A modest PLEA FOR PRIVATE men's PREACHING.  
OR AN ANSWER TO A BOOK entitled, Private men no pulpit men; composed by Master GILES WORKMAN.  
Wherein The thing in controversy is briefly debated; The examination of private men's preaching examined; also certain accusations wiped away and removed.  
By JOHN KNOWLES A Preacher of the Gospel, formerly in and near Gloucester, now belonging to the Lifeguard of his Excellency Sir THOMAS FAIRFAX.  
LONDON. Printed in the Year 1648.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
CHRISTIAN READER,  
THere are two evils, too common amongst Professors, one is, the taking up of much for truth, which is indeed not so; whence they accept darkness for light, and embrace nubem pro Junone, a cloud for Juno: The other is, the embracing of many truths, which they see not with their own eyes to be so; whereby their faith proves fruthlesse, whilst this popish doctrine, to believe as the Church [the Clergy] believes, is a practical tenant amongst them. Wherefore I cannot but see a breaking forth of mercies towards us, by the breaking out of controversies amongst us, that being a way to remove us from our false apprehensions, and to settle us on true, upon good foundations.  
Therefore expect (Reader) sound reformation from our gross apprehensions, and a sweet union from our great divisions. I cannot but acquaint thee (courteous Reader) with two lessons, which God somewhile since hath taught me.  
The first is, To bring all things to the touchstone and under examination; wherefore those things, which men call received truths, I have called into question, and am resolved neither to believe nor practise any thing, till I enjoy a satisfactory reason, why I should so either believe or practise. By which course I have been graciously led out of many embraced errors, and (I hope) graciously led into many yet unresolved scruples, for satisfaction wherein I wait on the God of discoveries,  
Secondly, I have learned to receive truth by parcelmeale, in that God is wont by degrees not by whole sale to impart it.  
As for the following discourse, it was occasioned from a desire in me, to vindicate both the truth & myself from a false accusation, and it was long-since prepared for and sent up towards the Press; but providence by sickness hindering the Messenger, it returned back again to me, where it hath ever since remained in, the prison of silence, and should have been for ever hindered from walking abroad, had not importunity obtained it liberty to behold the Sun and look the world in the face. That its entertainment will be divers I am not doubtful. How I may be censured I am not careful If God may have glory and his Church good, I have my desire.  
I shall not farther trouble thee in way of Preface, but only to entreat thee seriously to consider of the ensuing discourse. What in it thou findest to be good, that's Gods. Give him the glory. What falls thou meetest with, some may be mine; impute them to me: some may be the Printers; do him that favour, when thou findest them to amend them; by which thou may'st oblige him unto thy service, who is willing to be commanded by thee,  
John Knowles.   

A Modest PLEA for private men's PREACHING.  

The First Part. Wherein the thing in controversy is briefly stated and clearly explained, whereunto also positive arguments are annexed, and certain Interogatories answered.  
WHen controversies are rightly stated, they are in away to be ended. 
Acts 19  He that strives about things not wisely stated, beats the Air and sights with his shadow, and so brings forth opas mane, a fruitless labour. Too many of our zealous contenders are too like Demetrius his followers, making out-cries and uproars without reason and with not a little ignorance. Wherefore that I may not shoot my darts as at random, and that there may for the building be laid a good foundation, I shall in the first place yield a brief proposal of mine Assertion; thus.  
That men gifted for Preaching, though out of Office, may lawfully in any company preach the Gospel.  
Words may admit of divers constructions, and some are apt to mistake plainest expressions. Wherefore I shall to the Assertion add a clear explaination of it: that my meaning in it being clear discervered, and mistakes about it wholly removed, the Christian Reader may be put in a posture rightly to judge of the thing, which is [nunce sub judice] now in controversy amongst us. For the effecting whereof three questions shall be proposed and answered, which may plainly inform the Reader of my mind in the foregoing conclusion: As the three errowes, which Jonathan shot, gave notice to David of saul's intention.  
Questi. 1 What is it to preach the Gospel?  
Answer Before a direct answer be returned to this quaere, I shall take liberty in a word to show, what the Word of the Gospel is: which will open a way to the Reader, whereby he may the more easily enter into the knowledge of the thing demanded. The Gospel is a divine new-Testament doctrine, making a glorious discovery to man of the Almighty's will concerning man. Now to Preach the Gospel is nothing else, but to publish, make known, or declare the truths and mysteries contained in it.  
That this is true may be as clearly perceived: as the Sun at noonday, by the two following particulars.  
First, By considering the proper significations of the principal words, which are commonly used to express the work of Gospel-preaching. These three following I have specially observed, whose significations will give light to the truth of the foregoing definition. The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from the Septuagint and Greek Original is translated in the Latin as Uer●ion proclamare, praedicare, and signifies as much as aperte seu publice dicere vel docere, to divulge, report, publish or noise abroad. And so 'tis ended. Mark 5.20. Chap: 7.36. The Gospel is a divine doctrine, or Proclamation from Heaven, containing in it house-top-discoveries, which concern all, and are to be published to and apprehended by all. The second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latin evangelizare, which is often translated to preach the Gospel, and doth properly signify lata annunciare, to show or bring glad tidings, and so 'tis turned in Luke 1.19. chap. 2.10. He that preacheth the Gospel brings heart-rejoicing tidings to the creature; for the Gospel discovers a sufficient remedy for man's misery and holds out the way to everlasting glory. The third, which speaks the same language with the former is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Prophesy; signifying properly to foretell or say any thing, Mat. 15.7. some time to reveal a secret, Matth. 26.68. sometime to teach, 1 Cor. 13.9. Revel. 11.3.  
This word fitly sets out the work of Gospel-preaching, for the World to come is the sub●ect or matter of the Gospel: Unto the Angels (saith the Apostle) God ha●h not put into subjection the world to come, whereof of we speak, Heb. 2.5. that is, God hath not made eternal life or everlasting death, to be the matter of the Law, or that doctrine, which was ordained by Angels, of which world to come we that are Ministers of the Gospel speak. All do Prophesy who preach the Gospel, for they foretell what shall be the everlasting estate and condition of every man; that they shall enjoy life, that believe, that they shall meet with death, who have not faith to lay hold on eternal life.  
Secondly, By comparing Scriptures where divers words and such that condescend to the weakest capacity, are used to express the same work of Gospel-preaching. Amongst twenty and ten take one or two, which will be sufficient. Compare the first verse of Acts 14. with the second of the same chapter, where you shall find, that to preach the Gospel is, To speak or teach it to the People. Ephes. 3. ver. 8. with the 9 will be alike useful. Thus being come to the period of the Answer to the first question, I hasten to the second, for throughout I intent to be brief.  
Questi. 2 Who are gifted for Gospel-preaching?  
Answer. 
Rom. 10.  They are gifted for it, who have necessary and sufficient abilities to discharge it; For no man can preach except he be sent, i. e. except he hath abilities to perform it. Knowledge and utterance are as needful for this work, as counsel and strength for the war. And when God puts his words into men, and gives words to them to make discoveries of Gospel mysteries, he then sufficiently fits them to preach the Gospel. He that hath knowledge and wants utterance cannot preach, but he that hath both is put in a posture fit to preach; preaching being nothing else but a promulgation or speaking of our apprehensions unto others.  
Questi. 3 Who are men out of Office?  
Answer. They, who are neither extraordinary nor ordinary Church-Officers. Apostles were extraordinary, but Pastors and Teachers were ordinary Church-officers. Therefore when we speak in this controversy of men out of office, we mean such, who are neither Pastors nor Teachers in visible Churches.  
Having thus commented, take a more large and plain expression of mine assertion, thus. That men who know the Gospel and are able to declare it, may [qua tales] as such (being neither Pastors nor Teachers in visible Churches) make known in any company the mysteries of the Gospel revealed to them.  
Having thus done with the explication, I shall advance next to the proof of the Assertion: mine Antagonist requiring the performance of it by his affirmantis est probare; and method challenging this place as due unto it.  
I shall bring forth testimonies of two sorts, viz. divine and humane. The first as infallible, the second only as probable ways to prove it.  
The divine testimonies which I shall allege are reasons drawn from Scripture, that just desider of all controversies, and discoverer of all doctrines.  
Before the proposal of the reasons let this one thing (as needful) be premised; That men gifted for preaching are not where in Scripture restrained in using their gifts, either in respect of place or company.  
Reason 1 Because they, who enjoy gifts lie under a divine command to use them, and not to suffer their gifts to rust by them, or to lay them up in the Earth in a Napkin.  
Divine commands are to the creature of a binding nature, from the force whereof men cannot, and Saints would not be free. And as nature, so the God of nature gives nothing in vain. Where he bestows gifts there he requires the use of them. The truth of this doctrine Christ teacheth us in the Parable (Luke 19.23) where he tells us; That a certain noble man, when he went into a far Country East, called his ten servants and delivered unto them ten pounds, and said▪ Occupy till I come. Peter is a teacher of the same doctrine, 
1 Pet. 4.10, 11.  where he saith: As every man hath received a gift, so minister one to another; as ●ood Stewards of the manifold grace of God. 
Ro. 14.19. 1 Thes. 5.10. Heb. 10.25.  If any man speak; let him speak as the oracles of God. Paul also imitates Christ, and joins hands with Peter, in requiring from Saints the same duty: for he exhorts them to study after peace, and things wherewith they may edify one another. In another place; To comfort and edify one another. Elsewher; To exhort one another. Which duties may be performed by the use of gifts, and so the use of gifts required. Now to the Second Reason.  
