace was the same (saith Dr. Whitaker. 
Whitakerus, prael. de Sac. cap. 5.   
Arg. 4. If the same presence of the Spirit was in John's Baptism, which is in ours, though in a different manner, than the Baptism is the same.  

Ibid. p 324.  But there was the same presence— Ergo.  
Arg. 5. Else there is no Institution of Christ's Baptism upon Record; for the Disciples of Christ, Baptised before Christ's Resurrection.  
Arg. 6. It doth not appear, that either the Apostles or Apollo had any other Baptism. But surely they were baptised with Christ's Baptism.  
That Text quoted by our Brethren, Acts 19.3, 4, 5. proves nothing to the purpose; for they were not baptised again (as some vainly gather from the fifth verse) which is only a continuation of Paul's Narration of John's Baptism, when they [i. e. those who heard John Preach] heard what he said, they were Baptised [viz. of him in Jordan] in the name of the Lord Jesus: And thus Dr. Willet answereth Bellarmine, using the same weapon to the same end.  
Our Brethren will easily judge, that their foundation being thus destroyed, their Argument built upon this hay and stubble must fall. But that our brethren may be ashamed ever to bring this Argument into the field again, I must tell them, that as the Papist laid the foundation; so the blasphemous Socinian was the first I ever met with, who built upon it.  
Valentinus Smalcius, answering Franzius, 
Smalcius' disp. 4. contra Theses Franzii.  who thought Apollo, no ordinarily gifted Brother, says thus. Firmum enim manet, quod tantum sciverit Baptisma Johannis, etc. It is strongly proved (saith he) For he had only the Baptism of John, and in that Aquila and Priscilla instructed him more perfectly, etc. I hope we shall hear no more of this Argument, to prove Apollo was no Officer. It is no great matter to our case if he were not; for (as I have said) he was certainly a probationer to office, and in that notion might preach, especially in a Jewish Synagogue, and in that state of the Church.  
The second thing (with which I shall conclude this Chapter, and my whole Discourse, relateth to what our Brethren have brought to prove election necessary, upon express Scripture grounds, to the constitution of a Minister. To which purpose they produce three Texts; The first, Acts 1.23, 24, 25. The second is, Acts 6.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. the third, Acts 14.23. I have said something before, to show the invalidity of each of these. Our Brethren, chap. 11. pretend to take off something which I said: Let me examine with what success.  
1. As to the first instance, Acts 1. they must argue thus. If they may, and aught to choose the greater Officer, than they ought to choose the less. As to the present case, we grant the consequence, though it will not follow, because here is a different species of Officers. Because all the people of a County may choose Parliament men by the Law, it will not follow that they may choose Justices of the Peace: Their power of choice resulting not from nature, but from the Law of God, the consequence in strictness is naught, for God's Law may will the first, and not the second. Therefore this Argument cannot be conclusive: but, I say, at present we allow it.  
2. How will it appear, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [the multitude] choose Mathias.  
1. The Text saith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be translated, And two stood: so it is Rev. 11.11. So again, Acts 18.14.— stood afar off, Luk. 17.12. the two Lepers— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stood afar off; so Luk. 7.14. stood still; so in many more Texts, and why not here? When Peter had done speaking, two stood up (possibly by an extraordinary motion of the holy Spirit (as they at least might think) offering themselves to the service, and then what becomes of the people's Election from this Text? Our Brethren see from hence, nothing can be concluded.  
2. But allow there were a choice, and that some did set these two before the rest; it is not said the multitude did it.  
Object. But (say our Brethren) the exhortation was by Peter directed to the hundred and twenty.  
Answ. That the exhortation was given in the presence of the hundred and twenty, the Text saith, v. 15. But that it was given to them as their concernment, it says not. It saith, Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples, and it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (properly) the crowd of names present was an hundred and twenty, the word signifies a company of persons, a multitude, Mat. 4.25. Matth. 5.1.7.28. By Disciples, ver. 15. I conceive only the Apostles are meant, who are very often in Scripture, distinguished by this name from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multitude, as Matth. 13.34. Matth. 9.36, 37. and in many other Texts. Peter stood up in the midst of the Apostles, and said to them in the hearing of the multitude. I know the term disciple, is sometimes taken in a larger notion; but it seems to be here distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; sure I am our Brethren can give no sufficient reason, to show that it signifies otherwise here than the Apostles, (not exclusively to others, but emphatically and more eminently than others) called Disciples (as in many other Texts) and if this sense be allowed, they were the Apostles only that did appoint the two, verse 25. according to our brethren's own Argument.  
