<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-09-25</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Leigh Rupinski</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. x*Check for GAPs x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c. x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q; startq endq Q x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
* Run Check
*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A80164">
<STC T="W">C5348</STC>
<STC T="T">E946_4</STC>
<STC T="C">R207611</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99866652</BIBNO>
<VID>118929</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>VINDICIAE MINISTERII EVANGELICI REVINDICATAE:</HI> OR THE PREACHER (pretendedly) Sent, Sent back again, TO Bring a better Account <HI>Who</HI> Sent Him, and learn his ERRAND: By way of REPLY, To a late BOOK (in the Defence of Gifted Brethrens Preaching) Publi&s;hed by Mr. <HI>John Martin</HI> of <HI>Edgefield</HI> in <HI>Norfolk,</HI> Mr. <HI>Samuel Petto</HI> of <HI>Sandcroft</HI> in <HI>Suffolk,</HI> Mr. <HI>Frederick Woodale</HI> of <HI>Woodbridge</HI> in <HI>Suffolk:</HI> So far as any thing in their Book pretends to An&s;wer a Book publi&s;hed, 1651.</P>
<P>CALLED <HI>Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici;</HI> WITH A Reply al&s;o to the Epi&s;tle prefixed to the &s;aid BOOK, called, The Preacher Sent.</P>
<P>By <HI>John Collinges</HI> B.D. and Pa&s;tor of the Church in <HI>Stephens</HI> Pari&s;h in <HI>Norwich.</HI></P>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed by <HI>S. G.</HI> for <HI>Richard Tomlins,</HI> at the &s;ign of the Sun and Bible neer Pye-Corner, 1658.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To my Reverend and much Honour|ed Brethren, the Authors of the late Book, called, <HI>The Prea|cher Sent.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Dearly beloved Brethren,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_I Have &s;eriou&s;ly peru&s;ed your Epi&s;tle directed to tho&s;e <HI>pro|fe&s;&s;ing the Order of Church Fel|low&s;hip, and Government, called Presbyterian,</HI> of which number I mu&s;t own my Self to be one (though the lea&s;t of all the Servants of the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, who walk in that way) to|gether with your <HI>Book</HI> to which it is prefixed; and mu&s;t profe&s;s my &s;elf, as to &s;everal parti|culars in either of them, very much un&s;atisfi|ed, both as to the truth of the <HI>Notions</HI> you contend for, and to the <HI>mediums</HI> by which you endeavour to e&s;tabli&s;h them; putting
<PB REF="3"> therefore away all <HI>wrath, prejudice,</HI> or <HI>bitterne&s;s,</HI> as in the following &s;heets I have endeavoured to &s;hew you your mi&s;takes, as to the matter of your Book, &s;o I &s;hall in this <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> do the like, as to what is contained in your Epi&s;tle: In the mean time profe&s;&s;ing my &s;elf (to u&s;e your own expre&s;&s;ion) <HI>bound for peace, as far as the &s;hoes of the Go&s;pel will carry me;</HI> and long|ing for that di&s;pen&s;ation (if it may be expect|ed in this life) when all the Lords People &s;hall be ble&s;&s;ed with <HI>One heart,</HI> and guided <HI>into one way,</HI> only de&s;iring to divide my <HI>zeal</HI> equally betwixt <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>peace,</HI> knowing that God is as much the God of the one, as of the other.</P>
<P>I rejoyce to &s;ee my <HI>dear and Reverend Bre|thren</HI> &s;en&s;ible of the great abu&s;e of that Li|berty, for which they plead. I know our Brethren have not been &s;uch <HI>Strangers in I&s;|rael,</HI> but they have &s;een and ob&s;erved, that mo&s;t of tho&s;e &s;purious notions, which in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">he&s;e times of <HI>Bla&s;phemy</HI> have been found in every Street, and with an impudent fore+head have called the holy <HI>Spirit of God Father,</HI> and the lovely Virgin <HI>Truth</HI> mother, have been found lying at the door of this <HI>Liberty,</HI> and have really been born in her hou&s;e. That mo&s;t of tho&s;e &s;ad <HI>Earthquakes,</HI> which have rent the bowels of the Church, and overturned &s;ome Churches of God, both in <HI>Holland,</HI> and in <HI>Old</HI> and <HI>New England,</HI> have been cau&s;ed by
<PB REF="3"> the <HI>wind of this Liberty,</HI> which they &s;till en|deavour to keep up. I know they cannot but have heard the cryes of many poor people in this County, who are fed with the&s;e <HI>husks</HI> in|&s;tead of <HI>bread,</HI> with the <HI>chaff</HI> of the&s;e exer|ci&s;es, in&s;tead of the more &s;ub&s;tantial wheat of publick Ordinances. And &s;urely, if an Ar|gument from the <HI>bla&s;tings of Providence,</HI> or the general <HI>di&s;reli&s;h</HI> of judicious Chri&s;tians, be worth any thing, we have as good a <HI>plea</HI> as again&s;t any licentious practice in the wor&s;hip of God.</P>
<P>It was &s;aid once by a Learned Per&s;on in this Nation, that if a Book were compo&s;ed of all the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Sermons, preached by men of worth, containing the choice&s;t matter contained in them, which had been Preach|ed within &s;ome 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 <HI>Errors, Crudities, Non&s;en&s;e, imperti|nencies, bla&s;phemies, &s;elf-contradictions,</HI> which (by vertue of the exerci&s;e of this Liberty they plead for) have within the&s;e fifteen or &s;ixteen years la&s;t pa&s;t, been vented in open Pulpits, were &s;ummed in one Book, the <HI>Tur|ki&s;h Alcoran</HI> would &s;carce afford &s;uch a <HI>rap&s;ody</HI> of <HI>error, non&s;en&s;e, bla&s;phemy</HI> and <HI>impertinency.</HI> To give our Brethren a ta&s;te, I have a Letter &s;till by me, wrote by a gifted Brother, who took upon him to tell me, that he heard me
<PB REF="4"> &s;uch a day, and I did not open my Text a|right (my Text that day was, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.&mdash; <HI>Aliens to the commonwealth of I&s;rael.</HI>) He told me, if I had rightly opened it, I mu&s;t have told my people, 1. <HI>What the wealth of I&s;rael was.</HI> 2. <HI>How it came to be common.</HI> 3. <HI>How far forth it was common.</HI> With much more &s;uch non|&s;en&s;ical &s;tuff; and very teachy he was with me, that I had not fallen upon his notions: if either this per&s;on had under&s;tood the Greek, or our Tran&s;lation had Tran&s;lated <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>polity,</HI> all the je&s;t had been &s;poiled, which probably he would have made three Sermons upon.</P>
<P>I &s;hould have really thanked our Brethren, for acknowledging an abu&s;e of this Liberty, if I could have &s;een, 1. <HI>That any u&s;e of it</HI> (other than I had granted them) were not an abu&s;e of the greate&s;t Ordinance of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="2">2. Or if I could have &s;een that our Bre|thren could have fixed a <HI>rule of regulation,</HI> it would have done &s;omething with me; but when you tell us, <HI>you plead for none but &s;uch as are really gifted,</HI> and then tell us none have to do to judge <HI>whether they be &s;o or no,</HI> it is <HI>con|venient the Church &s;hould,</HI> but if they Preach <HI>without, it is no &s;in.</HI> To my apprehen&s;ion yee do but complain of a <HI>Flood-gate,</HI> that &s;tands ope too deep, when your &s;elves put in a bar that it may not &s;hut down more clo&s;e. It is true, the abu&s;e of a thing plainly <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI>
<PB REF="4"> by a <HI>nece&s;&s;ity of precept,</HI> is no argument to take away the u&s;e, but where no precept is plain, the general mi&s;carriage, and accur&s;ed con&s;e|quences of it, are a &s;trong <HI>topick</HI> to prove it is not according to the will of God. And I hope our Brethren upon &s;econd thoughts, will not judge any one Text quoted by them plainly concluding the Ca&s;e. All your Argu|ments run either from the u&s;e of <HI>gifts,</HI> to the u&s;e of <HI>this gift</HI> (when as yet you will not al|low all gifts to be &s;o exerci&s;ed) nor any judg|ment to be made of the gift) or from <HI>examples</HI> where there is no <HI>parity,</HI> as you will perceive by the following Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P>You rightly apprehend, that the &s;ingular notion you have entertained of a Church is the <GAP DESC="foreign"> of this, and many other unhappy Controver&s;ies; you are therefore plea&s;ed in your Epi&s;tle, to endeavour to make the <HI>light</HI> of your notion concerning a Church to reflect upon our faces. You tell us,</P>
<P><HI>That a Church is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual Fellow&s;hip in the means of wor&s;hip appointed by Chri&s;t,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. Dedic.</NOTE> <HI>for the glo|ry of God, the edification of their own &s;ouls, and the good of others.</HI> This you &s;ay is the only Church that is capable of Officers to be im|mediately &s;et in it, and over it.</P>
<P>That this is a Church we grant, but that only this Church is capable of Officers we de|ny: I &s;hall have liberty to enter my di&s;&s;ent,
<PB REF="5"> in examining the &s;ix particulars you in&s;tance in for the explication of this de&s;cription.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, You &s;ay <HI>it is a company,</HI> that we grant, <HI>Eccle&s;ia</HI> properly is <HI>nomen multitudinis,</HI> one properly and &s;trictly cannot be called a Church.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>You &s;ay it is a particular Company,</HI> and that <HI>there never was, nor ever will be exi&s;ting in rerum natur&acirc;, any other than a particular com|pany.</HI> I mu&s;t confe&s;s to my <HI>dear Brethren,</HI> that I cannot fathom their notion of <HI>particular:</HI> we u&s;e to &s;ay, <HI>particularis</HI> is oppo&s;ed both to <HI>univer&s;alis</HI> and <HI>&s;ingularis,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e our Bre|thren here oppo&s;e it to <HI>&V;niver&s;alis.</HI> An <HI>uni|ver&s;al theme</HI> in Logick is that (as our Brethren know) which is apt to be predicated natu|rally concerning many: I think <HI>Church</HI> is &s;uch a Theme. Thus much our Brethren I am &s;ure will grant, that their Congregations at <HI>Lon|don, Norwich, Yarmouth,</HI> may each of them be called a <HI>Church.</HI> Now the Que&s;tion is, whe|ther all the&s;e Churches may not be con&s;ider|ed together, and <HI>called a Church:</HI> Or if you will, <HI>Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth, may not by an univer&s;al notion be called a Church,</HI> or is not called a <HI>Church</HI> in Scripture. You acknowledge it in a <HI>reformed &s;en&s;e</HI> an <HI>uni|ver&s;al company,</HI> but not an <HI>univer&s;al Church,</HI> that is (as I &s;uppo&s;e you mean) <HI>a body capable of Officers,</HI> otherwi&s;e it were a &s;trange thing that &s;even per&s;ons, who are vi&s;ible Saints
<PB REF="5"> &s;hould be called a Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Hud&s;ons</HI> Vindic. <HI>p.</HI> 31. ad. <HI>p.</HI> 40.</NOTE> and &s;even hun|dred &s;hould not. If our Brethren will plea&s;e to read what Reverend Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> hath wrote, he will &s;hew them where the word <HI>Church</HI> is both <HI>generally</HI> and <HI>indefinitely</HI> applied where it cannot be under&s;tood of <HI>particular Churches,</HI> Acts 8.3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.13. <HI>Acts</HI> 26.11. <HI>Acts</HI> 9.31. compared together, <HI>Acts</HI> 12.1. <HI>Acts</HI> 2.47. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.32. <HI>Gal.</HI> 4.26. <HI>Eph.</HI> 3.10. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. All the&s;e Texts will prove, that the Scripture hath not re&s;trained the notion of Church to a <HI>particular Company</HI> &s;o called.</P>
<P>But you will &s;ay, <HI>This is a Church not capable of Officers to be &s;et in or over it. Brethren,</HI> have you read what Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> &s;aith, to prove Mi|ni&s;ters Officers to the Church Catholick? Do they not (when they <HI>Baptize</HI>) admit into the Catholick Church;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 232:</NOTE> why el&s;e are not your Members baptized again, when they are tran|&s;lated from the particular Church into which (according to this principle) alone they were Baptized? Do they not by <HI>Excommunication</HI> ca&s;t out of the <HI>Catholick Church?</HI> Or will our <HI>Brethren</HI> &s;ay, that a Church may lawfully ad|mit to its Communion, a Member which ano|ther Church hath cut off from her Communi|on? Were the Apo&s;tles (think our Brethren) <HI>Officers</HI> only to a particular Church? If to the <HI>&V;niver&s;al,</HI> then there was an <HI>univer&s;al Church</HI> once exi&s;ting, capable of Officers. Nor is that irrefragable Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. (as our