Reason 2 Because they, who have gifts ought to increase them, and not to content themselves with that statute, their gifts whereof, when they first received them.  
Acquired gifts, whether common or special, are not complete at first entrance, but do by degrees grow to perfection. Now men that enjoy gifts ought by increasing them to press to the mark (i) the perfection of them. They that received Talents, and increased them were commended, and as therein doing their duty, 
Matth. 25.  were called Good and faithful servants. But he who added not to his Talon, was condemned, and as a neglector of his duty, termed an evil and slothful servant. And will any, who hath made Scripture, reason and experience of his Counsel, doubt, whether the use of gifts be a direct way to increase them? If any should, the Parable above mentioned will resolve him; reason also and experience will contribute to his satisfaction. Vsus perficit artem, is a received maxim. Now I hasten to the third Reason, which joins hands with the former in the same testimony.  
Because God's end in bestowing gifts, cannot be answered without Reason 3 the use and exercise of them.  
Every manifestation of the Spirit (saith the Apostle) is given for profit; 
1 Cor. 12.7.  not only of him who doth enjoy it, but of him also who is interested in it. All the enjoyments of Saints as Saints, are common amongst Saints: for they all make up but one body in Christ Jesus, and are members one of another in particular; and so what every one enjoys as a part of the body, 'tis enjoyed for the good of the whole. A Believer, that hath received gifts, 
1 Pet. 4.10  that are useful for the edification of his Brethren, is but God's Steward for them; and cannot appear faithful (a dispensation being commiteed unto him) if he imparts not (when need requires) his gifts to those, for whose good he enjoys them. Now he that hath knowledge and utterance can no more profit others by them without the use of them, 
Matth. 5.  than a Candle can give light to those in the house, when 'tis under a Bushel. As James once said in respect of outward things: so may I say of inward gifts; if thou dost not communicate, What do they profit? If the Saints want instruction, exhortation, or comfort, and we have wherewith to supply them; How may we advantage them with out a communication of our abilities to them?  
Thus the third Reason having spoken its mind, hear what evidence the fourth brings with it.  
Because the practice of men out of office, in preaching the Gospel Reason 4 is in Scripture mentioned and not condemned. The practices of men mentioned in Scripture and not condemned there, may be patterns to us. 1 Cor. 10.11. but we have in Scripture a mention not condemnation of the practice of men out of office in using their gifts in Gospel-preaching The Jews allowed men, who were not their Church-officers, publicly to teach and preach amongst them. Luke 4.16, 17, 18. Acts 13. ver. 14, 15. chap. 28.22, 23. Whence it was, that the Rulers of Israel did never (as I remember) condemn the Messengers of Christ Jesus (being none of their Church-Officers) for the work of preaching, but for the matter or doctrine they taught. The Primative Christians made no scruple to hear those preach, who were none of their Church-Officers, Acts 18.24, 25, 26. And it was the practice of the Saints to publish or preach both to the world and their Brethren the mysteries of the Gospel made out to them. Acts 8.4. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Thes. 5.10. Paul tells us (Phil. 1.) That he rejoiced that Christ was preached, though by men out of Office (for so they were in all probability) and that through envy. This fourth Reason leaves the Reader to make the conclusion, giving way by its silence to the next witness, which is the fift Reason.  
Reason 5 Because good effects do naturally flow from the use of private men's gifts. None make a scruple to believe that which naturally produces good effects to be good in its own nature. But whether private men's preaching may be taken into the number of things producing naturally good effects is the thing in question. If you will hear the Scripture speaking it will inform you, that the bringing forth of private men's gifts, doth bring forth to the Church and World no small commodity. Acts 11.21. 1 Cor. 14.3, 24, 25. Now shall experience, which teacheth much truth, be heard in giving out her sentence? Thus she utters her voice.  
I have found by much observation, that as heretofore, so now men gifted for preaching using their gifts though out of office, are very advantageous instruments both to the Church and World. Notwithstanding I must (saith experience) freely confess, that some have by this practice been instruments of mischief, but heerin they differ not from many of our licenced Preachers. Thus far experience. The common opinion hath another bias, and speaks in opposition to the foregoing affirmations. But 'tis no wonder to see error and the common opinion companions together. Thus the fift Reason takes leave to be silent. And the last (for present intended) appears to confirm what its fellows have endeavoured to prove, and being enforced to be somewhat large in opening itself, the rest through courtesy to it have spent the less time in uttering their speech.  
Because the denial of the use of private men's gifts in preaching Reason 6 the Gospel, hath an inseparable retinue of ill and bad consequences waiting upon it.  
Its is a truth without controversy; that the thing is not nicknamed, when called evil, that naturally draws after it ill and bad consequences: for as we Gather not Grapes of Thorns, or Figs of Thistles; so we enjoy not salt streams from a fresh Fountain. But that the denial of private men's preaching, doth engender such a generation is a truth to which many (and almost all the Clergy) will not put to their seals. Wherefore I shall a little for the satisfaction of such, open the Book of its generation.  
The first born of the denial of private men's preaching, is the shuting Conseque 1 up of that way, which the Scripture opens for the only right way into office. Election and ordination (the Church's work) is the way, which the Scripture hath chalked out by which men may come into office. But the Church must bring none into office without proving their fitness for the office. 1 Tim. 3.10. But they cannot know men's sufficiency for the work of preaching, without hearing them preach. Now if they must preach before they are made Church-officers; then some private persons may preach. But if it be affirmed that none may lawfully preach being out of office, than God's way is denied of bringing men into office. Conseque 2  
The second ill consequence, which calls the former brother is, the shutting up or making narrow the way to hear the Gospel. For if none may lawfully preach but Church-officers; then none may be heard by us but those, who are, or who are known to us to be lawful Church-officers; and so the way of hearing the Gospel will be exceeding straight and narrow; for,  
First, They that preach must first convince the people, that they are lawful Church-officers, before they lawfully can preach amongst them. For the people wanting conviction of their being lawful church-officers; cannot be lawfully employed in hearing. But how must they prove themselves to be lawful church-officers? Not from abilities, for that's the thing denied; not from habits or garments, which we may not allow to carry with them sufficient power of conviction; although many look on black and canonical Coats as marks of Ministers. By what then most they prove their calling? Without doubt it must be by their election and ordination. But what if any doubt of the lawfulness of their election and ordination? They may not th●n lawfully hear them, although they be lawful Church-officers; For what's not of faith is sin. And how the World then may be brought lawfully to hear the Word, I wots not: seeing they usually are ignorant of, and enemies to the ways and orders of Ch●ist's visible Churches.  
Secondly, If none may be heard but Church-officers (as none may, if none but they may preach) than none may be heard that are strangers, till they are known by those that hear, to be lawful Church-officers. But how difficult a thing it would prove, to prove all strangers to be lawful Church-officers, all, that know any thing may easily judge. Many of the greatest maintainers of the doctrine I oppose, are found to be frequent transgressors of it. For not a few Ministers have admitted such to preach in their pulpits, whom they know not, and who indeed are no Church-officers or none of theirs. Also many of the people of the same opinion, do with their Ministers take hands in the same transgression: in that they hear many preach, of whom they are wholly ignorant.  
Thirdly, None may be heard who are suspected (as before) or are known to be false Church-officers; be they never so eminent in parts or godly in life: of which paradventure not a few may be found. For mine own part, were I persuaded, that none are lawful Preachers but lawful Church-officers, many who have me now (being of another opinion) some times in their auditory, should altogether miss of my company. Some embracing with them the same opinion, have made from their public meetings a total separation; being persuaded that Parish-preaching Ministers were false Church-officers. For (say they) if their ordination (from which they prove their calling) be sufficient to make lawful preachers, than there are at Rome lawful Church-officers: in that both ours and theirs arise from the same fountain, but at a further distance; in that our first ordainers received from Rome their holy orders, from whom by way of succession ordination, hath descended even to this generation.  
Thus you may easily see how obnoxious the doctrine I oppose is to the hearing of the Gospel.  
Conseque 3 The third consequent, which is of the same descent with those foregoing is, That the Saints, when there is no necessity, must be restrained from enjoying the preaching of of the Gospel.  
As if in case there may be, first sometimes in some places (where Saints are) a cessation of visible Churches. Or secondly, If where visible Churches are, some Saints are not convinced of their order. Or thirdly, If they are in order and want Church-officers. Or fourthly, If their Officers be (through sickness, persecution, etc.) absent from them, in all which cases (though they have amongst them persons of great abilities for Gospel-preaching: yet) they must be exposed (at least) to scarcity of the Word; because none but Church-officers may lawfully preach I shall not farther increase the number of the children of the forementioned Father, but shall leave it to the diligent searcher.  
Thus I have done with the first sort of testimonies which are divine, and shall now come to the second, which are probable, being humane testimonies; which are either the speeches or practices of men that are godly.  
Of the speeches of men, that professedly speak with me (that I may not overburthen this Book) I shall instance but in a few. 
An Apol. of the exiles. p. 45.   
1. The english Christians, who were Exiles in the low Countries, witness to the truth of the doctrine hear pleaded for, their fourth position being this.  
That discreet, faithful and able men (though not yet in office of ministry) may preach the Gospel and whole truth of God, etc.  
2. I shall bring in the Elders of the several Churches of New-England, speaking fully to my mind in this particular, in their answer to the twenty seventh question sent over to them from certain Ministers of Old England: which I have not hear inserted for brevity's sake; but it may be found at large, in a Book entitled Church Government and Church Covenant discussed, (p. 77.) published by Master Peter. 