3. But lastly, It is a plain case, God here chose; for two stood forth, or were set forth; when this was done all the Church could not tell which should be the Apostle, till God made the choice. Hence it is plain, that from this Text nothing can be concluded.  
1. It speaks nothing of the choice of a Pastor.  
2. It doth not say any chose them: But, they stood.  
3. If any did choose, probably they were only the Apostles, called Disciples by way of emphatical distinction.  
4. The truth is, it was God who made choice.  
If therefore our Brethren could prove, that the Brethren set these two before the Apostles, and (as they say) in doing that, did as much as could be done in the choice of an extraordinary Officer; yet this was just nothing; for nothing was needful from them in that Case.  
Their second Scripture is that, Act. 6. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. where it is expressly said, that the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples, and said, Look ye out amongst you seven men of honest report, etc.  
In the former Argument, our Brethren argued thus. If the Brethren ought to choose the greater Officer, than they ought to choose the less. Here now they argue quite contrary. If they ought to choose the less, than they ought to choose the greater; Surely both these Arguments cannot hold, being both made affirmatively. But as to the present Argument stated thus.  
If the Church mentioned, Act. 6. v. 3, 4. etc. ought to choose Deacons then, a particular Church now aught to choose her Pastors.  
But the Church, Acts 6. chose her Deacons. Ergo.  
1. We deny the consequence.  
2. We deny the Assumption.  
I will offer Reasons for both: 1. For the denial of the Consequence.  
1. It is plain, that Church, Acts 6. was the universal Church, as well as a particular Church; as Adam though a particular man, yet was at that time all mankind: nor is this nonsense; for by universal Church, I mean no more than the whole body of the Gospel-Church then in the earth, in which were Catholic Officers, it was furnished with twelve Apostles.  
2. It is plain that the persons choosing, were such as to the most of which the Holy Ghost was fallen, and they had discerning Spirits, Act. 2. Act. 4.31. No particular Church now can pretend to any such thing.  
3. In most cases an Argument will not hold in the affirmative, from the lesser to the greater, particularly it will not hold in this Case.  
That in most cases it will not hold, is evident: none can argue thus; if a man can carry a thousand weight, much more an hundred thousand. If my Friend will give me a night's lodging, he will much more give me his house and land, or a lodging in his house as long as I live.  
On the other side, it is true in some cases it will hold. But not to run into a Logical dispute; The present Question is.  How far it is lawful to argue from the lesser action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another. 
Our Brethren will grant, that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of Church-Officers, is moral not natural, viz. such a power as they have from the will of God: Now as to this I say,  
1. Nothing can demonstratively be concluded, because the will of another being the fountain of the power acteth freely, and may make it lawful to choose the greater, and yet unlawful to choose the less; as the Law of this Land makes it lawful for people to choose Parliament men, and yet not Lawful for them to choose whom they please for Justices of the Peace; and so again to choose the less, and not the greater; as the Law makes it Lawful for people to choose a Constable of a Parish; and yet not lawful for them to choose a Colonel of an Army, or a Justice of the Peace; so that no consequence of this nature can prove a Law; but the Law of God must justify the Consequence; so that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text; the height of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is.  
2. It is probable that the Lord, who would not have so much as a Deacon chosen without the suffrage of the multitude, would not have a Pastor chosen without their suffrage. Our Brethren must say no more, than it is probable. And then we answer,  
1. That what seemeth probable to some from Scripture, is not a certain Rule for us to walk by.  
2. We say, it is not probable, because a Church is more able to judge of the abilities of a Deacon, than of a Pastor. 2. Because this Church was more able to judge ●f both, than any Church is now.  
Our Brethren see what they are come to. 1. They ●rgue from this particular-Vniversal-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church, to other Churches, the least members of the universal Church, not in the least measure so gifted, from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight.  
2. When all is done, they argue it but probable, ●nd this probable hath a great improbability attending ●t too.  
3. From a choice limited, as to the persons to be chosen— Such as should be full of the Holy Ghost— of which they had plenty and easily to be known for an unlimited choice of such as have no such measure of the Holy Ghost.  So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choose, yet the Argument is a lamentable Non sequitur. 
But to their Minor.  
Are our Brethren sure, that either the whole or the major part of the Church here, made the choice? Our Brethren have to prove it, ver. 2. The twelve called the multitude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ver. 5. The saying pleased the whole multitude, in the Original, all the multitude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is all. To which I answer.  