<PB REF="6"> Brethren &s;ay) <HI>pre&s;t to the &s;ervice of the Catho|lick Church.</HI> No, it comes as the Lords <HI>Volun|tier</HI> willing to engage for this Truth. You &s;ay <HI>Brethren,</HI> that what it is written, <HI>ver.</HI> 18. of that chapter, <HI>God hath &s;et the Members every one in the body,</HI> doth <HI>as much prove a Catholick or univer&s;al Body,</HI> as God <HI>hath &s;et &s;ome in the Church, proves a Catholick &V;niver&s;al Church.</HI> I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word: that pa&s;&s;age <HI>God hath &s;et the Members every one in the body,</HI> together with <HI>ver.</HI> 12. <HI>and all the members of that one body, being many are one body,</HI> will prove that the body is <HI>Totum integrale:</HI> So al&s;o &s;aith the Apo&s;tle is <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> i. e. the Church of Chri&s;t. If our Brethren will but grant us this, That the Church is a <HI>Totum integrale,</HI> you mu&s;t grant that a particular Church is but a part of this <HI>Totum.</HI> If you &s;ay there is no other <HI>To|tum</HI> called a <HI>Church,</HI> but only the particular Church, I have proved the contrary, that the term of Church is applied otherwi&s;e than to a particular Church. If you &s;ay, this <HI>Church hath no Officers,</HI> that Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. confutes you; neither will your con&s;equence follow, that becau&s;e an <HI>univer&s;al body</HI> is not proved from <HI>ver.</HI> 18. therefore an <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church</HI> is not proved from <HI>ver.</HI> 28. <HI>viz.</HI> from the whole ver&s;e. If it had been &s;aid <HI>v.</HI> 18. God hath &s;et the members every one in the body; and then the Text had made an enu|meration
<PB REF="6"> of &s;uch members, &s;ome of who&s;e u&s;e and office was not confined to the &s;ervice of that particular body, but would &s;erve any other particular bodies, as he doth of Church Officers, <HI>ver.</HI> 28. I hope it would have proved an <HI>&V;niver&s;al body.</HI> You tell us (Brethren) you renounce <HI>the name and thing of an &V;niver&s;al</HI> or <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> you mu&s;t then renounce the Holy Scripture (witne&s;s the Texts before mentioned) and renounce right rea&s;on, and renounce the mo&s;t learned and judicious of your own Brethren, who generally acknow|ledge, both the <HI>name</HI> and <HI>thing,</HI> only deny it to be <HI>Organical:</HI> But you think, you have five Arguments will prove, that a particular Church cannot be a part, but a <HI>Totum.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. You &s;ay fir&s;t, <HI>every part is in power incom|pleat; But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church</HI>&mdash;And <HI>may act in all Church work, not as a part, but as a whole.</HI> I mu&s;t deny your Minor (Brethren!) I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod, and to con&s;ult (at lea&s;t) a piece of Church work, to which Gods word gives a power, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. and yet when you think of it again, you will not &s;ay that a particular Church hath a power alone to <HI>make a Synod.</HI> We &s;ay the like for Ordination (ex|cept in ca&s;es of ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity) and for <HI>ex|communication</HI> (where the Church is very &s;mall) there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church. See Brethren what
<PB REF="7"> <HI>Reverend</HI> Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> &s;ays to all the&s;e in the Book before cited.</P>
<P N="2">2. You tell us next, that <HI>every whole</HI> is <HI>really di&s;tinct from every part, and from all its parts collectively con&s;idered, they are con&s;tituting, that is con&s;tituted; but where that Church is which is really di&s;tinct from all particular Churches, or wherefore it is you know not.</HI> This is Brethren &s;uch a fallacy, as &s;carce de&s;erveth an an&s;wer; the body of a man is <HI>a whole,</HI> all his <HI>members are parts;</HI> now when you have found out where that body is, which is really di&s;tinct from all the members, and wherefore it is, you will have an&s;wered your &s;elves. The Nation of <HI>England</HI> is a <HI>whole,</HI> every Pari&s;h is a part, finde us where that Nation is, which is di&s;tinct really from all the Pari&s;hes taken together. We u&s;e to make this a Maxime in Logick,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Totum reip&s;&acirc; non differt &agrave; partibus &s;uis &s;imul &s;umptis &amp; unitis.</NOTE> <HI>That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts ta|ken together and united.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. In the next place you tell us, there can be no <HI>vi&s;ible univer&s;al Church, becau&s;e there is no univer&s;al vi&s;ible meeting:</HI> and that <HI>the Greek word tran&s;lated Church (in all Civil and Sacred u&s;age) &s;ignifies a meeting,</HI> in <HI>fieri</HI> or <HI>facto e&s;se.</HI> But you began to think that the <HI>invi&s;ible Church, are never like to have &s;uch a meeting;</HI> and therefore (to &s;alve it) you heal this <HI>wound</HI> in your Argument (in my opinion) <HI>very &s;lightly,</HI> when you &s;ay, <HI>it doth meet invi&s;ibly &amp; in Spirit.</HI> If you will but grant us that <HI>Brethren,</HI> that the
<PB REF="7"> name of Church in Scripture, is given to tho&s;e that never <HI>locally meet,</HI> but it is &s;uffi|cient for them to be pre&s;ent <HI>in Spirit;</HI> you have by an unhappy heel, kicked down all that <HI>good milk,</HI> which your Argument was <HI>giving down</HI> for the &s;uckling of your <HI>infant-no|tion</HI> of a Church. And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it, it &s;peaks <HI>of the Church of the fir&s;t-born.</HI> There is an univer&s;al meet|ing of the <HI>Catholick vi&s;ible Church,</HI> at the throne of Grace (before their great Pa&s;tor) and <HI>in Spirit</HI> (as it is only po&s;&s;ible for a Catholick Church to meet) whiles they agree in the Profe&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame Truths and Ordinan|ces. For <HI>the vi&s;ible Meeting</HI> which you menti|oned at fir&s;t, you have quitted your plea for the <HI>vi&s;ibility,</HI> to &s;ave the <HI>Church of the fir&s;t-born</HI> from Excommunication; and we hope it will al&s;o &s;ave the Church Catholick, vi&s;ible, from any hurt by this Argument.</P>
<P N="4">4. You go on <HI>(Brethren)</HI> and tell us, <HI>There are no di&s;tinct Officers for a Catholick Vi&s;ible Church:</HI> Ergo, <HI>there is no &s;uch Church.</HI> If you had expre&s;&s;ed the Major Propo&s;ition, I &s;hould have denied it; the a&s;&s;ertion of a <HI>Church Ca|tholick vi&s;ible</HI> (though we add <HI>Organical</HI>) doth not imply there mu&s;t be <HI>di&s;tinct Officers</HI> for that Church; it is enough that the Officers of the &s;everal particular Churches (which as parts con&s;titute that whole) have power to act as Officers in any of tho&s;e parts, which
<PB REF="8"> united make up that whole: I am not wil|ling, but here nece&s;&s;ity con&s;trains me to tell my <HI>Reverend Brethren,</HI> that this is no fair play, to pretend to di&s;pute again&s;t the Presbyteri|an notion of a Catholick Church, and to mention only the <HI>Antichri&s;tian,</HI> and <HI>Prelatical Notion of it.</HI> Let any one read Mr. <HI>Hud&s;ons Vindication,</HI> p. 129, 130, 131. and he will &s;ee we plead not for &s;uch an univer&s;al Church, as mu&s;t needs have a Pope for an univer&s;al Head, and Arch-Bi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. for his derivatives. But this we &s;ay, that the whole Church (all the particular Churches in the world) make but <HI>one body of Chri&s;t;</HI> and as it is one <HI>(una)</HI> &s;o it is <HI>(unita)</HI> united in a Common Profe&s;&s;ion of the Go&s;pel; &amp; as there is this union, and communion of members, &s;o there is a communion of &s;ome Officers, par|ticularly Mini&s;ters, who may Preach as Chri&s;ts Amba&s;&s;adors, by vertue of Office, any where, and may any where Baptize, and Admini|&s;ter the Lords Supper, upon occa&s;ion; and we &s;ay our Brethren in practice grant this; for the Pa&s;tor of one of their Churches will give the <HI>Supper of the Lord</HI> to tho&s;e, to whom he is not in Office, as his particular Church, and this is a Common practice with our Bre|thren; how con&s;i&s;tent with our Brethrens principle let them judge: while our Brethren &s;ay they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches, they do but blinde the Com|mon
<PB REF="8"> People with a dark notion, that &s;igni|fies nothing: What mean they by a Commu|nion 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 &s;o, there mu&s;t be a Communion of Offices, as well as Gifts, for the di&s;pen&s;ing the Sa|craments 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, &s;hould do an act of Office in ano|ther Church, or to a Member of another Church, it is not his will that in all things there &s;hould 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 al&s;o to any particular Churches in the world, or to any of their Members. We ask no more. This is the Catholick Organi|cal Church we plead for. Let our Brethren con&s;ider whether while they think this an I|dol, and pretend to abhor it, in the notion, they do not in practice bow down to it, and <HI>commit Sacrilege.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. You tell us in the la&s;t place (Brethren) <HI>That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine, and hear offences,</HI> Mat. 18.17. <HI>But that is a particular Church. Ergo.</HI> You are &s;en&s;ible that your Minor is not <HI>extra
<PB REF="9"> aleam controver&s;iae,</HI> and you have taken as good care as you could, to &s;trengthen it, by &s;aying, <HI>it cannot be meant of both; and to ex|clude the Congregational Church, is un&s;criptural, irrational, ab&s;urd.</HI></P>
<P>But I mu&s;t crave leave to tell you, 1. <HI>That your whole Argument</HI> is nothing to the Que&s;ti|on; for it is not, <HI>whether be greater the Church Catholik,</HI> or <HI>the Church particular;</HI> but whe|ther there be any <HI>Church Catholick</HI> or no, <HI>grea|ter or le&s;s.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But you will &s;ay, if there be any it mu&s;t be greater.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Then I mu&s;t examine your &s;en&s;e of the word <HI>Greater,</HI> whether you under&s;tand it in re&s;pect of <HI>quantity</HI> or <HI>quality:</HI> If in re&s;pect of <HI>quantity, number, &amp;c.</HI> the <HI>Ma|jor</HI> is apparently fal&s;e. If in re&s;pect of <HI>quality,</HI> as you &s;eem to hint by the term, <HI>having power,</HI> then your Argument is this,</P>
<P><HI>There is no Church hath a greater power, than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches:</HI></P>
<P><HI>But the particular Church hath that power,</HI> Mat. 18.17. Ergo.</P>
<P>I will give you Brethren &s;uch another Ar|gument, judge you whether it be good or no, and if it be not, you mu&s;t prove your own better.</P>
<P><HI>There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offen|ces in a Nation.</HI></P>
<PB REF="9">
<P><HI>But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences.</HI> Ergo, that is as great a Court as the Court of <HI>Common. Pleas.</HI></P>
<P>You mu&s;t therefore put in <HI>finally</HI> determine, and <HI>all offences,</HI> in any part of the Church, or el&s;e your <HI>Major</HI> is fal&s;e, when you have men|ded that we will deny your <HI>Minor,</HI> and tell you, that admit that Text, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18.17. &s;hould be meant of a particular Church, yet it proves no &s;uch power, either <HI>finally</HI> to determine, or all <HI>offences,</HI> as well tho&s;e betwixt <HI>Church</HI> and <HI>Church,</HI> as tho&s;e betwixt <HI>party</HI> and <HI>party,</HI> or <HI>party</HI> and <HI>Church.</HI> Neither can I divine the ne|ce&s;&s;ity you would impo&s;e upon us of exclu|ding the one or the other Church out of that Text, (according to the nature of the offence) nor do I think your &s;aying, that to exclude the <HI>Congregational Church,</HI> viz. &s;ome Congre|gational Churches, is <HI>un&s;criptural, irrational, ab&s;urd,</HI> amounts &s;o much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the ca&s;e. I think it is far more <HI>rational,</HI> and <HI>far le&s;s ab&s;urd,</HI> to &s;ay that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth, it &s;hould be done by a <HI>Church,</HI> made up of &s;everal Chur|ches in a&s;&s;ociation and upon a Common con|&s;ultation, and by a common act of many Re|verend and Judicious per&s;ons, then by <HI>&s;even per&s;ons,</HI> none of which po&s;&s;ibly hath rea&s;on enough to judge truly of the merit of the cau&s;e. And in rea&s;on it &s;hould &s;eem more like
<PB REF="10"> to be the will of Chri&s;t, who is very tender of all his peoples &s;ouls. Our <HI>Brethren</HI> know we could give them &s;ad in&s;tances of particular Churches, excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Pa&s;tors, who are &s;ufficiently known to have de&s;erved no &s;uch things.</P>
<P>You tell us Brethren, that the Officers of Churches met together, are no true Church. <HI>Zuinglius</HI> (you &s;ay) &s;aid &s;ome &s;uch thing, but it was in a ca&s;e no more like this, than <HI>chalk</HI> is like <HI>chee&s;e:</HI> We are di&s;puting now, whe|ther the <HI>Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod, may not be called a Church, they being &s;ent to repre&s;ent the particular Churches.</HI> We have a Rule in Logick, <HI>Cui competit definitio convenit definitum.</HI> I therefore argue.</P>
<P>A Church &s;ay you, <HI>Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellow&s;hip in the means of Wor&s;hip appointed by Chri&s;t, for the glory of God, the edification of their own &s;ouls, and the good of others.</HI></P>
<P>But a ju&s;tly-con&s;tituted Synod is &s;uch a Company&mdash;<HI>Ergo,</HI> they are a <HI>Church.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>They are a Company,</HI> one cannot make a Synod.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>They are a particular Company,</HI> they are but a part of the Church, not every individual; nor (&s;ay our Brethren) did ever any other company exi&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3. They are an <HI>holy Company,</HI> at lea&s;t &s;hould, or may be &s;o.</P>