De conscientiâ et ejus jure vel casibus p. 229.   
3. You shall have the testimony of that learned man, Doctor Ames, whose works praise him in the Gate. Thus he speaks.  
That for the preaching and teaching of the Gospel a singular calling is not required. For proof whereof he brings these Scriptures, Acts 8.4. c. 11.19. & 21. c. 18.24. and adds to them these Reasons.  
1. Because, this is the duty of all Christians, that they Promote as much as they can, the Kingdom of God: and therefore that they teach others the doctrine of God.  
2. Because 'tis some time necessary, that men be convinced of errors and instructed in truth before a calling can be rightly instituted.  
3. Because the People being sometimes destitute of a Minister, cannot without the loss of edification be helped, unless they allow those to instruct them, who as yet are not rightly called to the ministry. Further he affirms, That not only private but also public preaching may be exercised without a singular calling, first, in a Church to be constituted. Secondly in a Church already constituted, with the approbation of that Church, if confusion be avoided and order observed. 1 Cor. 14.23. Acts 13.15. For it belongs (saith he) to the Church's edification, that they who excel others in gifts, exercise those gifts before others to help and stir them up.  
Also (P. 245.) he speaks to the same effect, affirming. 1. That there was in the primative Church a certain prophetical exercise distinct from sermons 1 Cor. 14.31.32. etc. 2. That not only Ministers were permitted to use this exercise, but also among the brethren, the chief and most expert, for tho●e gifts which they had conferred to them, ibid. 3. That it was also lawful for other men of the Church for the sake of learning to propose their doubts, that they might be taught of those who were more skilful▪ ibid. v. 35.  
4. That where this exercise may conveniently be brought into Churches, it ought not to be contemned. 1 Thes. 5.20. 1. Because it is most agreeing to the order of the primative Church approved by the Apostles. Secondly. Because it singularly helpeth to stir up, cherish and increase spiritual gifts in several Believers. Thirdly, Because it taketh away negligence and envy, and nourisheth charity. Thus far Amesius.  
4. Hear the judgement of M. Thomas Goodwin, and M. Nye, men of no small eminency, their very enemies being Judges. They in their Epistle to M. Cottons Book, of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, thus speak.  
We humbly conceive Prophesying (as the Scripture terms) or speaking to edification of the whole Church may (sometime) be performed by brethren gifted, though not in office as the Elders.  
5. I might add to the number dear M. Burrowes, M. Peter, M. John Ellis junior with many others, who affirm; That men out of Office may preach the Gospel; but I forbear to cite their expressions having spoken enough of this particular. Wherefore I come to the next sort of humane testimonies, to wit, godly men's practices, carrying a kind of testimony with them, what did the Martyrs (of whom our Chronicles make a glorious relation) who were not Church-officers, less than preach publicly, when they did before multitudes of people open and apply the Scriptures, which men now call preaching? If it may be said, that the congregational Churches both in Old and New England do consist of believers, men that are Godly, than it may be affirmed, that Godly men, out of Office do preach the Gospel; for private men's Preaching is not a rare practice amongst them. Who is there acquainted with Godliness, that dares call those ungodly who in the Army, City and Country do Preach the Gospel though out of Office? What if I should call writing in Divinity Preaching? And so put the stile of Preachers upon those of the Laity, who are writers in matters of Divinity; I might then bring in Mr. Prynne and Doctor Bastwicke (the one a Lawyer, the other a Physician, both busy writers in matters of Divinity) to justify the practice of Private men's Preaching. But if that liberty may be denied me, yet I may boldly affirm, that there is such a nearness between the writing and Preaching of men out of Office, that the Arguments which justify the one, will plead for the other.  
Thus having dispatch the confirmation of the thing in controversy, I shall return brief answers to some common Queries, for sums satisfaction.  
Quest. 1 Whether men out of Office may be fitted for Gospel Preaching?  
Answ. Men may (said Sir Richard Baker) have Sacrae dotes, though they are not, Sacerdotes. Abilities and holy Orders are not always joined and linked together. What hinders? But that men being not Church Officers, may be fit and able Preachers? God's Spirit (from whom gifts for Gospel-Preaching flow) breathes where it will, and is not cloistered up amongst the Clergy. Are Tongues and Arts necessary to fit men for Preaching? If this were granted, some private men might then be found not unfit for Pulpits: for in Learning many of the laity will not come a step behind the Clergy.  
Doth not experience teach us? That many out of Office do (at least) equalise the best, and fare surmount the greatest part of our Church-Officers. Who thinks not but that Doctor Bastwicke esteems himself of this number, sigh in contending about Church-Government he's not contented to trail a Pike after the Clergy, but styles himself Captain of the Presbyterian Army.  
Quest. 2 Whether Preaching Officers will not be useless, if all gifted for Preaching may be Preachers?  
Ans. There is a mutual agreement amongst the Ordinances of Christ Jesus, the one not (in the least measure) jarring with, or shouldering out another. The Saints in the Primative Churches did, and they now, who judge themselves to be visible Churches, esteem Preaching-Church-Officers to be needful, notwithstanding their private Preachers.  
Quest. Why are so many Preachers and others so opposite to private men's Preaching?  
Answ. There are many and some that are Godly, who are opposite to the Exercise of private men's gifts in Prophecy. And 'tis no wonder to see men, that are Godly to dislike things that are good; sigh the well of corruption (in this life) is not dried up in them, out of which Satan pumps all evil motions and actions, appropriated to them.  
Many do so behave themselves towards private men's Preaching through ignorance, or want of light only. Which men oppugn truth (Non qua veritatem, sed qua errorem) not as truth but as error, for so it is in their judgements they misjudging by mis-apprehending of it. They mistaking it (as Mary did Christ, when she saw him in the garden supposing him to be the gardener) will not own it. And mis-apprehending it (as Peter did Christ, when he saw him walk on the water) are afraid of it. If they know it to be truth, they would (as Lydia did (Acts 16.15.) in respect of the Saints) earnestly desire to entertain it, and out of love to it would contend for it, and that unto blood. But many there be, who in their oppositions against private men's Preaching are guided by an evil spirit, and self-love that corrupt affection hath predominancy in them. They are so much endeared to their credit, case and profit, that they cannot with delight look on that practice, because it crosseth (as they apprehend) each of their darlings. The Spirit of Deotrophes and of Demetrius appears to be in too many amongst us.  
Quest. Whether private men's Preaching would be inoffensive, if they would not Preach in Ministerial places, and take up in Preaching Ministerial Forms?  
Answ. I am ignorant, what places are called ministerial unless Pulpits. But why they should be accounted more ministerial than other places I wots not: although many look on the Pulpit as a place so sacred, that none unless under holy Orders may lawfully enter in it.  
And as for Forms and methods in Preaching, I would be informed. First whether God's Directory doth direct Ministers to this or that Form or method, as always necessary and peculiar to them.  
Secondly if it doth so; what is that Form (or those Forms) which is always necessary and peculiar to them. Can I be persuaded, that there are Forms in Preaching peculiar to Ministers, I should willingly vote, that no lay man in Preaching should lay hands on them. But being persuaded to the contrary, I wish that all private Preachers would stand fast in their liberty, and not be entangled in a yoke of bondage. Thus I have done with the Queries, and so with the First part of the Treatise.   

The Second Part. Wherein the Author addresseth himself to his Antagonist in particular, in answering certain extravigances observed and picked out both of the Epistle and Treatise.  
SIR, before I present to the Reader mine answers to your exceptions against mine allegations for private men's Preaching, (lest he should be troubled and puzzled by many digressions,) I shall impart to him (in speaking to you) some of mine observations, occasioned by your writing, and fit to be noted.  
First, Sir I shall make to you this ingenious confession; that your writing hath deceived much mine expectation. I looked for a Justification (at least in show) of Mr. Beales Reasons, which you undertook and promised to do. But behold nothing less: for having singled out three Scriptures, which in the discourse I alleged, you against them (for the end I quoted them) have bend your forces; leaving the Gentlemans engaged Reasons to shift for themselves. So that this your birth was as fare from my thoughts: as that which the Mountains (in the Fable) brought forth was to those, who long waited for their delivery.  
Jacob expected Rachel, but behold Leah was unexpectedly brought to him. But Sir, what were your reasons, that the Gentleman's reasons should indeed (though not in show) be forsaken by you? Shall I guess? I will shoot my bolt, if I hit not the white: yet (I suppose) I shall not be ●ar●● from the mark.  
Peradventure you having a better view of the Ministers reasons than himself, and seeing them to weak for the condemnation of private men's Preaching, have brought forth against it a new accusation; being unwilling that the thing in controversy should receive the sentence of absolution: leaving the former reasons to stand by as cyphers amongst the witnesses in this present controversy, not consenting to their election out of the company. Or it may be you 〈◊〉 that some of his reasons would be the condemnation of some of your actions: for of this I am sure, that some of his doctrine and your practice will not in amity shake hands together.  
Secondly, I shall present to you some objects of mine admiration.  