1. Our Brethren know, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not in Scripture always signify either every individual person or thing, under the genus or species, spoken of, nor yet the Major part: How many times in Scripture, is Christ said to have died, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all; yet Christ neither Died for every individual man, nor for the Major part of men, Mat. 3.5, 6. It is said, That all the Region round about Jordan, went to hear John, and were Baptised of him, confessing their sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region, nor yet the major part, did either go to hear, or were baptised, or confessed their sins: Christ tells the Pharisees, they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●very herb; yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees, or any other Jews Gardens; so that this word will not conclude, especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary, viz. that neither the whole, nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election.  
1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls, 120. were in it, Acts 1.15. 3000. more were added, Acts 2.41. 5000. more added, Acts 4.4. here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls. Now let any one in reason judge, 1. What one place in jerusalem could well contain them (except the Temple) and whether it be probable, that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither (enough to have made a good Army:) the major part of these must be above four thousand. 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too; for Acts 6.1. there was a murmuring about the poor, between the Grecians and the He●rews; we therefore think it more probable, that the Apostles spoke to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them, and if our Brethren talk till Doomsday, they can prove no more from this Text.  
And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text, and enough to show it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake, viz. That the whole Church, or Major part of it, must of divine right choose its own Officers. I come to their third Text.  
Acts 14.23. I will transcribe, ver. 21.22.  
Ver. 21. And when they [that is, Paul and Barnabas] had preached the Gospel in that City, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch.  
Ver. 22. Confirming the souls of the Disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the Faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God.  
Ver. 23. And having ordained [or chosen, it is no matter which, as to our brethren's purpose] them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.  
1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I have said something to it before) but I would fain know of any one that understands sense, whether those that ordained, or chose, were not those that confirmed and exhorted, v. 22. those that preached, and returned again to Lystra, etc. ver. 20. If they were, it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men.  
2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joined by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or what other Syntax of the words, according to any Grammatical Rules can be endured.  
Object. But the Disciples are twice mentioned, v. 22.  
Answ. 'tis very true, but not as the persons confirming and exhorting, but as the persons confirmed and exhorted, so they are mentioned here [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] but that is the dative case, the other the nominative.  
Our Brethren say, that Dr. Ames saith, it may include the Disciples too, or they might go before the Disciples. I answer, what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us. 2. I thought our brethren's end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose; not that it may be they may choose.  But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing, or ordaining here, was such as could not be performed only by Paul and Barnabas. 
1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands. This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here: I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture: Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case, where it signifies the people choice. The word is (indeed) used but twice more in the New Testament, once for choosing by suffrages, once otherwise, for God's destination and appointment, Acts 10.41. Our Brethren cannot find it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither: If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers, I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes, etc. should so use it. But if they mean that in Civil Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office, without the people's suffrage; if they look Stephen or Hesychius, or Budeus they will better inform them; Hesychius saith, it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But this is nothing to the present purpose; we say if it signifies choosing here, yet Paul and Barnabas chose.  
2. Our Brethren say, this could not be; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages; now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages.  
All this is a riddle to me; for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i● signifies the hand, not the tongue, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out, not to speak; the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage, than the lifting up of the hand did testify the suffrage. But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages? Surely they made two, and that is the plural number sure. The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand, in token of their consent, to a person named for an office: now in regard this made vulgar Officers, the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office, whether there were an hand lifted up or no; thus it is used in Scripture too, Acts 10.41. chosen or appointed before of God; yet I hope our Brethren will not say, that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage: and if two persons (according to our brethren's Grammar) cannot make suffrages; surely one indivisible God, could not.  
3. But (say our Brethren) the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be distinct from prayer and fasting, Act. 14.23. and when they had ordained, or ordaining them Elders, and had prayed with fasting. That imposition of hands in ordination is distinct from praying and fasting, we grant; But that praying and fasting is (without it) ordination we deny: the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: All our brethren's strength lies in the English Translation. In the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both the same tense, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equally applicable to both. According to our brethren's principle, the nomination of the person, and prayer, and fasting, and then executing by suffrage are distinct acts, yet all make but that one act of constituting an Officer. Neither is it said, that the praying and fasting here, at all related to the constitution of the Elders, it might relate to their taking their leave of them, mentioned in the next words, and I am very apt to believe it did; I am sure our Brethren cannot prove the contrary; so that it is but gratis dictum; a thing said, which our Brethren must ask us leave to believe, that the prayer and fasting here spoken of, was any thing relating to Ordination.  