<P N="4"><PB REF="10">4. They are <HI>united,</HI> their con&s;ent to meet and &s;it together unites them, &s;o doth the con|&s;ent of the particular Churches &s;ending them.</P>
<P N="5">5. They are united unto fellow&s;hip in <HI>means of Wor&s;hip,</HI> we will &s;uppo&s;e them while they are together, to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear, pray, receive Sacraments together, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>The end of this fellow&s;hip, is the glory of God, the edification of them&s;elves, and the whole Church, and the good of others.</HI></P>
<P>So that in An&s;wer to our Brethrens expre&s;|&s;ion borrowed from <HI>Zuinglius</HI> in a quite differ|ing ca&s;e, <HI>Repre&s;entativant e&s;&s;e credo, veram non credo.</HI> I return, <HI>Aut veram e&s;&s;e credo, aut fal&s;am e&s;&s;e ve&s;tram credo definitionem:</HI> Either they are a true Church, or your definition of a Church is not true.</P>
<P>Thirdly, you tell us, a Church mu&s;t be <HI>an holy Company.</HI> I An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. So was not the <GAP DESC="foreign"> mentioned <HI>Acts</HI> 19.32, 42. But concerning the Church of Chri&s;t, we grant it <HI>(&s;ano &s;en&s;u)</HI> upon &s;ome of your Arguments, which I think are conclu|&s;ive enough.</P>
<P N="2">2. We &s;ay, God him&s;elf calleth the whole <HI>Jewi&s;h Nation holy,</HI> Exod. 19.6. The Apo&s;tle calls the <HI>&s;eed</HI> of tho&s;e Parents <HI>holy,</HI> where one of them was a believer, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7. In this &s;en&s;e we grant every member of the Church mu&s;t be holy, &s;eparated from a Pagani&s;h conver&s;a|tion,
<PB REF="11"> and under an external Covenant with God.</P>
<P N="3">3. We &s;ay, it is their duty to be holy by <HI>&s;anctification,</HI> this they are to labour after. But we deny,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That they mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be all real Saints, or no Church,</HI> and this our Brethren will not own.</P>
<P N="2">2. That a <HI>vi&s;ibility of &s;aving grace,</HI> is nece&s;|&s;ary to the con&s;titution of a Church in <HI>all the members of it.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e our Brethren (we hope) will own the Infants of their members, to be <HI>mem|bers,</HI> in whom is no &s;uch vi&s;ibility.</P>
<P N="2">2. Becau&s;e &s;pecial &s;aving grace is a <HI>thing in|vi&s;ible,</HI> and of which we can make no true judgement.</P>
<P N="3">3. Becau&s;e we find <HI>no ground in Scripture for it;</HI> we cannot &s;ee what vi&s;ibility of &s;aving grace the Apo&s;tles could act by, who ad|mitted three thou&s;and and five thou&s;and in a day, <HI>Acts</HI> 2. <HI>Acts</HI> 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>Fourthly, our <HI>Brethren</HI> them&s;elves &s;ay, <HI>that filthy matter may be found in a Church con&s;tituted, which is not fit matter in the con&s;titution:</HI> We look upon the Companies of per&s;ons in our Pari&s;hes, as they have united them&s;elves in means of wor&s;hip, <HI>Churches con&s;tituted, not to be con&s;tituted;</HI> and do not under&s;tand (while
<PB REF="11"> the form, which doth <HI>dare e&s;&s;e</HI> continues) how &s;ome decays in the matter annihilates the Church, any more then the rottenne&s;s of &s;ome pieces of Timber, yea though the ma|jor part of tho&s;e pieces be hardly &s;ound, makes the hou&s;e (while it &s;tands and keeps the form) not to be an hou&s;e.</P>
<P>But fifthly, we grant to our Brethren, that &s;uch as err in the <HI>fundamentals</HI> of the Go&s;pel, or are <HI>affectedly ignorant of them,</HI> or are <HI>guilty of leudne&s;s in their lives,</HI> ought to be <HI>ca&s;t out of the Church,</HI> though we dare not determine any &s;ingle acts of wickedne&s;s <HI>incon&s;i&s;tent with grace,</HI> remembring the failings of <HI>Lot, Noah, David, Solomon,</HI> and <HI>Peter;</HI> yet we &s;ay by ver|tue of the Command of God (though they may have a root of grace) they ought to be admoni&s;hed, &s;u&s;pended, and excommuni|cated, and this for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the good of their own &s;ouls, not becau&s;e they have no &s;aving grace, or no <HI>vi&s;ibility of it;</HI> for it may be we may have &s;een formerly &s;o much of them, as to make us of another minde.</P>
<P>We therefore grant you <HI>(brethren)</HI> that the vi|&s;ible Church, is the <HI>Kingdom of Chri&s;t,</HI> the <HI>body of Chri&s;t,</HI> and yet there may be &s;ubjects of this Kingdom, who give not due homage to him, <HI>members of this body, real members,</HI> and yet <HI>mu&s;t be cut off,</HI> branches in <HI>this Vine,</HI> and yet not <HI>bringing forth fruit,</HI> John 15.2.
<PB REF="12">
<Q><HI>You de&s;ire to know</HI> what rea&s;on we have to ju|&s;tifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace, in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper, and yet to blame you for &s;uch an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints.</Q> The An|&s;wer Brethren is very ea&s;ie, <HI>Becau&s;e we find, that a man &s;hould examine him&s;elf before he eat|eth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup:</HI> but we no where find, <HI>Let a man examine him&s;elf, before he comes into the fellow&s;hip of the Church;</HI> and we think the three thou&s;and and five thou&s;and had &s;carce any lei&s;ure before their admi&s;&s;ion, to do it very throughly. But our Brethren know no Rule they &s;ay, for an ordi|nary <HI>&s;u&s;pen&s;ion</HI> of compleat and owned Mem|bers of the Body from the Sacrament. If you con&s;ult <HI>Beza</HI>'s notes upon 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.6. He will &s;hew you plain Scripture for it; if the <HI>ince&s;tu|ous per&s;on</HI> had been excommunicated, St. <HI>Paul</HI> needed not to have &s;aid, <HI>&s;ufficient is the puni&s;h|ment which is inflicted,</HI> for they had puni&s;hed him as much as they could. Nor was there any <HI>thing to be remitted.</HI> See <HI>Beza</HI> on the Text more fully. However our Brethren (as I hear) ordinarily practi&s;e it, when a per&s;on is under <HI>admonition,</HI> and the Church waiting to &s;ee the i&s;&s;ue of it, we plead for it no further.</P>
<P N="5">5. You tell us fifthly (Brethren) that a Church mu&s;t be an <HI>united company;</HI> if you had told us <HI>in what &s;en&s;e</HI> you under&s;tand <HI>united,</HI> we could better have told you our minds (at
<PB REF="12"> lea&s;t I could have better told you mine) con|cerning it. People may be united by <HI>cohabita|tion,</HI> by <HI>common profe&s;&s;ion,</HI> by mutual <HI>con&s;ent,</HI> this you &s;eem to under&s;tand: this again may be either <HI>explicitly,</HI> by <HI>Covenant,</HI> or <HI>implicitly,</HI> by a con&s;tant joyning in the &s;ame practice which our Brethren contend for, or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell: this being premi&s;ed Brethren, I conceive.</P>
<P N="1">1. Every company called <GAP DESC="foreign"> cannot be &s;aid to be an united company, either as to an <HI>union</HI> of <HI>judgement</HI> or practice: the rout, <HI>Acts</HI> 19. called by this name were not.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Every Religious Company or Church of Chri&s;t</HI> (called by this name in Scripture) <HI>were united,</HI> but neither by <HI>cohabitation,</HI> nor yet by <HI>con&s;ent to walk together in the &s;ame individual Ordinan|ces,</HI> but every &s;uch company mu&s;t be an uni|ted <HI>company</HI> as to profe&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame Do|ctrine, and acknowledging the &s;ame &s;pecifi|cal Ordinances of the Go&s;pel; all the places I quoted out of Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> to prove the uni|ver&s;al Church prove this.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>There is no need that every particular Church</HI> (if not organized) and under the exerci&s;e of Di&s;cipline, <HI>&s;hould be united, by con&s;ent as to pra|ctice, in the &s;ame numerical Admini&s;trations;</HI> every particular company of the univer&s;al Church may properly enough be called <GAP DESC="foreign"> without <HI>&s;uch a con&s;ent;</HI> you often read of the <HI>Church</HI> in a particular hou&s;e, <HI>Col.</HI> 4.15.
<PB REF="13"> <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.5. <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. of which no &s;uch thing can be proved.</P>
<P N="4">4. Indeed it &s;eems rea&s;onable, that <HI>a par|ticular Church, organized, and in which Di&s;ci|pline ordinarily &s;hould be admini&s;tred, &s;hould be a company united by con&s;ent;</HI> for my own part I can allow you this, though I know &s;ome of my Brethren will not.</P>
<P N="5">5. That this <HI>&V;nion mu&s;t needs be by an expli|cite Covenant, or con&s;ent is neither to be proved by one Text, nor yet by one &s;ound rea&s;on,</HI> and to im|po&s;e this as nece&s;&s;ary, is a meer humane in|vention, and not to be indured, becau&s;e there is not the lea&s;t warrant in Gods word for it.</P>
<P>But la&s;tly, we heartily wi&s;h, <HI>that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exerci&s;e of power, the members of our Churches would &s;ubmit to &s;uch an explicite con&s;ent.</HI> And we cannot but commend our <HI>Worce&s;ter&s;hire</HI> Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it, though we &s;uppo&s;e they will be tender of Excommunicating &s;uch, as &s;eeing no command of God for it, &s;hall not think fit to &s;ubmit to it: Thus far I can yield our Brethren, that a particular Church is an <HI>united Company.</HI> And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Socie|ties to be true Churches, not (as &s;ome would (ridiculou&s;ly) fa&s;ten upon us) becau&s;e they live within &s;uch local limits, but becau&s;e <HI>they
<PB REF="13"> are &s;ocieties of baptized per&s;ons, who by a tacit, and implicit con&s;ent, have united them&s;elves, wait|ing upon God in the &s;ame numerical Ordinances of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip.</HI> And this <HI>&V;nion</HI> holding, we &s;ay they are to be looked upon as <HI>true Churches,</HI> although (as the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI>) corrupt|ed in &s;ome of their members, and therefore not to be &s;eparated from, nor di&s;owned as no Churches, but to be purged, and the <HI>old lea|ven</HI> put out, that they may be a <HI>new lump.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. For what our Brethren &s;ay in the <HI>fifth</HI> and <HI>&s;ixth</HI> place, <HI>That they mu&s;t be a company united unto fellow&s;hip in means of wor&s;hip appoint|ed by Chri&s;t, and this for the glory of God,</HI> &amp;c. I freely grant, nay it may be I will grant more, <HI>viz.</HI> that they mu&s;t be a people, who either have <HI>elected</HI> or <HI>&s;ubmitted</HI> to the Officers of the Church for the Admini&s;tration of the Ordi|nance of Di&s;cipline.</P>
<P>But let it not offend my <HI>dear and reverend Brethren,</HI> if I tell them, I have almo&s;t made my head ake, with &s;tudying the connexion of a pa&s;&s;age which you have in the la&s;t <HI>page</HI> of your Epi&s;tle (&s;ave one) and do what I can, I under&s;tand not how it relates to the former Di&s;cour&s;e, or is brought in upon any ea&s;ier terms, then they &s;ay, The Fellow brought in <HI>Hercules,</HI> viz. by <HI>head and &s;houlders;</HI> for un|doubtedly) if it had been led by the conduct of <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> or <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> it would never have come there: The pa&s;&s;age is this,</P>
<PB REF="14">
<P><HI>But we &s;hall &s;ay no more of this, Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the &s;ame truth, a&s;&s;erting Presbyterial Government to be from hea|ven, although the confidence of our late A&s;&s;embly could &s;ay no more but this: The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government. May be! they would have &s;aid, mu&s;t be, had they &s;een the &s;tamp of</HI> Jus Divinum <HI>upon it.</HI></P>
<P>I mu&s;t profe&s;s my &s;elf (dear Brethren) to be &s;o ignorant, that I can neither under&s;tand the &s;en&s;e of this pa&s;&s;age, either <HI>copulatively,</HI> or <HI>disjunctively;</HI> will you give me leave to &s;ift it a little? po&s;&s;ibly (though it all looks like chaff) &s;ome kernels of <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> or <HI>truth</HI> may be found in it.</P>
<P><HI>But we &s;hall &s;ay no more of this</HI> (you &s;ay) <HI>Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the &s;ame Truth.</HI> Of this? of what? You had be|fore been &s;peaking <HI>of the Papi&s;ts, making their Decrees and humane inventions, equal with the ten Commandments;</HI> and told us, <HI>you believe Revela|tions of new matter are cea&s;ed, and that Chri&s;t hath cea&s;ed from his work,</HI> &amp;c. Now you tell us, you &s;hall &s;ay no more of this: your Bre|thren (viz. <HI>We of the Presbyterial per&s;wa&s;ion) not being baptized into the belief of the &s;ame truth, a&s;&s;erting Presbyterial Government to be from hea|ven:</HI> whats this to the making of <HI>Church Ca|nons of equal authority with Gods word?</HI> Do any of us make them &s;o? Or had our Brethren a