First, I something wonder at the sublimity and highness (not of your conceptions or expressions, but) of your stomach (Sit venia verbo) discovered in and by your expressions. I take not John Knowles (say you) as a meet Antagonist in this controversy. I know you would, that some of eminency should give you a meeting to contend with you, that you may if you lose the field, lie under the less disgrace. But Sir [Non vacat exiguis rebus adesse jovi] they want leisure (having in their hands weighty employments) to attend such small matters. And do think, that your unmeete Antagonists are meet enough to grapple with you. And Sir, why do you contemn me? As I perceive you do, not only by your Paper, but by a speech also, which I heard from you in General Massies Chamber. But wherefore? Is it because of my minority? Why should that make me unfit to deal in the controversy? Shall not the Spirit of God be suffered Spirare ubi vult, to breathe where it will? Or must his breathe be contemned, if they are found in Babes and Suckling? Surely if the Doctors in the Temple had been of that judgement, Christ Jesus (whilst a Child) had not been suffered to dispute amongst them. Saul thought David unfit and unable for meeting with, and conquering of that great Goliath, because Puer erat, he was but a Child. Thou art (saith he) not able to fight with this Philistin; for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. Or is it because I am not of the Clergy? Truly (Sir) though I am not of the Lord Bishops, yet I am of the Lord Jesus his Clergy, to wit, his heritage. But why do I act so much folly, as to wipe away disgraceful speeches of this nature? Esteem of me how you will: By the Grace of God I am what I am.  
Secondly, I a little marvel at your liberality and freeness, in granting that Tongues are not necessary [Ad esse, sed ad bene esse] to the being but to the well being of a Pastor or Preacher. Sir, by this affirmation, you have neither answered mine expectation, nor gratified the Minister in supporting his Reasons: whereof one hath received a death's wound from it. For his third Reason is this.  
Private men (saith he) may not Preach because they are not fit for the work, so ●●●ugh Lay-people have a good measure of the knowledge of Divinity: yet they are not presently fit to Preach the Word; for a Preacher there is required the knowledge of the Arts and Tongues, of which lay men are most commonly ignorant. Thus have you befriended your friend; (though paradventure unwittingly;) and fairly vindicated his third Reason. For hereby you (although mine Antagonist) have helped me against him, who you call mine adversary, and have joined hands with me to pull down his building. For Te ipso judice his third Reason will prove useless, to harm the opinion of those, who hold it lawful for men out of Office to Preach the Gospel.  
Thirdly, another object of mine admiration is your great partiality; in that you deny that liberty to others, which you so frequently make use of, and that in a lavishing manner. Your whole Book is little else than an heap of inconsequential consequences, Notwithstanding (in p. 23.) the weapon of consequences must not by me and some others be handled, if you might have the ordering of us. But why must we not enjoy this liberty with you? Seeing (as you say) arguing by consequences is good and to be allowed. What must we have no liberty to use that, which may harm you? But you would inform us, what the reason why you deny us consequenciall reasoning is, because it is denied (say you) to us by many amongst us in point of Paedobaptism and some higher matters.  
Sir (by your favour) I cannot believe, that any amongst us either have or will deny in Paedobaptism, etc. consequential Arguments, because consequential: though they cannot allow (and that peradventure on ground sufficient) your consequential Arguments; because they (at least) conceive that they are inconsequential. But if there be any, who with their wits keep so little company; as to deny arguing from consequences: may it by consequence be gathered in reason, that I am of the same opinion: And If I am not guilty (as indeed I am not) of the same transgression; what equity is there, that I should suffer with them the punishment of it? As for other things you have in the page forementioned, I rather smile at, than answer to them.  
Fourthly, But the greatest object of my wonder, and that which mainly moved me to put pen to Paper, is your feigned charity and uncharitable courtesy. You tell your Reader (in the end of your Epistle) that you have (as if you were made up of Charity) left out of your Book the slander (whereof I was (as you suppose) guilty) being of more private concernment. Sir, 'tis true the accusation hath not entered within the Treatise, 'twas your pleasure to leave it at the portal; that the very passers by might behold me guilty. For in the Epistle by Capital and bloody Letters you give notice to your Reader, that I was guilty of laying a fowl aspersion and unchristian slander upon a Minister near in relation to you. Your own words are these, (showing one end of your writing) and for the Vindication of a painful Minister, near in relation to me, from a fowl aspersion and unchristian slander laid upon him in that writing. Sir, if I here Apologise for myself, I hope I shall not be blamed for it; sigh there is no man so careless but hath some care of his credit; and nothing more lawful, than for a man, when his good name is unjustly taken from him, to endeavour by just means to regain it to him. The wise man tells us, That a good name is more desirable than ample riches, and better than the best ointment. The expression in my writing on which the accusation lays its foundation is this, What shall we then say to our English Priests, who at a Prelate's prohibition, will cease to be Preachers and turn Physicians? Sir by your own confession, this is the only speech, whence you gather, that I am guilty of a fowl aspersion and unchristian slander. Where you have learned this art of Deduction, to draw that out of mine interrogation which was not in it, I could inform you. But that the Reader and you (if you please) may understand, how unjustly you have drawn such an accusation from that expression, I shall ●●●ate the occasion of it; by setting down the Ministers first Reason, and part of mine answer to it: wherein the expression so offensive and sinful (in your conceit) is contained.  
The Ministers First Reason against private men's preaching is word for word this.  
The reason (saith he) is the saying of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 7.20. Let every man abide in the same calling, wherein he was called. Now when a lay man doth take upon him the preaching of the Word, he doth not abide in the same calling, wherein he was called; he doth not keep himself within the compass of his own calling, but he doth pass the bounds and limits of it. And doth not the same Apostle will the Thessalonians (1 Thes. 4.11.) To study to be quiet and to do their own business, to work with their own hands, as he commanded them? Now when a Lay-person doth undertake the preaching of the Word, he doth not do his own business, his proper work, but doth meddle with a business that concerns him not.  
Thus far the Minister's Reason; mine answers follows.  
The Answer.  
That we may the better give an answer to this reason, we will draw it up into two Sillogismes.  
The First whereof is this.  
Every one ought to continue in that calling wherein he was called. 1 Cor. 7. 2●.  
But a Lay-person, that takes upon him the Preaching of the Word doth not continue in the same calling wherein he was called. Therefore a Lay person ought not to preach the Word.  
To the First we Answer, That the Authors bore literal expression of those words, though not his intention in the expressing of them is good and Lawful. His expression's good; because 'tis the Apostles: his intention evil; because not consonant but repugnant to the meaning of the Holy Ghost in that place. Wherein it seems that he laid it down either from gross ignorance, or with purpose to deceive and beguile unstable Souls. His drift in the allegation of that Text was to prove; that Lay men (as they call them) having trades etc. ought to continue in them, and not to departed from them. But how contrary this is to the meaning of the Apostle these considerations will plainly show.  
First, consider to whom the Apostle directs the words, to wit, to believing Husbands, Wives and Servants.  
Secondly, consider the end for which they were spoken, which was the satisfaction of the Corinthians in this scruple, whether (to instance in an Husband) the believing Husband should continue with his unbelieving Wife, and not leave her he being called to the Faith. The Apostle denies it, and commands him to continue in that calling (to wit of an Husband) in which he was, when called to the Faith.  
Thirdly, If that be the meaning, than the Apostle (as I suppose) must needs be contrary to himself. For in vers. the 21. he exhorts Servants (the persons to whom the exortation in verse the 20. was directed▪) that if they be called being Servants, that they should not care: but if they might be free, that they should use it rather. Now according to the Author's exposition, I cannot see how these two places can agree together.  
Fourthly, consider the ill consequence of that exposition. Then Christ's Disciples did sin in departing from their first callings and in setting upon another. And if they did sin in it, than Christ was the causer of it, for he commanded them so to do: which to affirm is no less than blasphemy.  
Now you may see, that the proposition for the end which he useth it is vain and idle. But suppose it were granted, that it is unlawful to leave one calling for another. What should we then say to those English Priests, who at a Prelate's prohibition, will cease to be preachers and will become Physicians? And what will it make against private men's preaching? Nothing surely, as we shall presently by our Answer to the Minor proposition clearly prove.  
Now for the Assumption, where the Author t●lls us; that a Lay man, that takes upon him the preaching of the Word departs from that calling, wherein he was called.  
To which I Answer. First, That if his words be rightly understood (as being the words of the Apostle) he speaketh nonsense. For this is the meaning of the Apostles words. That every one ought to continue in his calling (as that of an Husband, etc.) wherein he was when called to the Faith; although as being an Husband he hath an unbelieving Wife. This being the Apostles mind, the Assumption will thus run.  
Every Lay person that preacheth the Word, being called to be an Husband or Servant departs from being an Husband or Servant.  
Secondly, Although we should take his meaning and leave his words: yet here is nothing but bare affirmations, without any probation, and therefore of Christians it deserves no better than rejection. The man had said something to purpose, if he had proved, that every lay man departs from his calling by taking on him the preaching of the Word: as here he hath affirmed.  
Thirdly, I Answer, That his assumption is most false and untrue.  
1. Because, they do not departed from their callings, who use them. But those who preach as lay persons use their callings: therefore, etc.  
Secondly, Because they depart not from their callings, who live by them. But they who preach as Lay persons, live not by their preaching, but by their callings.  
Fourthly, I Answer, That dangerous consequences do follow from it. As,  
First, That all those Christians in the Primative time who were scattered abroad, by reason of the persecution, that arose about Steven, departed from their callings, for it is written, that they went about preaching. Acts 8.4.  
Secondly, That Paul departed from his preaching, because he used the occupation of Tentmaking, Acts 18.3.  