4. In the last place, our Brethren because they cannot prove, fairly beg the question, p. 233. Because the power of Election is not where given to Officers, but to the people: I think this Text should have proved this thing, that it is given to the people. On the contrary, we say, our Brethren neither have proved, nor can prove, that the Scripture hath given the power of choosing Pastors to the people: The Texts produced (as we have heard) will prove no more than a may be, hardly so much: And this Text it seems must have those to help it, or it will not prove. Thus Reader, thou seest how easy it is to assert what is found hard to prove: Read and judge, whether from Scripture it can be positively concluded, that it is God's will that every particular Church should choose all its own Officers, and this choice be all tha● is necessary by God's word to make them Officers. See if either in the Epistles to Timothy or Titus (which of all other Scriptures, are most to be eyed as our Rule about Church Government) because there are given directions for the settling of ordinary Churches in a permanent state) see if there be one word in them for the people's choice, though Titus was left on purpose in Crete to ordain Officers, Tit. 1.5. and several Rules be given in those Epistles for the settling of Gospel Churches. In the mean time we grant to our Brethren,  
1. That there is nothing in Scripture, forbidding their election.  
2. That in many cases, yea in all, it is very convenient, and by no means to be neglected, if they will choose such a one as is fit for a Pastor.  
But that it is necessary to the making of a Minister in Office, by any rule of Scripture; or that in no case the election of a Pastor (in the strictest notion) by a particular Church may be denied, or overruled, this we deny; because we say, every particular Church is not able to judge of the abilities of a Minister, and often doth make apparent errors in Judgement.  
Our Brethren, p. 236. Assert the abilities of a particular Church, to judge of the abilities required in a Minister; they say they are able to judge●, if he be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality. We grant this (in some measure) but there are some other qualifications too. He must be one, 1. That holds fast the faithful word. 2. Able by sound Doctrine to exhort. 3. Able to convince gainsayers, Titus 1.9. 4. Apt to Teach. Now we deny that every particular Church, even of our Brethren, is able to judge of these things.  
According to our brethren's principles, any seven visible Saints may make a Church; we say seven real Saints may not be able to judge of these things; How can they judge if a Minister be able to convince a gainsaying Socinian, or Arminian, or Papist, who know not what any of them hold? And how many hundred private Christians are there who are ignorant of these things? I dare assume that in no Church, our Brethren have in this County, there are seven men know what the Socinians hold, much less do the major part know (yet they are doubtless able to judge whether a Minister be able to convince them) Is any one so senseless, as to think any seven private Christians is able to judge whether a Minister holds the faithful word? Our Brethren know two sevens of their Brethren, have judged that the Quakers and Anabaptists hold the faithful word: which I speak not to create an odium upon them, for some of ours have done so too. It doth not follow, that because a good Christian must be sound in the Faith (in things necessary to Salvation) therefore he is able to judge of the abilities of a Minister, who is to exhort by sound Doctrine; for a Minister is to preach more sound Doctrine, than what is absolutely necessary to salvation.  
Object. Oh! But (say our Brethren) The sheep of Christ know his voice, and they will not follow a stranger, this importeth their having ability, and liberty to judge what Teachers they should elect.  
Answ. Doth it so?  
What belongs to Christ sheep as Christ's sheep, belongs to every sheep.  
But this doth not belong to every sheep of Christ. Ergo.  
The Major is undoubtedly true; the Text saith, my sheep, not my fold; what is here made to belong to sheep, belongs to every sheep. I hope our Brethren will not say, this belongs to the Women, yet are they Christ's sheep too; nor will it serve the turn, to say they must not speak in the Church; for we are now speaking of choosing and judging, lifting up of the hand is enough.  
But surely our Brethren will not say, that every man hath ability; if they do, and will give us leave, we will ●ick them out twenty out of every hundred they shall bring us (if not four times twenty) whose knowledge concerning sound Doctrine, and ability to convince gainsayers, they shall be ashamed to own as sufficient ●o judge of the abilities of a Minister.  
The truth is, every sheep of Christ [that is, so truly and really, i. e. every Elect soul] so far refuseth the v●ice of strangers, as (though he may for a time follow them) yet he shall first, or last, reject them again. Our Brethren know, that some, both of their and our Brethren within these seven years last passed have followed Strangers, and such Strangers too, as the Christian World never heard of before, yet we should be loath to say, they are none of Christ's sheep, because they are gone astray. The Lord in mercy make them to return.  
If our Brethren say the Text is to be understood of Christ's sheep, as folded together in the Church. We grant what they say, but say it is meant of the one fold, ver. 16. consisting of all the Jews and Gentiles to be converted; and that some of them are able so to judge, or that all of them will not follow strangers, we grant. But this is nothing to our brethren's purpose, to prove that every individual sheep, or every particular Church, hath this ability.   
FINIS.