<PB REF="14"> minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts, nor was ever expre&s;&s;ed by us in any of our Books. Doth <HI>[the &s;ame truth]</HI> relate only to what fol|lows, that we are not <HI>all of a minde,</HI> as to the <HI>Divine Right of Church-Government:</HI> what need|ed our Brethren have added this in this place, or what is the meaning of tho&s;e words? <HI>[But we &s;hall &s;ay no more of this]</HI> and then adding the other <HI>as a rea&s;on.</HI> But let us &s;ee if there be more <HI>truth</HI> in what followeth, <HI>That the Presby|terians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven:</HI> They are fouly to blame then, for I &s;hould think <HI>Popery,</HI> as to Govern|ment, better than <HI>Presbyterie,</HI> if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven. But it is yet more wonderfull (Brethren!) which you tell us, that the <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> did not &s;o believe, yea, expre&s;&s;ed as much; for they only &s;ay, <HI>Many particular Congregations may be united;</HI> and you note, they would have &s;aid <HI>mu&s;t be,</HI> if they had &s;o judged. Our Brethren have indeed &s;aid in their terms no more then it <HI>may be,</HI> but they have al&s;o in the &s;ame place proved that it was &s;o, both in the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and al&s;o in the <HI>Church of Ephe&s;us.</HI></P>
<P>If they only &s;ay it <HI>may be,</HI> but prove it <HI>mu&s;t be,</HI> I hope it is enough; our <HI>Reverend Brethren</HI> loved to u&s;e <HI>&s;oft words,</HI> and <HI>hard Arguments:</HI> But indeed they could not well &s;ay it <HI>mu&s;t be,</HI> for there might be but one <HI>particular Church in
<PB REF="15"> a Nation,</HI> and then it was not nece&s;&s;ary; but &s;urely our Brethren would not have &s;aid, <HI>it may be,</HI> if they had thought there was no par|ticular or general ground for it <HI>in Gods word,</HI> and &s;urely, what hath &s;uch a foundation in <HI>Gods word,</HI> is <HI>jure Divino</HI> (not with&s;tanding our Brethrens critical ob&s;ervation.) Our <HI>Brethren</HI> of the A&s;&s;embly do not &s;ay <HI>it may be,</HI> the &s;en&s;e of the Texts they quote to prove it, yet you (Brethren) mu&s;t remember you tell us &s;o for &s;ome if not all of your Texts for <HI>Election,</HI> where all you pretend to, is our &s;en&s;e <HI>may be the &s;en&s;e;</HI> yet I hope you will &s;ay that <HI>Election</HI> is <HI>jure Divino.</HI> Our Brethren know that they have pretended a <HI>Jus Divinum</HI> too for gifted mens preaching, and yet for fear of their ask|ing maintenance (and to avoid our Argument from thence) tell us, <HI>they may preach</HI> occa&s;io|nally, but will not &s;ay, <HI>They mu&s;t</HI> preach con&s;tantly.</P>
<P>In the la&s;t place <HI>Brethren,</HI> you fear we may be <HI>provoked</HI> again&s;t you, and therefore you favour us with your Rea&s;ons, for engaging in this &s;ervice, and <HI>excu&s;e</HI> for coming into it &s;o late. <Q>A pit you &s;ay hath been digged, and a long time &s;tood open, and divers have fallen into it, and you come out in charity to cover it.</Q> Whether you have indeed <HI>covered, or uncovered a Pit,</HI> Let every judicious Chri&s;tian judge, yea let the experiences of all the Churches of Chri&s;t te|&s;tifie. I be&s;eech my <HI>dear and reverend Brethren</HI>
<PB REF="15"> to lay their hands upon their hearts, and con+&s;ider whether they have not uncovered <HI>that pit,</HI> into which &s;ome years &s;ince, many (&s;up|po&s;ed) Brethren in <HI>New England</HI> falling, &s;ank, and ro&s;e up no more to a vi&s;ible repentance for their Errors and Bla&s;phemies. <HI>That pit,</HI> in|to which many Members of our Brethrens Churches in <HI>Holland fell,</HI> &amp; that &s;adly too. <HI>That pit</HI> into which many Members of their late <HI>Churches</HI> in <HI>England,</HI> yea in <HI>Norfolk</HI> fell, and are come out <HI>Quakers, pleaders for the Jewi&s;h Sab|bath,</HI> for the <HI>power of Miracles</HI> (as not cea&s;ed) <HI>conferring</HI> (as they pretend) the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. That pit which the mo&s;t learned, judicious, &amp; godly-wi&s;e Brethren, Pa&s;tors of our Brethrens Churches in <HI>England,</HI> will not indure to <HI>&s;tand open</HI> where they have to do; which the reve|rend Pa&s;tors of the Chu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ches in <HI>New England</HI> dare not let &s;tand open without a <HI>Teaching El|der</HI> pre&s;ent 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 <HI>Jericho</HI> (as to the i&s;&s;ue of the work, though not as to the pu|ni&s;hment of the per&s;ons, whom I de&s;ire to love &amp; honor, for their work &s;ake, though not for this <HI>works &s;ake</HI>) I could have heartily wi&s;hed, my Brethren had left this Idol to plead for it &s;elf, and I dare &s;ay, they might have done it without offending, one humble, &s;erious judi|cious Chri&s;tian, (at lea&s;t who is known to me)</P>
<PB REF="16">
<P>I mo&s;t humbly be&s;eech my dear and <HI>Reve|rend Brethren,</HI> to hear the cryes of many &s;ober judicious per&s;ons, lamenting the &s;ad conditi|on of the Pari&s;hes wherein they live, which in&s;tead of able and godly Mini&s;ters, are &s;erved with none, but &s;uch as mend their trading on the week day, by a&s;&s;uming this unbridled li|berty on the Sabbath, who are both obtruded upon them, and unable to &s;peak the word of God as they ought to &s;peak; &s;o that they are forced (in the&s;e days of Reformation too) to go from <HI>Pari&s;h</HI> to <HI>Pari&s;h,</HI> to &s;eek one who can &s;peak to them <HI>in the name of the Lord,</HI> or to who&s;e preaching they can go in faith, and at|tend upon it <HI>as a publike Ordinance.</HI> Doth not this Liberty dead the hearts of &s;ober men, as to acting in any Reformation, by ca&s;ting out <HI>&s;candalous, ignorant, and in&s;ufficient Mini&s;ters?</HI> While they &s;ee little more good from it, then ca&s;ting out one <HI>ignorant in&s;ufficient man,</HI> to make way for &s;ome others; or the ca&s;ting out one that would prophe&s;ie of <HI>wine and &s;trong drink,</HI> to make way for others, who &s;hall pro|phe&s;ie the vain imaginations of their own hearts, or the errors of <HI>Millenaries, Anti-Mini|&s;terial per&s;ons,</HI> and high flown <HI>Anabapti&s;ts;</HI> and who would not judge, that if people mu&s;t be under this &s;ad de&s;tiny to have a <HI>&s;nare for their &s;ouls &s;tand in their Pulpits,</HI> it had better be one that every one knows, and would avoid, than one that is covered over with the hypocri&s;ie
<PB REF="16"> of a little hay or &s;tubble, and is no le&s;s dan|gerous and more hard to be di&s;covered by vulgar eyes?</P>
<P><HI>Dear Brethren!</HI> I beg your pardon, if in this ca&s;e, the zeal of my God, his Hou&s;e, People, Truths glory, hath eaten me up, in this Cau&s;e in which I think all of them are &s;o deeply concerned, and &s;ad experience hath pro|ved it.</P>
<P>As to your excu&s;e, for coming &s;o late into this <HI>Di&s;-&s;ervice</HI> to the Church and Truth of God, I have no rea&s;on to be trou|bled at it; as thinking you have at la&s;t come <HI>too &s;oon:</HI> And I am apt to believe the Rebukes of your own Con&s;cience might retard your expedition: I have en|deavoured to follow you with more &s;peed, ob&s;erving it a piece of Wi&s;dom of the GOD of Nature, to plant the Anti|dote within view of the Poi&s;on. I can truly &s;ay that while you have a ju&s;t An|&s;wer of your Book (&s;o far as I am con|cerned in it) I have the <HI>An&s;wer of a good Con&s;cience,</HI> having &s;poken nothing on this Subject, but what I believe to be the Truth of GOD. Nor have I wil|lingly &s;hewed any pa&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>So praying that tho&s;e hone&s;t Hearts (of which I per&s;wade my &s;elf you are all po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed) may hereafter be found en|diting
<PB REF="17"> a better matter. I commend you to the LORD, and to the ble&s;&s;ing of his Grace: Being</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>BRETHREN,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your Servant for the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;ts &s;ake, <HI>John Collinges.</HI></SIGNED>
<DATELINE><HI>Chaplyfield</HI>-Hou&s;e in <HI>Norwich,</HI> <DATE><HI>Febr.</HI> 12. 1657.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="17">
<HEAD>To every Chri&s;tian Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THere are three or four great Truths of God, the <HI>Tu|telage</HI> of which, from their enemies (at lea&s;t in the&s;e parts) I have formerly undertaken, <HI>1. The Divine Or|dinance of Go&s;pel Preaching,</HI> in the admini&s;tration of which, all who thought them&s;elves <HI>gifted men</HI> pleaded a right of <HI>intercommonage</HI> with tho&s;e, who according to Go&s;pel-Rules are <HI>&s;eparated</HI> to that work: <HI>2. The liber|ty of Chri&s;tians, from the ob&s;ervation of Holy Days. 3. The pure admini&s;tration of the holy Sacrament of the Supper:</HI> and <HI>4. The Divine Right of Church-Go|vernment in the hands of Chri&s;ts proper Officers.</HI> My di&s;cour&s;e concerning the fir&s;t, I have already once vin|dicated; what I &s;aid upon the &s;econd (to my knowledge) none hath yet an&s;wered; as to the two la&s;t, there hath been &s;omething publi&s;hed to the world, under pretence of an&s;wer. <HI>John Tim&s;on</HI> and Mr. <HI>Humfry</HI> have pretended &s;omething by way of an&s;wer to the third: and <HI>Theoph. Brabourne</HI> to the fourth. And now three Reverend Bre|thren have undertaken me the &s;econd time, in the defence of the Preaching of <HI>gifted mens Preaching.</HI> I &s;hall only give thee a true account, why I have &s;aid nothing to the three other An&s;werers, nor have any thoughts to do it. As for <HI>John Tim&s;on</HI> had he fallen upon me but with his <HI>Cart|whip,</HI> I think I &s;hould have turnd again, but falling &s;o fouly upon me with his <HI>plow-&s;taff</HI> (upon a maxime I have learn|ed from &s;ome Gentlemen, that a Rapier is no weapon fit to engage a Carter upon the Road) I thought it prudence to
<PB REF="18"> runaway: Be&s;ides that, perceiving he had got the Art to an&s;wer him&s;elf by more then one manife&s;t contradiction; I thought it pity any one el&s;e &s;hould be put to the trouble, especially con&s;idering, that after I had drawn &s;even or eight &s;heets of an An&s;wer, my Stationer a&s;&s;ured me, he had not &s;old above one of his Books, and it was pity by an An&s;wer, to commend his Book to the worlds Enquiry Mr. <HI>Humfry</HI> indeed di&s;covers a reverend opinion of his Book, I &s;uppo&s;e for the <HI>Notion</HI> he in the main drives, not for his way of handling of it, which I think &s;carce de|&s;erves &s;uch a character. As for Mr. <HI>Humfry,</HI> I per|ceived him &s;ailing in his last Book at a lower rate, and I was loth by an an&s;wer to &s;erve him with a wind, which might have tempted him to have spread his &s;ails to their former widene&s;s (I remember the ill influence, learned <HI>Spanhemius</HI> his An&s;wer to <HI>Amiraldus</HI> had upon him to this purpo&s;e.) Be&s;ides that, I &s;aw I mu&s;t have differed with him in more <HI>momentous matter</HI> then that of the Sa|crament, if I had given him a &s;trist an&s;wer: and I was not willing to rai&s;e more du&s;t of Controver&s;ie then is al|ready rai&s;ed in the world. As for <HI>Theoph. Brabourne,</HI> as I could finde nothing in his Book be&s;ides <HI>error</HI> and <HI>non-&s;en&s;e:</HI> &s;o I perceive the world had no better opinion of it; the Stationer returning him his Printed Copies for <HI>New-years-gifts</HI> for his Friends, becau&s;e he could &s;ell none of them, or but exceeding few, and though I have often met the Books at my Friends Hou&s;es, where he had given them, yet (that I know of) I never found any of them made fit to read, or otherwi&s;e u&s;ed than to kindle Tobacco. Be&s;ides that, immediatly after his publicati|on of that Rap&s;ody of impertinence, I &s;aw &s;ome Papers he had &s;cattered 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. <HI>The GOD whom I &s;erve is but one,</HI> he that can <HI>bla&s;pheme</HI> the Living GOD, may be excu&s;ed for that crime towards
<PB REF="18"> his Truths and Servants, and de&s;erves not to be menti|oned in a Chri&s;tians mouth.</P>
<P>As for this la&s;t Book, called <HI>The Preacher Sent,</HI> I finde it written by <HI>grave and &s;ober per&s;ons,</HI> with a good &s;hew of Argument (indeed as much as their Cau&s;e would bear I think) and dictated by a &s;ober compo&s;ed and gentle Spirit, and the concernment of the Book to be of <HI>exceeding Moment,</HI> especially in relation to this Coun|ty, <HI>which</HI> (I believe) hath more of that &s;ort of Preach|ers then any three Counties in <HI>England</HI> have: I have therefore thought it worth the while to examine their Book, &s;o far as I am concerned in it; with what &s;uc|ce&s;s (Reader) thou mu&s;t be Judge, and the Lord guide thee in Judgement, both as to this, and every truth: So prays,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thy Faithfull Servant in the Lord Je&s;us, <HI>J. C.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="19">
<HEAD>The Printer to the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>READER,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>I</HI> Would de&s;ire thee (by rea&s;on of the Authors dwelling &s;o far off that he could not Correct his Book him&s;elf) that thou would&s;t mend with thy Pen the Errors of the Pre&s;s.</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>Farewell.</SALUTE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="1" REF="19">