Thirdly, That God commands all, who have the gift of prophecy to departed from their lawful callings. For he hath commanded all that have the gift to use it, according to the proportion of Faith. Rom. 12.6. Thus fare the Answer.  
Sir, if you would judge with impartiality, you would (notwithstanding your high accusation) be enforced to pronounce me non-guilty. If you will not; yet I hope the reader will, who is ingenious and impartial. Wherefore I might in equity draw myself as innocent out of the accusation, and bring you in, as being guilty of (to use your own words) a fowl aspersion and unchristian slander against me.  
Before I pass over the accusation have patience to hear a few of mine observations from it.  
First, I observe (but this by the buy) your great oversight in your very Grammaticals. 1. In misunderstanding common plain English, which a man below the degree of a Master of Arts might have easily perceived▪. 2. In taking Priests, Preachers and Physicians to be words of the singular number.  
Fourthly, I cannot but note (I wish you may seriously take notice of it) your willingness to expose me to public disgrace. My name hath heretofore amongst some been somewhat infamous in the City by your occasion. But as therewith being unsatisfied, you have raised a rumour throughout the Country by your printed papers; that I am guilty of a fowl aspersion and unchristian slander. And all this notwithstanding I was publicly cleared before the Magistrate. For I was (being at the Tolsy) accused by one of your party, and cleared by a Minister of your own, after I had made for myself a brief Apology in the audience of the whole Assembly, he professing that I was only faulty in calling them Priests, a disgraceful title. To whom I replied after this manner. That the name in itself is not disgraceful. And although it belongs not now to men as Church-Officers: yet 'twas a wonder that men retaining Episcopal Ordination should be offended with it; ●●th by that name they were Ordained Ministers, and frequently so called by their Book of Common Prayers.  
What Sir, is this a carriage fit for a Christian to a Christian? Or am I not a Christian, because not a dependant but Independent Presbyterian? Were I a Turk, you might not wrong me: for the Gospel doth not allow a Saint to hate, of unjustly to disgrace his enemy: Well Sir, take heed, lest the same bread by some other be broken to you; and the same measure rendered, which you have meted out to me in fall measure, pressed down and running over.  
Thirdly, I have observed your straying from the rules of common equity; in that you have accused me in the world's eye as a person foully criminous, without showing wherein, or proving, that I was guilty. Philosophy (wherewith that you are acquainted, you would by your title master of Arts inform your readers) it would have taught you a better lesson, had you but consulted with its Oracles, although you had in the doctrine of Theologie been wholly ignorant. Thus much of that accusation.  
Now further you have discovered your Charity towards me to be but feigned, by accusing me (in your Epistle to the Reader) of a crime as great, if not greater than the former: to wit, that I took the boldness publicly before the Magistrate to defend the practice of private men's Preaching, with such contemptuous language against the godly and faithful Ministers of this Kingdom, as the five Reverend Apologists abhor the thoughts of. 'Tis true, I took the boldness to defend that practice, but with no contemptuous language against the godly, my Soul abhorred it. But ●ir, what were the contemptuous speeches I then used? Or how came you to know them, being not then present, if my memory proves faithful to me? You were peradventure so informed. But they (if any) who did so inform you, will not dare (I am confident) before my face to affirm it; for I shall disprove them. Sir, shall I take the boldness to inform you, being ignorant of the truth in that particular, if not worse. The truth is, I was so fare from being guilty of contemptuous language against any (much less the godly) that so much as an accusation was not carried on against me. Yea further I was (at my second appearing) by an Alderman publicly freed from being guilty of any such language. And I appeal to all of that Assembly, but especially to the Right Worshipful Major * (that then was) and Aldermen (whose courteous carriage at that time towards me I remember with all gratefulness) to sentence for or against me. What Sir, 
Mr. Luke Nurse.  do you think your bare accusation sufficient to condemn me? At that rate who shall be guiltless? Ecquis insons erit, si accusatori crimine non probato, fides habeatur? Said Julian the Emperor. Or do you think it not an evil to take up and divulge false reports of others? Or is it from your charitable credulity that you have followed Mr. Edward's in telling Stories? Thus much for your feigned charity, now for your uncharitable courtesy.  
You have (pag. 1.) informed your Reader, that in answering my writing you have gratified me with the omission of things scattered in it. Surely Sir I hold not myself bound in duty to give you thanks for this your courtesy, it being but a crafty way of disgracing, or at the best but Courtlike, merely Complemental. For I suppose had it been real, much of your pains in page 21. had been spared, and such an answer to my Querie had not been rendered. But I must (say you) return an answer to his demand. Peradventure 'twas because you could (within the compass of that writing) find nothing else, from which colourably you might disgrace me. But what is the demand you must needs answer? The Minister having affirmed, that the knowledge of the Arts and Tongues is required to make a Preacher, I therefore demanded; Wither by Arts he did understand the art of Geometry, Astronomy, or the like? And for Tongues, Wither it be the Welsh, Irish, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew? Or whither all Tongues be required to make a man fit for Prophesying? For this Querie I am to be blamed, if your observations on it be observable. What is it? Say you. A scoff. That's your conceit. But what do you gather from it as employed in it? First that I am ignorant, Secondly impudent. But by what Logic? Not by that, which Aristotle but Mrs Invid●a taught you. But let us see how in your judgement mine ignorance and impudence shines forth by that Querie. Mine ignorance of the Arts appears by my scoffing at them; for thus you say. Our writer scoffing at them is only a proclaiming his ignorance of them. Sir you have there gathered up, what I never strewed, and have builded on a foundation never laid by me. If you could prove, that I scoffed at the Arts, your inference would be good, that I was ignorant of them. But I was so fare from scoffing at them, that I always have highly esteemed them, since I enjoyed the least insight in the least of them. Now for mine impudence in regard of the Tongues, which you observe and wonder at also. For thus you say. For the Tongues; First I wonder at this youth's impudence, etc. What, no less than impudence? But let us see, whether you have without impudence accused me for it. How have you made good your charge against me? By two Reasons, alike weighty. First in that I jumble the Greek and Hebrew Tongues in a scoff amongst the Welsh and Irish. Sir, it seems that I am (in your judgement) impudent, not because I made a mention of those Tongues together, but because I did it in a scoffing manner. But how do you prove it? so you suppose. But suppositions are insufficient to justify accusations. Now what's your Second Reason? This, because I paralleled in a jeering manner the original Languages with the Welsh and Irish, Tongues of least use and repute. If this were true, then might you argue impudence truly from it. But how may it in equity be gathered from my Querie, that I did parallel or equal the Welsh and Irish Tongues to the Greek and Hebrew, because I did there name them together? If I were guilty of impudence and did see it, I should not be so impudent as not to be ashamed of it. Notwithstanding what here you have said I see no cause why I should blush. Thus ends the Second Part of the Treatise.   

The Third Part. Wherein the examination of Private men's Preaching is examined.  
ALl is not (saith the Proverb) Gold, that glisters. Therefore let us (according to the old Motto) first try before we trust: or rather (as the Apostle speaketh) Try all things and hold fast that which is good. Wherefore I shall here bring the Examination of private men's preaching unto the touchstone of Examination, affording a lust and Legal trial to it; that we may know how justly to pass sentence on it. In page 1. mine Antagonist hath expressed my grant to the Minister, mine Adversary, as he calls him. I am still in the same mind. What I then granted, I shall not now deny. If private men, gifted for preaching, have no more authority to preach; than Vzzah had to put his hand to the Ark, which was contrary to command; they shall be (as Vzzah was) guilty of sin, if they do it.  
Next having laid down the Doctrine, I maintained against the Minister, he draws forth three Scriptures, which I alleged to justify private men's Exercise of the gift of prophecy; and endeavours to make them to speak to his own heart, and not so much, as to cast a favourable countenance on mine opinion.  
The first place mentioned is Rom. 12.6. Having therefore gifts, etc. whether Prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of Faith.  
In replying to mine Antagonist, I shall present you first with a brief Exposition of that Scripture, then with a short (yet full) confutation of his Answer. For the first of these thus. From the beginning of the third to the ninth verse of this Chapter, the Apostle gives exhortations concerning those, who have gifts for, or Offices in the Church. In which we may in general take notice of those particulars, as, the manner, ground and matter of them. How he exhorts them you have laid down in these words; I say to [or charge] every man, that is amongst you; Wherein you may observe the extent and authority, that his exhortations carry with them. Now the ground on which he builds his charge is expressed in these words, By the Grace given to me, i. e. By that ability and authority, which God through his Grace towards me hath bestowed on me, to instruct and exhort you. Now the matter of the exhortation is laid down, more generally in the 3, 4, & 5. verses, and more particularly in the ensuing verses.  
In the general he discovereth their duty with the reason of it. The duty is both negatively and affirmatively laid before them, thus; Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of Faith. Which with the words foregoing is as much as if he had said. I charge every one that amongst you, by reason of that ability and authority bestowed on me for exhortation, not to desire in regard of gifts, to seem to have more gifts, or more of any gift than he hath: and in regard of Offices, not to desire to do more in his Office or Ministry than what belongs to it; nor to go beyond his own calling into another's. Wherein the Apostle specially condemns two evils, first pride, whereby men desire to seem to have what they have not, and to be what they are not, lifting up themselves and despising others as useless in their gifts or Ministry: Secondly, discontentedness, whereby men are not contented with God's distribution towards them and disposition of them in the body. In like manner he commends to them the contrary virtues.  