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>CHAP. I.</HI> Containing an an&s;wer to the three fir&s;t Chapters of our Brethrens Book, Concerning <HI>Preaching without Ordination.</HI> In which, the terms <HI>Mini&s;ter, Mini&s;try,</HI> and <HI>Office</HI> are con&s;ide|red and explaned, and three Que&s;tions di&s;cu&s;&s;ed: <HI>1. Whether gifted men not ordained can be cal|led Mini&s;ters,</HI> and in what &s;en&s;e. <HI>2. Whether the Office of the Mini&s;try be a relation to the work or no. 3. Whether the Office of the Mini&s;try be a relation to the Univer&s;al Church;</HI> The <HI>Ne|gative</HI> part of the fir&s;t, The <HI>Affirmative</HI> part of the two latter is defended; And what&s;oever our Brethren have offered on the contrary is fully an|&s;wered and proved <HI>fallacies;</HI> their de&s;cription of <HI>Office</HI> proved faulty, &amp;c.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P N="1">1. THat two of the Books lately Pub|li&s;hed, again&s;t the Preaching of per|&s;ons meerly gifted, and for <HI>Ordina|tion</HI> (as that which gives the call unto the work of the Mini&s;try) &s;hould (as our Brethren &s;ay) <HI>con|tain the &s;ub&s;tance of all the re&s;t,</HI> is no great wonder, con&s;idering that (I tru&s;t) they were all wrote by the &s;ame Spirit, and (for the mo&s;t part)
<PB N="2" REF="20"> made u&s;e of the &s;ame Scripture for the <HI>Sedes</HI> of their Arguments: But that our Brethren &s;hould take my <HI>Vindiciae mini&s;terii Evangelioi</HI> to be one of them, either &s;peaks their (too much) re&s;pect for me; or their policy to magnifie that Enemy whom they conceive they have conquered.</P>
<P N="2">2. For my Pamphlet; it was written &s;even years &s;ince, commanded (almo&s;t) to the Pre&s;s by an holy and emi|nent &s;ervant of God (now with God) Mr. <HI>Jeremy Whi|taker,</HI> who was with me, when I was writing; and argu|ing the need, or expedience of &s;uch a Pamphlet, he told me he was of <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI>'s mind, who would have every body write again&s;t <HI>Pelagius.</HI> It was occa&s;ioned at fir&s;t, by the trouble&s;omne&s;s of a gifted man (as him&s;elf judged) in communion with me, who had a great am|bition to be expounding Scripture; and (in a teach) be|cau&s;e we would not allow it, afterwards left us, and joynd him&s;elf, with a Congregational Church, who had no better opinion of his gifts than we had before, &amp; re|&s;trained his lu&s;t in that ambition too; and in a like teach, he left them and turned <HI>Quaker.</HI> For the &s;atisfaction of tho&s;e Chri&s;tians in communion with me, upon the trou|ble given us by this per&s;on, I fir&s;t (at private meetings of Chri&s;tians in communion with me) di&s;cour&s;ed the things in my Book; afterwards Printed them. It plea|&s;ed God &s;o far to ble&s;s my indeavours, that &s;ince that time, none of tho&s;e committed to my charge have pre|&s;umed to attempt any &s;uch practice; and it hath plea&s;ed God &s;o far to give my Printed Book &s;ucce&s;s, that I think it hath been twice Printed, and &s;everal per&s;ons (&s;ome of quality) have returned me thanks, for my poor labours in it. And our Brethren having &s;ingled me out for a combatant once more in this quarrel; I &s;hall indeavour to di&s;charge the duty they have impo&s;ed upon me, and to do it with the &s;ame moderation, and &s;pirit of meek|ne&s;s, which they profe&s;s, and (for ought I ob&s;erve yet) have practi&s;ed.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="3" REF="20">3. Our Brethren in the fir&s;t Chapter do two things. 1. They <HI>Open the term Mini&s;try.</HI> 2. <HI>The term Office.</HI> 3. They rai&s;e two Que&s;tions:</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Whether the Office of the Mini&s;try doth corre|late to the work, or to the Church?</HI> If our Brethren would have been content, that it <HI>&s;hould have</HI> been in its relati|on divided, we &s;hould not have oppo&s;ed it: But affir|ming it is no relate to the work, but only to the Church, I mu&s;t profe&s;s my &s;elf di&s;&s;atisfied.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Whether the Office of the Mini&s;try doth corre|late to the Church &V;niver&s;al, or only to the particular Church?</HI> Our Brethren &s;ay, <HI>Only to the particular Church;</HI> If our Brethren would have been content with a divi&s;ion again, that the Mini&s;ter &s;hould be related to both, we &s;hould have granted it; or if our Brethren had &s;tated the que&s;tion about the relation of a Mini&s;ter to &s;uch a <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> as had con&s;tant &s;tanding Ca|tholick Officers, we know no &s;uch Church, and &s;hould not have di&s;puted <HI>de</HI> or <HI>pro non ente:</HI> But (as they &s;tate it) I mu&s;t profe&s;s my &s;elf al&s;o in this of another mind, <HI>viz.</HI> to believe that a Mini&s;ter is in Office to more than his particular Church: And therefore to triall we mu&s;t go.</P>
<P><Q>In the opening of the term Mini&s;try, Our Brethren tell us that Mini&s;try &s;tands in oppo&s;ition to Lordly do|mination, Mat. <HI>20.25, 26, 27.</HI> that tho&s;e who do acts of mini&s;tration, are Mini&s;ters; that <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&amp;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> and the words u&s;ed in Scripture to expre&s;s Mini|&s;ters and Mini&s;try, are applied, in Scripture, to others be&s;ide Mini&s;ters in Office: that their con&s;tant perfor|ming acts of mini&s;tration, entituleth them to the denomi|nation of Mini&s;ters; and their work &s;hould be called Preaching, as we u&s;ually call them, <HI>Bruers,</HI> or <HI>Bakers,</HI> who brew, or bake con&s;tantly; and therefore Chri&s;tians &s;hould &s;o call them.</Q> This is the &s;um of what they have, <HI>p.</HI> 2. &amp; 3. To all which, I &s;hall crave leave to
<PB N="4" REF="21"> an&s;wer. For this &s;eemeth to be an old <HI>hedge of di&s;tin|ction,</HI> which who &s;o breaks the Serpent of Confu&s;ion will bite him</P>
<P N="1">1. That the terms <HI>Mini&s;ter, Mini&s;try,</HI> and <HI>Office,</HI> are of various interpretations both in civil, and &s;acred u&s;age, is unque&s;tionable. The&s;e terms therefore fal|ling into the que&s;tions, the explication, and limitation of them, to the &s;en&s;e in which we under&s;tand them &s;eems nece&s;&s;ary. An accurate di&s;cour&s;e of a que&s;tion, requires, that no &s;ignification of the terms in it be o|mitted in the Explication. <HI>In plen&acirc; tractatione, vocis di&s;tinctio nunquam e&s;t omittenda</HI> (&s;ay <HI>Logicians.</HI>)</P>
<P N="2">2. For the fir&s;t term therefore [Mini&s;ter] that it is a Latine word, none can doubt, nor that in ordinary u&s;e it &s;ignifies no more that a Servant, one <HI>who worketh for another as his Lord and Ma&s;ter;</HI> &s;o called, either be|cau&s;e he is to his Ma&s;ter <HI>a manibus,</HI> an hand &s;ervant, <HI>qua&s;i mani&s;ter</HI> (as <HI>Perottus</HI> will have it) or becau&s;e he is le&s;s than his Ma&s;ter, <HI>quia minor in &s;tatione;</HI> (which is <HI>I&s;io|dore</HI>'s notion, and preferred by learned <HI>Martinius.</HI>) In this notion the word is frequently u&s;ed by civil and prophane Authors, <HI>Infimi homines mini&s;tros &s;e praebent,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Tully. l.</HI> 1. <HI>de Orat:</HI> and again, <HI>lib. de Amiciti&acirc;, &mdash;Libidinis mini&s;tri,</HI> &s;o <HI>Ovid</HI>
<Q><L>&mdash;illo dicunt Mactata Mini&s;tro</L>
<L>Corpora&mdash;</L></Q></P>
<P N="3">3. The holy Penmen of Scripture, (either moved, from the congruity of the native &s;ignification of the word, or the notion of it accrewing by general u&s;age) have &s;ometimes u&s;ed it to &s;ignifie one <HI>who is the Servant of the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, in the</HI> great work <HI>of Preaching the Go&s;pel;</HI> at le&s;t our tran&s;lators (interpreting what they wrote in another language) have done &s;o. The original words which they have &s;o interpreted are <GAP DESC="foreign">; which are of as various &s;ig|nification,
<PB N="5" REF="21"> and two of them (at lea&s;t) as variou&s;ly appli|ed, by tho&s;e holy Penmen, as the word <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> is by other Authours.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t word,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign"> (which from <GAP DESC="foreign"> properly &s;ignifies, one who roweth in a Boat, or Ship, under ano|ther, and thence any one who is &s;ervant to another) is u&s;ed no le&s;s than 24. or 25. times in the <HI>New Te&s;ta|ment;</HI> and I think, but two of tho&s;e Texts can be in|terpreted of Preachers, they are <HI>Acts</HI> 26.16. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 24.1. In the fir&s;t <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, <HI>God rai&s;ed him to be a Mi|ni&s;ter;</HI> in the latter, they are called <HI>Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t:</HI> for I cannot believe that the phra&s;e, <HI>Lu.</HI> 1.2. can be in|terpreted of Preaching Mini&s;ters (for I think they had no Text before that time) but of &s;ome that were eye and eare-witne&s;&s;es of Chri&s;ts words and actions, and &s;o were Servants to the holy Penmen, in communicating what they &s;aw, and heard, to them. There are indeed two other Texts, which &s;ome may mi&s;take into this &s;en&s;e, <HI>Lu.</HI> 4.20. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.5. In the fir&s;t, it is &s;aid Chri&s;t clozed up the Book, and gave it to the <HI>Mini|&s;ter;</HI> in the latter, <HI>John</HI> is called the Mini&s;ter of <HI>Paul and Barnabas.</HI> Tho&s;e who write about the Jewi&s;h u&s;ages tell us they had an Officer, belonging to the <HI>Temple</HI> (&s;omething I think akin to our Pari&s;h Clerks) who was wont, to bring, and carry away the Book of the Law, to or from the <HI>Prie&s;t</HI> or <HI>Levite,</HI> or other per&s;on that ex|pounded. In all other Texts of the New Te&s;tament, where the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> is u&s;ed,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 26.58. Mar. 14.54.</NOTE> it &s;ignifieth <HI>Civil Offi|cers,</HI> either dome&s;tick, as <HI>Servants;</HI> or <HI>Politick</HI> &s;tate Officers, &s;uch as jailers, pur&s;evants, or the like; in which &s;en&s;e it is u&s;ed near 20. times in the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Greek word is as Equivocal as the other;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> In its <HI>native</HI> force, it &s;ignifies no more than a &s;ervant, call'd &s;o either <GAP DESC="foreign"> (as &s;ome would have it) or which plea&s;eth <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> better, <GAP DESC="foreign"> (a letter only changed according to the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> dialect.) It is in
<PB N="6" REF="22"> Scripture applied to Chri&s;t, <HI>Ro.</HI> 15.8. and the Apo&s;tle (u|&s;ing this word) &s;aith of him, <HI>Is he the Mini&s;ter of &s;in?</HI> 2. <HI>To Magi&s;trates,</HI> Rom. 13.4. To <HI>ordinary Servants</HI> in a Family, <HI>Matth.</HI> 20.26.22.13.23.11. <HI>Mark</HI> 9.35.10.43. <HI>Jo.</HI> 2.5.9. <HI>To any ordinary Chri&s;tian</HI> in regard of his &s;ervice to the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, <HI>John</HI> 12.26. <HI>Phoebe</HI> is call'd thus, <HI>Ro.</HI> 16.1. <HI>Deacons</HI> by O&s;&s;ice, in the Church, have their name from this word, and it is ap|plied to expre&s;s tho&s;e Officers, <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.1. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.8.12. It is al&s;o often applied <HI>to Mini&s;ters in Office to Preach the Go&s;pel.</HI> To <HI>Paul,</HI> and <HI>Apollo,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.5. To <HI>Tychicus,</HI> Eph. 6.21. Col. 4.7. To <HI>Timothy,</HI> 1 The&s;. 3.2. The&s;e again are called <HI>Mini&s;ters of God,</HI> 2 Cor. 6.4. <HI>Of the New Covenant,</HI> 2 Cor. 3.6. <HI>Of Righteou&s;|ne&s;s,</HI> 2 Cor. 11.15. <HI>Of Chri&s;t,</HI> 2 Cor. 11.33. Of the <HI>Church,</HI> 0.0.0.0. Our Brethren, <HI>p.</HI> 2. <HI>tell us,</HI> that <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>is often applied to Saints no Officers.</HI> But as they have quoted only 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.1. for that: &s;o they may con|&s;ider, that no <HI>Preaching Saint,</HI> in Scripture, who was no Officer, was ever &s;o called; though if he had, it had not &s;ignified much as to the pre&s;ent que&s;tion; for any one that &s;erved but his Ma&s;ters Table, was called <GAP DESC="foreign">. And if our Brethren do only urge the com|mon u&s;age of the word, then they do but play with an <HI>Equivocal term.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. What it &s;igni|fies in Scrip|ture.</NOTE>The third word u&s;ed is <GAP DESC="foreign">. The mo&s;t re&s;trained word of the three, both in civil, and al&s;o in &s;acred writ: yet it is applied to the <HI>Civil Magi&s;trate,</HI> Rom. 13.6. To the <HI>Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel,</HI> Rom. 15.16. to a <HI>publick Per&s;on,</HI> but mini&s;tring in a private manner, <HI>Phil.</HI> 2.25. To <HI>Angels,</HI> Heb. 1.7.14. To <HI>Chri&s;t him&s;elf,</HI> Heb. 8.2. Some note, that it is alwayes a title of <HI>publick perfor|mance,</HI> but <HI>Philip.</HI> 2.25. It is otherwi&s;e u&s;ed. Yet there are that think, that <HI>Epaphras</HI> was a Deacon by Office, and in that mini&s;tration to <HI>Paul</HI> &s;o acted; if any credit may be given to civil Authors, for the proper u&s;age of
<PB N="7" REF="22"> this word, it &s;ignifieth, both a <HI>publick office,</HI> and a &s;acred Service. So <HI>Suidas</HI> and <HI>Scapula</HI> a&s;&s;ure me; and the E|tymology of the word as much: It is true, in civil Au|thors, it is &s;ometimes u&s;ed otherwi&s;e, but <HI>Suidas</HI> &s;aith it is abu&s;ively. I think, we may &s;ay there is this difference betwixt this word, and the other; that <HI>whereas other words primarily &s;ignifie, ordinary, private, civil Service, this word ptimarily &s;ignifies &s;acred publick Service;</HI> and in all holy writ, is not applied to a private per&s;on; Sure I am, that Eccle&s;ia&s;tical writers re&s;train it to &s;uch as are employed as publick per&s;ons in &s;acred Services.</P>
<P N="5">5. But, though both <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> in the Latine, and <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the Greek, and <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> in our Engli&s;h tongue, are equivocal terms; Yet we mu&s;t <HI>cum vulgo loqui,</HI> &s;peak according to vulgar u&s;age, not accor|ding to equivocal notions of the word.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gifted men cannot in pro|priety of Speech be called Mini|&s;ters.</NOTE> We will grant to our Brethren, that the per&s;ons they plead for, may be called <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> if they do but wait at their Ma|&s;ters Table, or be but under-Commi&s;&s;ioners to the State, or the like, though they &s;hould never Preach (accor|ding to the &s;ignification of the words) but as the <HI>Church of God,</HI> hath in all late ages u&s;ed the term <HI>Mini|&s;ter,</HI> we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be cal|led a <HI>Mini&s;ter;</HI> we do not deny, but that every General of an army may be called <HI>Imperator;</HI> and was &s;o; but as the term hath lately been u&s;ed, and is u&s;ed, we deny he can be called an Emperour; we do not deny, but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading, may be called <HI>The&s;aurarius</HI> a Trea&s;urer, but we deny he can be called The City <HI>Trea&s;urer;</HI> we do not &s;ay, but our Brethren though not ordained, may be &s;uch Mini&s;ters as you read of, <HI>Luke</HI> 4. <HI>v.</HI> 20. and <HI>Acts</HI> 13.5. but not &s;uch as you read of, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.1. <HI>Acts</HI> 26.16. And (by vulgar u&s;age) &s;uch only (for a long time) have been &s;o called; to di|&s;tingui&s;h per&s;ons in <HI>office,</HI> from &s;uch as only do acts of Service Civil, or Sacted. I mu&s;t confe&s;s, I mu&s;t com|mend
<PB N="8" REF="23"> people, for keeping that term &s;till as di&s;tinctive; if every one &s;hould be called Sir <HI>John,</HI> or Sir <HI>Thomas</HI> &s;uch a one, in time, there would be no difference be|twixt a Knight, and a begger, and names are given for di&s;tinction &s;ake. If one &s;eeing the <HI>Mayor</HI> and <HI>Sheriffs</HI> of <HI>Norwich</HI> going with 8. or 10. Officers, &s;hould &s;ay there goes the <HI>Mayor</HI> with ten Mini&s;ters, or &s;eeing a dozen Ju&s;tices of Peace on the Bench, &s;hould &s;ay, there &s;it a dozen <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> people would not under&s;tand what they &s;aid, and according to vulgar &s;peech, it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment; yet if our Brethrens Argument were good, that gifted men &s;hould be called Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they are called <GAP DESC="foreign">, it would ju&s;tifie that new <HI>dialect</HI> in other things as well as this. For Magi&s;trates are called Mini&s;ters, and Magi|&s;trates Officers are mo&s;t ordinarily in Scripture called <GAP DESC="foreign">. I am much again&s;t this removing of the Anti|ent <HI>Land-Marks,</HI> which the tongues of all men are &s;o well acquainted with; and think it a very ill de&s;ign, which would produce nothing but confu&s;ion. Let our Brethren give us one in&s;tance in Scripture, where a gif|ted man (not ordained) is called a <HI>Mini&s;ter of the Go|&s;pel;</HI> a <HI>Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. to &s;ay they are called Mini&s;ters &s;ignifies not much.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preaching without ordi|nation. p. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Nor will a general cour&s;e of acting,</HI> (as they would hint) entitle them to that name. It is true, con&s;tant <HI>Brewing and Baking</HI> may give one the denomination of a <HI>Brewer or Baker;</HI> for neither of them are <HI>titles of office.</HI> But &s;uppo&s;e now a Rebell &s;hould overcome his Prince, and for &s;even years together, exerci&s;e the Acts of his place, he would not yet by bare acting, be entituled to the name of a <HI>Prince</HI> or <HI>King.</HI> The Conclu&s;ion is, that Gifted men cannot in a &s;trict and proper &s;en&s;e, according to later ages re|&s;triction and con&s;tant u&s;age of the word <HI>Mini&s;ter,</HI> be called <HI>Mini&s;ters;</HI> they may be called <HI>Speakers if you plea&s;e.</HI></P>
<PB N="9" REF="23">
<P>Having hitherto con&s;idered the notation of the word <HI>Mini&s;ter,</HI> and of the Greek words &s;o tran&s;lated;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Second Term, Mini&s;try.</NOTE> let me in the next place con&s;ider what the term <HI>Mini&s;try</HI> im|ports. And this al&s;o we &s;hall find <HI>Homonymous.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Every one will conclude, that if <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifie a Mini&s;ter; <GAP DESC="foreign">, mu&s;t needs &s;ignifie their &s;ervice or mini&s;tration; and the&s;e are the words which the Holy Gho&s;t u&s;eth to ex|pre&s;s that in Scripture, which we tran&s;late Mini&s;try, I mean two of them, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">, the fir&s;t onely in <HI>Luk.</HI> 1. to expre&s;s <HI>Zacharies</HI> &s;ervice in the Temple, the latter very often, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.12. <HI>Col.</HI> 4.17. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.5, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And indeed I think, this is the mo&s;t frequent u&s;age of the term Mini&s;try in Scripture, to &s;ignifie the <HI>work or &s;ervice</HI> of tho&s;e per&s;ons who are called Mini&s;ters, <HI>Acts</HI> 1.17, 25. <HI>Acts</HI> 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.1.5.18. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.12. <HI>Col.</HI> 4.17. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.5, 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the &s;ervice that the Mini&s;ters of the Go|&s;pel perform in Preaching, admini&s;tring Sacraments, &amp;c. Twice for the Service of tho&s;e Officers in the Church, who more &s;trictly are called <HI>Deacons,</HI> Rom. 12.7. 1 Cor. 16.15. (though there be &s;ome que&s;tion upon that Text:) So Chri&s;ts execution of his Prie&s;tly Office is called a more excellent <HI>Mini&s;try.</HI> And the old &s;ervice of the Prie&s;ts and Levites, is called <HI>a Mini&s;try,</HI> Heb. 9.21. But in this &s;en&s;e, I take not Mini&s;try in the Que&s;tion: yet if our Brethren contend for words, I can &s;tate the que&s;tion &s;o, <HI>viz. Whether that work of the Mini&s;try, which the Scripture mentioneth, eon&s;i&s;ting in the Preaching of the Go&s;pel,</HI> be the work of per&s;ons meerly gifted.</P>
<P N="2">2. But there is another u&s;age of the word, which u&s;e at lea&s;t hath procured it, according to which, we call the Mini&s;try, <HI>A certain order of per&s;ons, &s;et apart according to the will of God, for the di&s;pen&s;ing out of Publick Go&s;pel Ordinances.</HI> In Analogy to the de&s;cription of the High
<PB N="10" REF="24"> Prie&s;t, de&s;cribed <HI>Heb.</HI> 5. v. 1. You may take the de&s;crip|tion thus. <HI>The Mini&s;ter is one taken from among&s;t men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, for the di&s;pen&s;ation of Publick Ordinances;</HI> and <HI>mini&s;terium</HI> is but a collective term, as we call the company of Magi|&s;tates, the Magi&s;tracy of a Nation; So we call the com|pany of Mini&s;ters, <HI>the Mini&s;try.</HI> So <HI>Aretius, Bucanus, &V;r&s;in,</HI> &amp;c. So <HI>Martinius, mini&s;terium e&s;t ip&s;e quoque mi|ni&s;ter.</HI> So <HI>Ravanella, Munus vel functio</HI> vocatur <HI>mini|&s;terium,</HI> for which he quotes many Texts of Scripture; and &s;o interpreteth many of tho&s;e I before cited; the 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.3. and that in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 12. &s;eem very inclina|ble to this interpretation.</P>
<P>And here again, our Brethren &s;eem to play with an equivocall term, when they tell us, that the &s;peaking of gifted Brethren may be called <HI>Mini&s;try, for there is mi|ni&s;tration in their &s;ervice;</HI> &s;o there is too in their Ser|vants 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 <HI>Work of the Mini&s;try;</HI> which yet follows by the &s;ame argument. If our Brethren &s;ay, that the gifted per&s;ons mini&s;ter un|to the Church, &s;o doth he that &s;weeps the Church; yet his work is not <HI>the work of the Mini&s;try,</HI> as we have learned to &s;peak. If they &s;ay, they mini&s;ter unto Chri&s;t, <HI>Sub judice lis e&s;t;</HI> That que&s;tion is yet to di&s;pute upon the Apo&s;tles maxim, <HI>His Servants you are whom you o|bey;</HI> and it is &s;till to be argued betwixt them and us, whether in their mini&s;tration, they obey the commands of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, yea or no.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Third Term.</NOTE>The third and la&s;t term is that of <HI>Office;</HI> A term as ambiguous as any other, it comes from the Latine word <HI>Officium.</HI> Hee that will look that word in <HI>Martinius</HI> his <HI>Lexicon Philologicum,</HI> will find at lea&s;t eight &s;ignifi|cations of it. Our Brethren of <HI>London,</HI> in their <HI>Jus divinum mini&s;terii Evangelici,</HI> p. 3. have given us a de|&s;cription
<PB N="11" REF="24"> of it, &s;o far as to limit it from <HI>homonymie,</HI> and to give the &s;en&s;e of it in the pre&s;ent que&s;tion, which de&s;cription, our other di&s;&s;enting Brethren have faithfully tran&s;cribed thus.</P>
<Q>The Office of the Mini&s;try is a &s;pirtual relation to the whole employment of the Mini&s;try, in a per&s;on qualified, founded upon a &s;peciall and regular call.</Q>
<P>Our Brethren, <HI>p.</HI> 3. apprehend this to be faulty, and they declare their di&s;&s;ent, and the grounds of it, becau&s;e (as they rightly apprehend) much of the controver&s;ie hangs upon this hinge.</P>
<P>They grant that <HI>Office is a relation with re&s;pect to an employment as its end.</HI></P>
<P><Q>But that it is a relation to the employment of the Mi|ni&s;try as its <HI>Correlate</HI> they deny; the <HI>Church</HI> they &s;ay is the <HI>Correlate;</HI> and they &s;ay, the <HI>London</HI> Mini&s;ters confe&s;s this, <HI>p.</HI> 151. where they &s;ay the Mini&s;ter hath a relation to the Catholick, as well as to the particu-Church, &s;o that they &s;eem to contradict them&s;elves.</Q> This is the &s;ub&s;tance of what they &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 4. Whence they propound to &s;peak to two que&s;tions.</P>
<Q><P N="1"><Q><HI>1.</HI> Whether Office be a relation, to the work of the Mini&s;try, or to the Church.</Q></P>
<P N="2"><Q><HI>2.</HI> Whether Office hath relation, to the Church uni|ver&s;al, or to the particular Church.</Q></P></Q>
<P>They are (both of them) very important que&s;tions. To the fir&s;t of them our Brethren &s;peak, <HI>Chap.</HI> 1. where they undertake to prove, <HI>That the Office of the Mini|&s;try, is not a Correlate to the work of the Mini&s;try, But to the Church;</HI> and this they endeavour by four Argu|ments.</P>
<P>That the Office of the Mini&s;try doth correlate to the per&s;ons towards whom it is to be executed, is mo&s;t free|ly on our parts confe&s;&s;ed: But that it &s;hould be no cor|relate to the work, is (I confe&s;s) &s;uch an ab&s;urdity in
<PB N="12" REF="25"> my ears, as will offer too much injury (I think) to com|mon &s;en&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Officium e&s;t re|latio per&s;onae, ad certi operis nece&s;&s;ariam effectionem. Martinii Lex. Philol. ad verbum Offici|um.</NOTE> Learned <HI>Martinius,</HI> (if this be an errour) is in the &s;ame mi&s;take with our Brethren in <HI>London;</HI> he &s;ayes <HI>in terminis,</HI> that an <HI>Office is the relation of a per&s;on to the doing of a certain work.</HI> If I remember my Logick right, tho&s;e things are <HI>Relations, which either have their whole being in their re&s;pect to another, or any other way referred to it;</HI> this I learned out of <HI>Ari&s;totle, Burgef|decius,</HI> &amp;c. now <HI>Cui convenit definitio, ei convenit defini|tum,</HI> if the definition of <HI>Relations</HI> will agree to the <HI>Of|fice of the Mini&s;try and the work,</HI> they mu&s;t be <HI>Relati|ons,</HI> or el&s;e we under&s;tand not our Brethrens meaning. I then thus argue for our Brethren of <HI>London</HI> (to main|tain their skill in Logick.)</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Arg."> <HI> If the Office of the Mini&s;try either hath its whole be|ing in relation to the work, or be any other way referred to the work; Then the Office and employment according to Logick are relations.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But the Office, and work of the Mini&s;try, have at lea&s;t one of the&s;e references each to another.&mdash; Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>If our Brethren deny the Major, they deny the Logi|cal de&s;cription of <HI>Relations;</HI> and &s;o can build no argu|ments from the <HI>Canons</HI> of Logicians about them.</P>