Now I come to the reason of the exhortation, set down in the 4. and 5. verses, and drawn from the relation that is amongst Saints. They (though many) being but one body in Christ Jesus and so members one of another, have divers actions, and therefore ought not to desire to do the action of every member, but to be contented doing that, for which God hath placed them in the body: And also aught to look upon others gifts and places as appointed by God for, and tending to their profit and commodity. This Reason is also illustrated by a similitude vers. the 4. Now the Apostle goes on, and makes application in particular of the exhortation, he had in general proposed to them. First, he lays a ground to the thing intended, in these words; Having then gifts differing according to the Grace given to us; that is, seeing we have (being one body) divers actions, and so divers gifts for the performance of them, according to God's gracious dispensation to us. Next he sets the Exhortation on particular persons, by dividing the praxin or action of the several members of the body, into Prophecy and Ministry. I shall speak only of the first, to wit, Prophecy. Whether Prophecy [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of Faith. Instead of the words, let us prophesy, we are to understand the whole 3. vers. and so the Apostles mind seems to be this. I charge every one, that is amongst you having the gift of Prophecy, (whereby he's able to speak to others edification, exhortation and comfort) to behave himself humbly and contentedly in the exercise of that gift, in the discovery of that measure of knowledge enjoyed by him. So much by way of Exposition.  
Now I shall (according to promise) fall upon the second thing, the consultation of mine Antagonist's Answer. He endeavours to make Rom. 12.6. to be an unfit foundation, to bear up the opinion of the lawfulness of private men's preaching; and not only so, but also to speak against it: And so it doth, if he mistake not; for thus he saith, The truth is, this Scripture concludes against him. But what course doth he take to bring his purpose to pass? Truly thus he thought to effect it, by putting on that Scripture an Exposition of his own, and by crossing that, which I gave to it.  
In replying to both, I shall not spend time to gather up or Answer all, that he there scatters; knowing how to employ my time better: but shall only strike at the body, which being down, will be sufficient. His Exposition you have page the second, the sum whereof is this. The Apostle (saith he) requires; that they who have these gifts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ibid.) Prophecy and Ministry, or (as he translates it) Deaconship, exercise then in humility and fidelity. Where by Prophecy he would understand the gifted callings both of the Pastor and Teacher: and by Ministry, the Office of the Deacon only.  
Answ. Mine Antagonist by his Exposition doth (as I suppose) not a little strain that Scripture. That you may perceive my supposal not to be groundless, I shall put that Exposition in the balance of the Sanctuary, placing Truth in the scale opposite to it, whereby you may easily discern the lightness of it. Although I cannot deny, but that the Apostle doth in this Chapter require those to preach (as mine Antagonist saith) who are by Office Pastors and Teachers; and those who have lying on them the Deacons Office, to behave themselves in simplicity: yet I cannot believe, that we are by the word Prophesy to understand both the Pastors and Teacher's Office; or that by the word Ministry is signified the Office of those only, who are entrusted with the Church's money, for the supply of the poor's necessity, whom we commonly call Deacons.  
First I cannot be persuaded, that the word Prophecy doth in Rom. 12.6. signify the Offices or gifted callings of Pastors and Teachers. 1. Because a contrary interpretation of that word Prophecy would agree with the Scripture. If I should affirm, that Prophecy doth there signify gifts or abilities, whereby men are fitted to be instruments for the World's and Church's commodity; I should not stray from its common acceptation in the Scripture, neither should I cross Paul's intention in that Scripture. 2. Because that interpretation, which makes the word Prophesy to denote the Offices of Pastors and Teachers is contrary to the Scripture. 1. Because 'tis contrary to common speaking (from which Scripture is not wont to vary) by gifts to express Offices. 2. In that, Prophesy (in Scripture phrase) is a gift, and commonly doth signify abilities; 1 Cor. 14. But where the Offices of Pastors and Teachers are expressed by it I yet find not. It is so far from signifying the Offices of both, that I find it to denote the Office of neither Pastor nor Teacher. And it is so fare from denoting the Office of either, that it signifies the gift of neither. 1 Cor. 12.8. compared with the 12. of the same Chapter.  
Secondly, Because that Exposition doth (if I mistake not) represent Paul as one guilty of using tautology & battology in his speaking, which to affirm is not agreeing to Scripture.  
Secondly, I cannot be induced to believe, that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ministry doth in Rom. 12.7. hold forth the Office of Deacons only, whose work is to make distribution to the poor of the Church's contribution for them. 1. Because there is no necessity that it should here be so expounded. If the word Ministry were in Scripture no where used but to express the Office of Deacons only, peradventure it would necessarily follow, that it ought in Rom. 12. to be so expounded. But it doth in general signify any Ministry; and in particular that of Teaching Elders: as in Acts 6.4. and Eph. 4.12. Wherefore the Dispenser's of the Word are called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ministers or Deacons. 1 Cor. 3.5. Therefore there is no necessity, that it must in Rom. 12. be taken for the Office of the Deacon only. 2. Because there is a probability at least, that it ought not here to be so interpreted. 1. Because we have immediately a recital of the several Officers or Ministers of the Church, as an amplification or explication of the Apostles mind in that expression, vers. 7. 2. Because in verse the 8. (where the Deacon is spoken of) he is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minister, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Qui distribuit) he that distributeth. Whereby Paul seems (at least) to give us notice, that by Ministry he did not intent the Office of the Deacon only. 3. Because from that interpretation (if not many, yet) some absurdities will be produced. As, 1. Thereby Paul appears as using needless repetitions in speaking; which may (as I conceive) be easily perceived, by comparing verse 7. with the 8. 2. Thereby Ruling Elders (mentioned verse 8.) are excluded as none of those gifts (verse 6.) given for the Churches good. The gifts are (saith mine Antagonist) Prophesy and Ministry, i. e. the Offices (as he would have it) of Pastors, Teachers and Deacons; and so Ruling Elders are excluded. So much in answer to his exposition. I shall now come to make a Reply to his Exceptions against mine Exposition. He endeavours (page 3.) to make invalid mine Interpretation of that Scripture; and so to shoulder out my deduction from it. But how doth he endeavour it? Surely by labouring to prove that the word Gifts is not to be taken for abilities only; but for Offices or gifted callings. But how doth he prove it? By two Reasons, too weak to bolster up his opinion. The first whereof is this. 1. Because the word Gift (saith he) is used in Scripture (as I expound it) for the Office itself or gifted calling, 
Mr. W.  etc.  
Answ. To this reason in way of reply, I shall make this answer.  
1. That he hath not showed, where in Scripture the word translalated Gifts, in Rom. 12.6. is used for Offices themselves, or gifted callings. What means then those Scriptures, Eph. 4.8. & chap. 3.8. which he hath quoted? Surely they mean not, what he meant in quoting of them; the first being in sound not in substance for him, the other neither in sound nor substance helping of him. Wherefore I shall only reply to the first of them, to wit, that in Eph. 4.8. where the word Gift is used, but notwithstanding it makes nothing for his purpose. 1. Because the word Gift is there not to be taken for Offices or gifted callings, but for those new Covenant-mercies, which God, by the hand of Christ, gives to all those, to whom he gives himself to be a God by way of Covenant. Which Mercies are mentioned, Hebr. 8.10. For this is the Covenant, that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: (or according to the Greek) giving my Laws into their mind, I will write them on their hearts, etc. i. e. I will, by giving a powerful light into their understandings, cause them to be like me and to give up themselves to me, and so I will appear to be their God, and they shall appear to be my people. That the word Gifts there ought to be so expounded, and not as mine Antagonist would have it, is very clear, both from the context, and also from the place, whence it was drawn.  
2. If it were granted, that the word Gifts in that place doth signify Offices or gifted callings: Yet it doth not follow that in Rom. 8.6. it ought so to be taken: for although in our English Bibles the words do not differ: yet in the Original they are not the same. The word translated Gifts in Rom. 12. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (gratiae) graces; but in Ephes. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dona, gifts, many of the Clergy cry out against some of the Laity, as unfit to open or apply the Scriptures, because they are unacquainted with the original languages. I suppose many of them talk of Originals more than use them: It seems mine Antagonist had the English not Greek Testament in his hand, when he quoted this Scripture.  
Secondly, although it were quoted, that the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) Gifts is in Scripture somewhere used for gifted callings: yet it doth not follow, that in Rom. 12.6. it must be so understood, first, because one and the same word may in divers places be of different significations: yea, in one and the same place it may signify divers things.  
2. Because that word in Rom. 12. translated Gifts, is often in the Scripture used for abilities only, as in Rom. 1.11. 1 Cor. 12.4. and so his reason will make rather against him, than for him. For thus one might argue from his Reason. If the word Gifts be somewhere in Scripture used for abilities only; than it may be so taken in Rom. 12. But in Scripture the word so signifies: Therefore in Rom. 12. it may be so expounded.  
So much for his first Reason. Now to the second, which is drawn from the absurdities that will follow; if we take the word Gifts to signify their abilities only. That I may the better try its strength, I shall draw it up into this one Syllogism.  
That exposition of Scripture is not to be followed, from which absurdities do naturally flow. But if the word Gifts in Rom. 12.6. be expounded abilities only, thence absurdities will follow naturally: Therefore, etc.  