<P>If they &s;ay the <HI>Office</HI> neither hath its whole <HI>being</HI> in the work, <HI>nor is any other way</HI> related to it, I think they deny common &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> Again, <HI>The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the &s;ubject is terminated: But the Office of the Mini&s;try is terminated in the work;</HI> Therefore the work is its <HI>Cor|relate.</HI> If our Brethren deny the <HI>Major,</HI> they again deny all <HI>Logick.</HI> If they deny the <HI>minor,</HI> it is that which every one apprehends; and it is all one, as to deny the <HI>Sun &s;hineth at noon day.</HI></P>
<P>But our Brethren having brought us four Arguments, it is fit we &s;hould examine them. For the fir&s;t they &s;ay, the work cannot be a Correlate to the Office, <Q>Becau&s;e
<PB N="13" REF="25"> <HI>Relations cannot be &s;eparated;</HI> they are <HI>&s;imul natur&acirc;,</HI> take away one, and you mu&s;t take away the other: but the work of the Mini&s;try, by the &s;ickne&s;s, death, im|pri&s;onment, or rejection of the Mini&s;ter may cea&s;e; and yet according to our principles, the office doth not cea&s;e, a man is a Mini&s;ter in office, though he can|not do the work. Hence they ob&s;erve, that whereas our Brethren of <HI>London,</HI> thought that by fixing the relation between the work and the office (becau&s;e, a Mini&s;ter may be &s;eparated from his Church) they had &s;ecured the permanency of the office. The&s;e <HI>Bre|thren</HI> think, that they have deeply fallen into the &s;ame pit, becau&s;e the <HI>work may cea&s;e.</HI></Q> This is the &s;ub|&s;tance of <HI>p.</HI> 5. which in form, is thus.</P>
<Q><P>Relations and Correlations, exi&s;t and peri&s;h toge|ther.</P>
<P>But <HI>(according to your principle)</HI> &s;o do not the of|fice and work of the Mini&s;try. <HI>Therefore they are no relations.</HI>&mdash;</P></Q>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> they &s;ay, is the Certain rule of <HI>Relations,</HI> (in Logick.)</P>
<P>The minor they prove, becau&s;e we will not &s;ay, the office of the Mini&s;try in a man cea&s;eth, when he is kept from doing his work by &s;ickne&s;s, impri&s;onment, bani&s;h|ment, rejection, &amp;c. I an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. They call the major, the <HI>Certain rule of Relations.</HI> But neither tell us <HI>of what Relations,</HI> nor in what &s;en&s;e, Logicians under&s;tand that rule and rea&s;on will enforce for the under&s;tanding. I will therefore tell them, we know our Brethren are not to learn, that Relations are of two &s;orts. The fir&s;t Logicians call <HI>Relata &s;ecundum e&s;|&s;e,</HI> real relations. Such, who&s;e whole being (as relations) lye in their relation; &s;uch are the Relations of <HI>Father</HI> and <HI>Son, Hu&s;band</HI> and <HI>Wife, Ma&s;ter</HI> and <HI>Servant.</HI> The Father (as a Father) hath no other being, but in his re|lation to a Son, and &s;o of the re&s;t; this is called <HI>Relatio
<PB N="14" REF="26"> praedicamentalis,</HI> of the&s;e Relations, their rule (rightly under&s;tood) is true.</P>
<P N="2">2. But &s;econdly, there are other <HI>Relations</HI> too, cal|led in Logick, <HI>Relata &s;ecundum dici,</HI> nominal relations, yet &s;uch as have a reality of Relation, but not &s;uch a one, that all the being of the Relations (as &s;uch) is wrapt up in their relation; this relation they call <HI>Rela|tio tran&s;cendentalis:</HI> As now, <HI>Scibile &amp; Scientia,</HI> A thing to be known, and the knowledge of this thing are relations; and in&s;tanced in as &s;uch by mo&s;t Logicians.</P>
<P>Yet neither the one, nor the other of the&s;e relations, have all their being in their relations. Of the&s;e Relati|ons, we &s;ay (and all &s;ay) the <HI>Rule is fal&s;e,</HI> and rea&s;on will enforce it. For example. This 20^t^h of <HI>Jan.</HI> there is a knowledge exi&s;tent <HI>of the nature of an Eclyp&s;e,</HI> but the <HI>Eclyp&s;e</HI> which is the thing to be known is not ex|i&s;tent. The knowledge of the nature of <HI>thunder</HI> is ex|i&s;tent: But it doth not thunder. So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a &s;uppo&s;ition, that we &s;ay, the of|fice and the work are <HI>Relata &s;ecundum e&s;&s;e,</HI> Relations of the fir&s;t &s;ort, but we are not of that mind; for we think, the whole e&s;&s;ence of office lyeth not in its Rela|tion; But in <HI>that authority,</HI> wherewith the per&s;on is <HI>clothed by his ordination,</HI> which holds when his per&s;on is re&s;trained from the exerci&s;e of it.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>2.</HI> In eodem enti|talis gradu vel ut Ens in actu, vel ut Ens in pote&s;tate. Zabarel.</NOTE>Secondly, &s;aith <HI>Zabarel,</HI> the Rule is true, that Rela|tions exi&s;t and peri&s;h together, as to the &s;ame degree of being. A man is not actually an Officer, when he can|not do his Office, but the <HI>habit</HI> remaines in him &s;o long as there is a po&s;&s;ibility that he may one day do it. The <HI>Mayor of Norwich,</HI> is my Lord Protectors Officer, for the Government of the City; and none in their &s;ober mind, but will &s;ay, he is <HI>Mayor,</HI> and the government of the City are related each to other. Suppo&s;e the <HI>Mayor</HI> now &s;ick, or in pri&s;on, is he not an officer, be|cau&s;e at pre&s;ent he cannot execute his Office? Accor|ding
<PB N="15" REF="26"> to the fir&s;t an&s;wer, we deny the major; and by vertue of the &s;econd, we deny the minor. And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclu&s;ion.</P>
<P>Hence (Chri&s;tian Reader) thou maye&s;t &s;ee our Bre|thren deal not kindly with thee, when they tell thee, <Q>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 Mini&s;ter, who hath no employment.</Q> For the&s;e are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an <HI>officer and his work.</HI> A <HI>Father,</HI> (as he is a Father) is a thing hath no being without a child; and &s;o cannot be: but an officer, if at pre&s;ent he hath no work, yet hath (as an officer) an authority and power to do &s;uch a work, when he hath opportunity. I would fain know of our Brethren, whe|ther a man may not be in the office of a <HI>Colonel,</HI> though at pre&s;ent, he hath neither men to make up a Regiment, nor con&s;equently the government of them: It is his Commi&s;&s;ion makes him an Officer, and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment, and execute his authority, as &s;oon as he hath opportunity. Neither do we &s;ay, a man can be no officer, who hath no employment, but we &s;ay, a man may be an officer, who at pre&s;ent may want oppor|tunity to do what is his employment, and he is by his office authorized unto. And now I &s;uppo&s;e, every Rea|der will under&s;tand the weakne&s;s of our Brethrens fir&s;t Argument, which Logicians call a fallacy <HI>A dicto &s;e|cundum quid, ad dictum &s;impliciter:</HI> Their &s;econd Argu|ment is in &s;um this.</P>
<P><Q>Relations and Correlations exi&s;t together; but the of|fice <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be before the work; becau&s;e it is a means in order to the end. Therefore the office of the Mi|ni&s;try and the work cannot be Correlates.</Q></P>
<P>The <HI>Reader</HI> will ea&s;ily &s;ee the bottom of this Argu|ment is the &s;ame <HI>Canon</HI> in Logick, which was the foun|dation of the other Argument. We grant that the of|fice
<PB N="16" REF="27"> is a means, in order to the work as its end; and we &s;ay, that the office mu&s;t be before, the work. But we &s;ay, the&s;e are no &s;uch relations as mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be <HI>Si|mul Natur&acirc;,</HI> and exi&s;t together; except they mean <HI>in eodem entitatis gradu,</HI> and &s;o <HI>&s;unt &s;imul,</HI> they are toge|ther, though they do not <HI>exi&s;t</HI> together; con&s;ider them as <HI>Entia in pote&s;tate,</HI> they are <HI>Simul Natura,</HI> and &s;o it is not nece&s;&s;ary, that the means &s;hould be before the End; In &s;hort the very &s;ame an&s;wer &s;erveth as before.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Arg."> Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus.</P>
<Q><P>That which the Go&s;pel owneth as the Correlate to the Mini&s;ters office, that is the Correlate.</P>
<P>But the Go&s;pel owns the Church, not the work, as Cor|relate to the office. &mdash;<HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>The <HI>major</HI> we confe&s;s, but &s;ay there wants a word in it. That which [alone] the Go&s;pel owns, is the only Correlate.</P>
<P>The <HI>minor</HI> we deny, we confe&s;s that the Go&s;pel owns the <HI>Church</HI> as a Correlate to the office of the Mini&s;try, <HI>Acts</HI> 20.27. But we &s;ay, it owns the work too, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. he gave &s;ome Apo&s;tles, &mdash;&s;ome Pa&s;tors and Teachers. &mdash; <HI>For the work of the Mini&s;try;</HI> and I hope, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4. is as much Go&s;pel, as <HI>Acts</HI> 20.17. Our Brethren &s;ay here again, <HI>That Officers are not related to the Em|ployment of the Mini&s;try.</HI> Chri&s;tian Reader, it mu&s;t &s;ure|ly offend thy Eares, &s;urely we would not much de&s;ire &s;uch Officers. The truth is, they do <HI>Dividere componen|da,</HI> which is a fallacy in Logick. Officers are related to <HI>Church, and work</HI> too; and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a de&s;ire, to make the world believe our Brethren at <HI>London</HI> were no Logici|ans, they would have acknowledged it with half this &s;tir.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="4" UNIT="Arg."> Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form, lyes thus.</P>
<P><HI>If the names and titles given to Mini&s;ters in Scripture, be &s;uch as proclume them relates, to the Church, not to the work, then they are &s;o related.</HI></P>
<PB N="17" REF="27">
<P><HI>But the names and titles given to Mini&s;ters in Scrip|ture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church</HI> are <HI>re|lates,</HI> not <HI>officer and imployment.</HI> &mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>To prove the minor they in&s;tance in the titles of <HI>Pa|&s;tors, Teachers,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="1">1. To all which we an&s;wer, 1. That it is a feeble <HI>ar|gumentation</HI> which is drawn from names and titles, <HI>de|finitio nominis</HI> doth onely terminate the que&s;tion <HI>quid nominis,</HI> not the que&s;tion <HI>quid rei;</HI> the definition of a name is not alwayes <HI>adequate</HI> to the definition of a thing, <HI>Notatio &s;aepe e&s;t inadaequata, modo latior, modo an|gu&s;ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">r</HI> (&s;aith the Logician.) But,</P>
<P N="2">2. Except our Brethren will have their major under|&s;tood univer&s;ally, <HI>viz. All the titles, and all the names,</HI> we conceive their Argument very faulty: for becau&s;e the name of the <HI>Mayor</HI> is a relate only to the Aldermen and City, it doth not follow, but that his title of <HI>Ju&s;tice of the Peace,</HI> hath <HI>the keeping of the Peace,</HI> and the Sta|tutes concerning Ju&s;tices, for the Correlate; or but that his title as the <HI>Deputy Lieutenant</HI> to the chief Magi|&s;trate, intimates him to have the &s;upreme Magi&s;trate as his Correlate.</P>
<P N="3">3. If our Brethren do &s;ay, that <HI>all their titles have the Church only as their Correlate;</HI> we &s;hall de&s;ire by the next to know, whether their title of <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign"> Criers or <HI>Preachers,</HI> in the following Texts, have the Church only for their Correlate, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.7. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.11. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2 5. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.14. <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.15. Nor will it &s;erve our Brethrens turn, to &s;ay, <HI>that</HI> if the Que&s;tion be asked, <HI>To whom are they Officers? the an&s;wer mu&s;t be, to the Church</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1. For fir&s;t the an&s;wer may be mo&s;t pro|perly to Je&s;us Chri&s;t 2.</NOTE> Suppo&s;e the que&s;tion be asked, <HI>what is their office? for what work is the office ordained?</HI> The an&s;wer mu&s;t be, for the Preaching of the Go&s;pel, for the work of the Mini&s;try. The truth is, The work is <HI>objectum quod,</HI> the Church is <HI>objectum cui,</HI> Both the Church, and the imployment are the Correlates to this
<PB N="18" REF="28"> Relation, the Church are the Correlated per&s;ons, the work of the Mini&s;try, is the <HI>Correlated thing.</HI> So that our Brethren do but fancy a contradiction in our Re|verend Brethren of <HI>London;</HI> for both the Church, and the Employment are Correlates.</P>
<P>Nay (under favour) not the <HI>Church</HI> alone, but every rational &s;ublunary creature is the <HI>Correlate</HI> of the of|fice of the Mini&s;try, as to Preaching. The office of the Mini&s;try was in&s;tituted, as well for the gathering of the Saints, as for the edifying of them; as well for the per|fecting of their number, as for the perfecting of their graces. <HI>Till we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13.</P>