The first I shall grant to be an orthodox truth; but let us see whither we may lawfully pass the same sentence upon the Assumption. False accusing both of opinions and persons is a crime too common. Many things, which are not absurd, are branded for absurdities. Many opinions and practices are accused with the bringing forth of monstrous births of absurdities, which are as free from them, as Christ was from iniquities. But doth not the expounding of the word Gifts, in Rom. 12. for abilities, produce and bring forth many absurdities? Surely there had been no need to wander fare for resolution in this particular; if the Author of the Reason had been as good in proving as bold in affirming: For absurdities (saith he) will follow such an Exposition, which are in number two, according to his reckoning. The first is this following.  
We may then proceed from abilities to the Exercise of other callings, 
G. W. Pag. 3.  for if ability to preach be sufficient to Authorise one to Preach without any more ado, than also ability to Baptise, and to Rule, and Govern, is sufficient to Authorise any to Baptise, and to take on them to Rule, Govern and Judge, as Rulers, Magistrates and Judges do, etc.  
Answ. Three things are here affirmed, which are clearly expressed, or necessarily employed. I shall here declare them, and declare something in Answer to each of them.  
First, He affirms, that it is unlawful to proceed from abilities to the exercise of callings.  
Secondly, That he that Preacheth, doth by Preaching enter into the calling of him, who by Office is a preacher.  
Thirdly, That if it be lawful, from abilities (without any more ado) to proceed to the Ministers calling: then 'tis lawful, from abilities to proceed to other callings, as that of the Magistrate to Rule, etc.  
To the First of these I shall thus Answer.  
First, I dare not allow that speech to be true without exception. For there are some callings as the Husbandman's calling with some other, into which a man, having ability, may lawfully enter, and in them exercise himself from abilities only.  
Secondly, That if it be spoken with limitation, it may be received for a truth without contradiction. If it be restrained to callings in the Church, than I affirm; that it is unlawful for any man to proceed into the exercise of callings merely from abilities: because the Lord in his Word requires, that unto qualifications for Offices, Election and Ordination be annexed, before the exercise of them (in way of Office) be undertaken.  
Now to the Second of his affirmations, which is this, That he that Preacheth doth enter into the calling of him, who by Office is a Preacher.  
This affirmation is false and absurd, which may appear by these two Reasons.  
First, Because a man may do, in some way, some actions that belong to another's calling, and yet not entrench upon, or enter into his calling. Praising of God (under the Law) upon Musical Instruments was the calling of some of the Levites; Now did all (not being Levites) entrench upon their calling, who did (in the presence of others) praise God upon Musical Instruments? Prayer is a work that belongs to a Ministers calling, Acts 6.4. Now do all those, that pray (when a company is met together) as their mouth unto God, enter into the Ministers calling? Is it not a work of the Magistrate to judge betwixt persons in matters of civil difference? Notwithstanding the Apostle bids the Corinthians to set those to judge, who were not judges by Office. 1 Cor. 6. But I hope the Apostle would not have them to entrench on the Magistrates calling. Preaching of the Gospel is an Apostles work, Rom. 1.1. Do all then, that take upon them to be Preachers, enter into the Apostles Office? etc. Every calling hath not all its works peculiar to itself.  
Secondly, Because Preaching is not a work peculiar to a Minister; that is, 'tis not a work, which none may lawfully do, save those who are in Office for to do it. I shall here propose some questions only; The first part of this Treatise being a proof of this Reason, to which I shall refer thee (Christian Reader) for thy further satisfaction.  
Quest. 1 Where in the Scripture hath God called Church Officers to preach, and restrained others from the work?  
Quest. 2 Whether there be not (at least) a probability, that preaching is not peculiar to a Minister; seeing that many both godly and learned have affirmed it. Amongst many others here, what one (and in a Preface to a Sermon, preached before the Parliament) said. The peculiar works (said he) of the Ministry, were the administration of the Sacraments and Discipline; but as for preaching it is a more common work, etc. Mr. John Ellis junior. Epist. The sole path to a sound peace.  
The Elders of the Churches of New- England tells us. That the Act of praying and preaching is improperly called a Ministerial work, etc. Church-Government and Church-Covenant discussed. pag. 78.76. I remember a saying, that another hath to this purpose. The Papists (saith he) and some ignorant Protestants, would have no word of God sounded out by any, but by their selected Clergy.  
Wither they, who do affirm preaching to be a work peculiar to Quest. 3 Church-Officers, 
2 Chron. 19.20.  do not sin against the Generation of the Righteous? Do they not condemn Jehosaphat (and others) who taught and exhorted the People (publicly) to believe God; he being neither Priest nor Prophet. If preaching be a work peculiar to the Ministry; who will justify the Martyrs? Nay, who will not blame them rather? May we not say to them, O Martyrs culpandi estis, ye are blame-worthy, for entrenching on the Ministers calling, in that you (being not Church-Officers) did preach the Word a Company being met together; for did you not Expound and apply the Scriptures, inform and exhort the people? Why suffered ye so many things in vain? Why was the enemy constrained to cut your Tongues, to gag and with balls of Iron to stop your mouths, to hinder you from preaching; seeing God did not command you to it?  
How may the Saints make use of their Gifts, knowledge and Utterance Quest. 4 for the building up of the Church and yet not preach? 
Hebr. 4.12. c. 10.25.  Or how may they be said to be Teachers of others; and to exhort one another, when they meet together, and yet not preach? To this Question, mine Antagonist hath framed an answer, (pag. 6.) but how far from the purpose, let us a little consider. He answers to a saying of mine, which was this, It is the duty of a Servant of God to use those gifts for the edifying of the Church, which God hath given him for that end. Which he grants to be true, but not to my purpose: but let us see how men may without preaching, use their gifts of knowledge and utterance. He will inform you (pag. 7.) that there are otherways of using gifts for the edifying of the Church besides preaching. He tells us, that Family governors and Parents must edify their Children and Family, and God gives them Gifts in Prayer and knowledge, and for that purpose. But I pray, what's this to the purpose? The speech was not of Families, but of Churches. But what if there be none in the Family sit to be edified, being not begotten; how then may he use his gifts of edifying? He further tells us of another way, more likely to be the way, thus. And Christians (saith he) must exhort, and comfort, 
G. W. Answ. 4.  and ●●●difie one another in Christian conference and discourse, etc. This is true, that the Saints may and aught to do so. But to me 'tis strange, and no less than a riddle, to affirm it lawful for private persons to do so, and yet unlawful for them to preach; as if there were such a vast difference between it and preaching. 'tis my desire to blow with the Author's heifer, that I may understand that his enigmatical affirmation What may they exhort, comfort and edify one another, when they are met together, and yet not preach? Oh strange expression!  
Now to the third thing affirmed by mine Antagonist, which is this.  

Mr. W.  That if it be lawful from abilities to proceed to the Ministers calling, then 'tis lawful from abilities to proceed to other men's callings; as the Magistrate, etc.  
Answ. First, This is a strange kind of reasoning; if 'tis lawful from abilities to proceed to one calling, then 'tis lawful from abilities to proceed to any calling. What rule is there delivered by either Aristotle, Ramus, or any other in their Logic, to justify this kind of arguing generals from particulars not of the same kind? What Reason may there be found to plead for that Assertion? Let him, that can show.  
Secondly, If it were granted, 'twere not for his purpose: for I have proved, that he, that preacheth doth not by preaching enter into the Ministers calling. Thus the Answer to the first absurdity; let us now cast our eyes on the second.  

G. W.  If all that can may and must preach, the Minister's Office were needless. What need of Authority by Office to do that, which every one may and must do without, it, etc.  
Answ. First, That such an absurdity will follow, so saith mine Antagonist. But doth not the Scripture say so also? Surely from his writing I cannot inform you; for not so much as one Sic Dominus dixit may be found in it. Wherefore if I should but barely deny, what he barely affirms; why might it not be sufficient? Seeing that my Nay hath as much authority as his Yea, in matters of this Nature.  

Eph. 4.11.  Secondly, 'Tis false, else Paul will be found a man making opposition against Christ's Institutions. Hath not Christ ordained Pastors and Teachers, 
1 Cor. 14.  men in Office, for the Church's edification? And did not Paul allow those to prophesy in the Church of Corinth, who had the Gift, but were not by Office Pastors or Teachers? And so did not he approve of that, which made the Office of Ministers useless? For they publicly preached in the Church for its edification. But if the preaching of men, who are neither Pastors nor Teachers do now make useless the Ministers calling; than it could at that time have no better effects; And so Paul must needs be an enemy to Christ's ordinary Ministry.  
Thirdly, Private men's preaching is so far from making useless the Ministers calling; that it doth not a little help it. 
Heb. 5.11.  For hereby their mouths are opened to speak wisdom (the deep things of Christ Jesus) to the people. The truths of God taught by the Officers are the more confirmed, when others also bear witness to them. Also the truths taught by the Officers are the better preserved; for by the use of private men's gifts they are often occasionally mentioned. The Officers are moreover comforted and encouraged; by beholding God's blessing upon their Ministry, in that some grow so much, that they grow up to be Teachers of others. The truth of this those know, who are Officers in congregational Churches, where there are such private preachers. Thus much in answer to the Assumption, which hath denied liberty to the conclusion (therefore the Exposition of the word Gifts in Rom. 12. for abilities only is not to be followed) to pass as an Orthodox Truth.  
Now I shall lead you on to the Second Scripture, which as mine Antagonist conceives, will not plead for private men's preaching.  
The place afore mentioned is Acts 8.1. and 4.  
And at that time there was a great persecution against the Church, which was at Jerusalem, 
Vers. 1.  and they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles.  
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the Word. 
Vers. 4.   
I shall here in speaking observe this method.  
First, I shall discover my deduction from it.  
Secondly, I shall answer to the reply of mine Antagonist.  
For the First thus. The thing thence concluded was, that private persons (having abilities) may lawfully when a company is met together) preach the Word; in that those there mentioned did so preach, they being (for the generality) private persons or no Church-Officers: sigh their practice being approved may be to us for a pattern. That they were (for the greatest part) private persons is the thing in Question. That they were, so is mine opinion; wherein I am neither alone, nor without reason.  
I am not alone, for others think so with me. The Elders of the Churches of New- England were of the same mind, this being their saying: They that were scattered abroad by reason of the persecution, that arose about Steven, were not Church-Officers, at least all of them (for the Apostles who were their ●●●●e, if not their only preaching Officers, were not scattered abroad but remained still at Jerusalem, c. 8. v. 1.) and yet th●se men did so preach the word of the Lord Jesus, etc. so Dr. Ames, with divers others.  
Now the reasons, that make me so to believe (amongst other) may be these following.  
First, Because it plainly tells us, that the generality of the Church were scattered, v. 1. Now the Scripture will not inform us, that there were (at that time) any Teaching Officers, save the Apostles: and Reason will teach us, that the greatest part could not be Officers. Which scattered Christians (without any exception) are said Ans. 4. to preach the word. Secondly, Because 〈◊〉 in such an Exposition, no Scripture will be crossed; neither will any bad consequence be thence produced, etc.  
I shall draw you now forwards to consider mine Antagonists answer; wherein two things especially are endeavoured by him: First, that they who preached were not private persons; Secondly, that if they were such, yet we might not gather thence a Warrant for the preaching of private persons now. To his Reply I shall Answer; First more generally; Secondly in a more particular manner. For the general thus.  
First, There is scarce a Scripture, which lies not under divers Interpretations. And there may appear a probability of Truth in cross Expositions. Whence we gather the needfulness of the Spirit for our direction. There is not a little difference betwixt myself and mine Antagonist about this Scripture. That you may see who is in the truth, learn to deny yourselves, and seek the Spirit to be your teacher.  
Secondly, Mine Antagonist hath laid down in his Answer nothing as certain. By which he endeavours, that this Scripture may be rather wholly useless, than useful for us.  
Thirdly, Those whom we commonly call Seekers may take up mine Antagonists Answer, as useful for them, and against him and his brethren. Were I a professed Seeker I should show my skill, in arguing against mine Antagonist (he being now a Minister) with his own arguments. Now to a more particular Answer.  
M●ne Antagonist hath proposed three consideration to convince his Reader, that those scattered (but preaching) Christians were not private persons.  
Mine opposers first opposing consideration you have (pag. 10.) at large expressed: The sum is this.  

Mr. W.  It is probable if not certain, that the Apostles gave them Authority to preach, and so they were not (as Lay men with u● private persons.  
Answ. What he by Authority means, I know not. If he would have us by his words understand, that the Apostles did show to the scattered Christians before their departure that it was not only lawful but also needful for them (as they went) to preach the Gospel, that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ might be promoted and enlarged? I answer.  
First, It is (I do not say, must be) supposed; that the Apostles gave to the scattered Christians such direction. Sith the Scripture doth not so much as hint at it, we are not bound to believe it. From merely supposed suppositions, we cannot draw for faith sound conclusions.  
Secondly, If it were allowed, yet the preaching of private men now, might not thence be denied. For the Apostle were in those days to believers, instead of New Testament Scriptures. And therefore if it may be proved from their writings (as I have in the First Part of this Treatise) that private men enjoying ability have Authority to preach the Gospel, it is all one, as if they had Authority from their persons immediately. The second consideration, which mine Antagonist gives, you have page 10. and 11. The sum whereof is this.  
That if those scattered Christians had not Authority from the Apostles: 
G. W.  yet they might be put out of the condition of private persons by immediate Revelation.  
Answ. The same Answer will serve for this as for the former, for Revelation was to them instead of the Apostles; and so instead of written Scriptures. Wherefore if the Saints now by Revelation from the Scripture do understand, that they may from ability proceed to preach the Gospel, 'tis all one as if they did so understand by Revelation without the Scripture.  
The third consideration appears page 12. which is in brief this.  
All that were scattered were not private persons. 
G. W.  Wherefore 'tis probable that none did preach, but those that were public: for if those that are private may preach, than they may Baptise also.  
Answ. I shall not affirm, that all, who were scattered, were private persons; for we read, that Philip the Deacon was amongst them: but that (as they call them) Teaching Church-Officers were with them cannot be proved; for the Apostles remained at Jerusalem. There is therefore no need to prove, that others besides public persons did preach. When they did preach, they were (in a sense) public enough, but in another sense not public. The Scripture tells us, that they, who were scattered went about preaching, without making the least exception. But if they may preach, they may Baptise also; saith mine Antagonist. He hath said it indeed, and said it, and double said it; as if it were of no small force to convince us of the unlawfulness of private men's preaching. Who may Baptise (as well as who may be Baptised) is a thing in question. What my judgement therein is I am not bound here to discover. But let me a little reason with mine Antagonist. Sir, by what good consequence will it follow, that if private persons may preach, they may Baptise also? What is there no work peculiar to Church-Officers, if preaching be not? If a private person may judge between others in matters of civil difference, 
1 Cor. 6.  which is a Magistrates Work, than a private person may lay fines and taxes on the people, which is another Work belonging to the Magistrate. Is this not as good consequence, as that of mine Antagonist? But we say, that Officers have some work peculiar to them; other work common to them with others. And is not this as good consequenciall arguing; If private persons may pray, than they may Baptise also; seeing prayer is a work that belongs to the Ministers Office. Wherefore (by mine Antagonists favour) his consequence (if 'twill follow) will not be dangerous, unless he can prove, that Baptising is peculiar to Church Officers▪ nor consequential; unless he can prove, that preaching is peculiar to them in Office, So much for the considerations. 
page 14. Mr. W.   
Answ. Now mine Antagonist conceives further; that if it were supposed, that they, who being scattered did preach, were private persons, yet that will not justify our lay men's preaching: because it cannot he proved, that they preached at Jerusalem; but amongst a people, who had never the sound of the Gospel amongst them: but our lay preachers, teach where a true Ministry is, or may be had, etc.  
Mine Antagonist hath here much mistaken the question, for the question to which the Minister made an answer, to which (through entreaty) I made a reply, was; Whither lay persons a company being met together may preach the Word?  
2. He hath also grossly mistaken in his expressions. First, In telling us; that they exercised themselves in preaching, only where the sound of Christ was not heard; for the Scripture tells us, That they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, which were places wherein they preached. Act. 8. But was not Christ preached in Judea? Read the Gospel and they will inform you. 2. In that he makes such a difference betwixt Judea, Samaria, and some places amongst us, in respect of Ministry. I am sure some places amongst us have no Ministers, and some other have false Ministers. How Judea could be (for Ministers) in a worse case I know not.  
3. He reasons from what he laid down, but without reason. For their preaching proves the lawfulness of private men's preaching, a company being met together.  
So much for the second Scripture.  
The fourth and last Scripture is the 1 Cor. 14. This Chapter is full of difficulty, and exceeding hard to be understood. Men vary much in the expositions, they give of it. I shall therefore (at this time) only lay down one argument, to prove the lawfulness of private men's preaching, from that Chapter.  
They who have the gifts of prophecy, may prophesy.  
But some private persons may now have the gifts of prophecy.  
Therefore some private persons may now prophesy.  
The First (I suppose) none will deny. The Second (that private persons may now have the gift of prophecy) is to be proved, which being confirmed, the conclusion (that therefore they may prophesy) will of necessity follow. That some private persons may now have the gift of prophecy doth appear, both from the matter, promise and end of it. First it is manifest from the matter of it. Knowledge and utterance, whereby men are enabled to speak to others edification, exhortation and comfort, i.e. matter whereby others may be edified, exhorted and comforted, is the matter of prophecy, 1 Cor. 14.3. Now 'tis apparent by experience, that some private persons are able to speak to others for their edification, etc. Therefore some private persons now have the gift of prophecy. They who enjoyed the gift in the primitive times were called Prophets or spiritual, that is, not carnal, not babes in Christ. There is some difference between those, 
1 Cor. 14. ●7. 1 Cor. 3.1.  who now enjoy the gift; and some of those, who in the primitive times did enjoy it; in regard of the manner of receiving it, their measure of enjoying it, and in respect of the enjoyment of some extraordinary and temporary gifts with it.  
Secondly, It appears from the promise of it, Joel 2.28. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. Which prophecy was in the Apostles times in part fulfilled. Act. 2. The greatest part is yet behind, in respect of the number of persons enjoying it, though not in respect of the measure enjoyed by particular persons; which prophecy will be gloriously manifested when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and the Jews called; now the spirit is poured out, but (as it were) by drops: then, 'twill be poured out as a mighty flood.  
3. It shines forth also from the end of it, which is the Church's edification, 1 Cor. 1●. ●. 22. What was needful for the Church's edification in the primitive times is now needful: Eph. 4. Apostles were then needful, so now, whom we enjoy in their writings, but how do we enjoy Prophets even Evangelists, unless in the use of the gifts of men fitted to speak to the Church's edification? Thus in hast I rest till I enjoy more light and leisure. Farewell.   
FINIS.   

Courteous Reader, in page 25. line 10. for consultation, Read consutation. in p. 28. line 16. for quoted, read granted. and line 30. for their, read there.