<P>We can never believe, that when the Church &s;ends out one to Preach the Go&s;pel to heathens, that per&s;on Preacheth only as a <HI>gifted Brother,</HI> but as an officer of the Go&s;pel: Nay more, God him&s;elf is the <HI>Correlate to this office;</HI> and therefore they are called <HI>the Mini&s;ters of God;</HI> the <HI>Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t;</HI> not Elders of the Church only, or <HI>Mini&s;ters of the Church;</HI> they are Gods <HI>Mini&s;ters in the Church,</HI> and the <HI>Mini&s;ters of the Gospel,</HI> in, and for the Church, and world too. Let our Brethren &s;hew us but one Scripture, where a Prea|ching Mini&s;ter is called <GAP DESC="foreign">; or <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign">, The Mini&s;ter of the Church. We can &s;hew them many, where they are called the Mini&s;ters of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> of <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;s, of the Go&s;pel of Chri&s;t.</HI> Now it is a rule, <HI>Relata reciprocantur,</HI> a Father is called the Father of &s;uch a Son, and the Son is called the Son of &s;uch a Father. But I &s;ay, our Brethren &s;peak no <HI>Scrip|ture phra&s;e,</HI> when they call <HI>Mini&s;ters (i. e.</HI> Preaching Mini&s;ters) Mini&s;ters of &s;uch a Church; they are the Mini&s;ters of God, and his Go&s;pel in &s;uch a Church; and they have &s;ome relation to the Church, but not a more relation than they have to the work; they are call'd Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, and the Go&s;pel is called
<PB N="19" REF="28"> their Go&s;pel; <HI>My Go&s;pel,</HI> &s;aith <HI>Paul</HI> twice; here is a plain reciprocation; let them &s;hew us the like, if they can, for their a&s;&s;ertion; otherwi&s;e we hope, our Chri&s;ti|an friends will hardly be induced by &s;uch kind of argu|mentation as this is, to believe the office of the Mini&s;try is not related to the work of the Mini&s;try, but only to the per&s;ons whom the mini&s;tation doth concern.</P>
<P>And I earne&s;tly be&s;eech our Brethren, that they would not indeavour to abu&s;e &s;imple &s;oules with the&s;e wofull <HI>fallacies,</HI> which have not (as you &s;ee) the lea&s;t foundation; either in Scripture, rea&s;on, or u&s;age of any approved Authors.</P>
<P>In the mean time, we will grant them, that there is a relation betwixt the office of the Mini&s;try and the <HI>Church</HI> in which they execute their office.</P>
<P>But if we would grant our <HI>Brethren,</HI> that the office of the Mini&s;try is a <HI>Correlate,</HI> not to the work, but to the Church, I perceive this would not give them &s;atisfa|ction; unle&s;s we would al&s;o yield them, that it is a <HI>Cor|relate</HI> only to a <HI>particular Church,</HI> In oppo&s;ition, not only to the <HI>Church Catholick invi&s;ible,</HI> viz. the whole number of the Elect &s;cattered abroad; But to the <HI>Church Catholick vi&s;ible,</HI> in any notion.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Preacher &s;ent chap. 2.</NOTE> This they now come to a&s;&s;ert <HI>Chap.</HI> 2. This indeed is the great <HI>Dia|na-Notion,</HI> but we can by no meanes bow down unto it. And therefore, that's the next thing we mu&s;t bring to trial. Only before we do it, Give me leave to inform our Brethren, in our notion of a Church; though I &s;hall better do it, when I &s;hall return to an&s;wer their Epi&s;tle.</P>
<P>The word, which we tran&s;late Church, is <GAP DESC="foreign">;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Coetus evoca|tus voce prae|conis.&mdash;</NOTE> of which our Brethren can make no advantage, either from the <HI>Etymologie,</HI> or from the <HI>u&s;age</HI> of it in Scrip|ture; according to the fir&s;t, it &s;ignifies no more, than a company <HI>called out;</HI> it is both u&s;ed by the Seventy inter|preters, to expre&s;s the <HI>congregation of evil doers,</HI> P&s;al. 26.5. And by the Evangeli&s;t <HI>Luke,</HI> to expre&s;s a rout,
<PB N="20" REF="29"> neither lawfully a&s;&s;embled, nor yet <HI>united,</HI> Acts 19.32. This word (in it &s;elf as unhallowed as any other) the penmen of Scripture have indeed u&s;ed to expre&s;s the <HI>numbers, company,</HI> or <HI>Companies,</HI> of tho&s;e whom God hath either called out of this world to heaven, <HI>Heb.</HI> 12 23. Or out of the <HI>Pagani&s;h world</HI> to the profe&s;&s;ion of his go&s;pel, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. Or out of a &s;tate of dark|ne&s;s into a marvelous light</P>
<P>Hence the Church in a &s;acred &s;en&s;e is u&s;ually di&s;tingui&s;hed into
<LIST>
<ITEM>Invi&s;ible.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Vi&s;ible.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The <HI>invi&s;ible Church</HI> is either
<LIST>
<ITEM>Triumphant in heaven,</ITEM>
<ITEM>or Militant here upon the Earth.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The <HI>Vi&s;ible Church</HI> is either
<LIST>
<ITEM>Univer&s;al, or</ITEM>
<ITEM>Particular.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>By the Church univer&s;al, <HI>quatenus</HI> vi&s;ible, we mean <HI>The whole number of people, over the face of the Earth, called out of the Pagani&s;h world, to the owning of the go&s;|pel of Chri&s;t;</HI> which being an integral Body, con&s; &s;ting of <HI>homogeneous</HI> members, or parts, each part beareth the denomination of the whole; hence that part of this bo|dy which is in a <HI>Nation, Province, pari&s;h,</HI> &amp;c. is properly called the <HI>Church</HI> of God, in &s;uch a <HI>Region, Nation, Province, pari&s;h, &amp;c.</HI> Thus <HI>Paul</HI> is &s;aid to per&s;ecute the Church, <HI>Acts.</HI> 8.3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.13. that is, all that own+ned the go&s;pel, whether in <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> or in <HI>Dama&s;cus,</HI> or the <HI>&s;trange Cities,</HI> Acts 8. chap. 9. chap 26.11. all that called on <HI>Chri&s;ts name,</HI> whom he could come near, <HI>Acts</HI> 9.14.</P>
<P>Now be&s;ides the&s;e more general di&s;tributions of a Church, the Church as <HI>Vi&s;ible,</HI> is capable of &s;everal <HI>&s;tates,</HI> from whence ari&s;e 3 other notions of it.</P>
<P N="1">1. There is a more imperfect &s;tate of it as con&s;idered without <HI>Officers,</HI> this Divines call an <HI>Entitive</HI> or <HI>Mate|rial</HI> Church, which is nothing el&s;e, but any <HI>particular number,</HI> any part of that company before mentioned,
<PB N="21" REF="29"> who are found in any <HI>Nation, Province, City, Pari&s;h,</HI> &s;o called out of the pagani&s;h world, agreeing in the profe&s;&s;ion of the Go&s;pel. In this &s;en&s;e I allwaies thought, that we and our brethren of the congregatio|nal per&s;wa&s;ion had been agreed, that there are National, Provincial, and Parochial Churches.</P>
<P N="2">2. There is a &s;econd notion of the Church, re&s;ulting from the con&s;ideration of this body, as having &s;ome <HI>&s;et over it</HI> clothed with the authority of the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, authorized as his emba&s;&s;adours to preach the Go&s;pel, and to Baptize, &amp;c.</P>
<P>To open this notion a little. We con&s;ider, that it &s;eemed good to the wi&s;dome of God, to commi&s;&s;ionate certain per&s;ons to preach the go&s;pel, that by it the peo|ple of God might be <HI>gathered together in one;</HI> Hence Chri&s;t when hee a&s;cended up on high, gave gifts unto men, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. He gave &s;ome <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> the&s;e were to lay the foundation, and then <HI>Prophets,</HI> the&s;e were to be In&s;trumental in the building. And by the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> he con&s;tituted <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> (who were as to power) little le&s;s than <HI>Provincial Apo&s;tles,</HI> and by the&s;e <HI>Pa&s;tors and tea|chers:</HI> Hence the Apo&s;tles created <HI>Evangeli&s;ts, Philip, Timothy, Titus;</HI> and both the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and the&s;e <HI>Evan|geli&s;ts,</HI> ordained <HI>Pa&s;tors,</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. by fa&s;ting, prayer and impo&s;ition of hands, and in the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> (containing the &s;tanding rules, for the &s;ettling of <HI>Churchs,</HI> in their per|manent &s;tate) <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets</HI> and <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> being &s;hortly to cea&s;e) rules are given for the con&s;titution of the&s;e officers to the end of the world; now when in any place, God hath called a people from <HI>Pagani&s;m</HI> to the profe&s;&s;ion of his Go&s;pel, and &s;et over that people any of the&s;e per&s;ons &s;et apart for the preaching of the Go&s;pell, we &s;ay there is in &s;uch a Nation, Province, City, Pari&s;h, a <HI>Mini&s;terial Church,</HI> which is a &s;tate of of the Church more perfect than the former, and diffe|ring
<PB N="22" REF="30"> from it, we (I &s;ay) for di&s;tinction &s;ake) call it a Mi|ni&s;terial Church.</P>
<P><HI>That is a Company of people called out of the Pagan world to an owning of the Go&s;pel of Chri&s;t, among whom al&s;o, are &s;ome clothed with the authority of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, for the preaching of the Go&s;pel,</HI> and <HI>admini&s;tration of the Sacraments.</HI> According to that commi&s;&s;ion, <HI>Go Preach and Baptize.</HI> Indeed as to the admini&s;tration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in regard that none are to be admitted to it but &s;uch as can <HI>examine them|&s;elves,</HI> and the &s;teward of Chri&s;ts <HI>my&s;teries mu&s;t be faith|full,</HI> in order to which, there mu&s;t be an act of <HI>Judg|ment</HI> pa&s;s upon the Receiver, which is <HI>jurisdiction;</HI> and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical <HI>jurisdiction</HI> is no where committed to a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ingle per&s;on, it &s;eems that in &s;uch a Church (according to perfect rules) it cannot be admini&s;tred, except there be more than one <HI>officer,</HI> nay I think there &s;hould be &s;ome <HI>Ruling Elders</HI> or a <HI>Ruling Elder</HI> at lea&s;t concurr in this judgment; yet <HI>Number</HI> making a <HI>Church,</HI> in ca&s;e <HI>Ruling Elders</HI> cannot be had, I conceive in ca&s;e there be more than one <HI>Teaching Elder in a Church</HI> (who all|&s;o are ruling) or in ca&s;e 2 or 3 &s;uch particular churches can in &s;uch extraordinary ca&s;es unite, they may al&s;o ordinarily admini&s;ter that Ordinance. Nay farther, in &s;uch an extraordinary ca&s;e which is the pre&s;ent ca&s;e of many in England this day, I think an extraordinary power may be by <HI>one a&s;&s;umed,</HI> rather than people &s;hould want that Ordinance, as in <HI>Hezekiah's</HI> pa&s;&s;eover, the <HI>Levites</HI> for <HI>every one not clean</HI> killed the pa&s;&s;eover, which el&s;e had been again&s;t Gods order. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 30.17. <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.3, 4, 5, 6.</P>
<P N="3">3. But la&s;tly, the mo&s;t perfect notion of a particular Church, is <HI>when it is perfectly Organized.</HI> A particular <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">hurch con&s;idered in relation to the Univer&s;al, is any <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> of it, whether that in a <HI>Nation, Province, Pari&s;h,</HI> or <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">he like, each of the&s;e is but a particular, becau&s;e no
<PB N="23" REF="30"> more than a <HI>part of the wh le.</HI> But we u&s;ually take <HI>par|ticular</HI> in a more re&s;trained notion, For <HI>that part of this univer&s;al company which can, or may, or doth, ordinarily meet together in one place at the &s;ame numerical admini|&s;trations;</HI> or <HI>who have by an explicit or implicit con&s;ent cho&s;en,</HI> or <HI>&s;ubmitted to the &s;ame officers, as tho&s;e whom God hath &s;et over their &s;ouls,</HI> and this is a Church perfe|ctly <HI>Organized,</HI> and the mo&s;t perfect notion of a <HI>parti|cular Church.</HI> This Church either without <HI>officers,</HI> or <HI>with,</HI> is the onely Church our Brethren can &s;ee (wee hope the fault is in their eyes)</P>
<P>Now the que&s;tion is, whether he that is a preaching Elder in &s;uch 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, o|ver which they are (re&s;pectively) more e&s;pecially &s;et, be|cau&s;e they cannot watch over all, &amp;c. We affirm they have, and in this &s;en&s;e we a&s;&s;ert, not onely a <HI>Church Catholike Vi&s;ible,</HI> but a <HI>Church Catholike Vi&s;ible Or|ganical</HI> too. By which we mean not, (what our bre|thren dream of) viz. <HI>An &V;niver&s;al vi&s;ible &s;ociety of Chri&s;tians, actually &s;ubjected to one or more &V;niver&s;al Pa&s;tors,</HI> or <HI>guides, from whom &s;ubordinates mu&s;t derive their office, and power, and with whom they mu&s;t &s;ome|times meet, and communicate in &s;ome general &s;acred things, which may make them as</HI> the <HI>Jewes one Church, and which &s;ame general acts, or &s;acred &s;ervices,</HI> can only be performed by that <HI>&V;niver&s;al head,</HI> or tho&s;e <HI>&V;ni|ver&s;al officers.</HI> No Nor, that all the whole Church &s;hould be &s;ubject to one <HI>Grand &s;enate</HI> of officers erect|ed and con&s;tantly &s;itting: Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> hath in our names long &s;ince di&s;owned this &s;ame <HI>Abominable thing.</HI> Our Brethren indeed, dre&s;s up &s;ome in this dre&s;s to the world, and &s;hew them for <HI>Pre&s;byterians.</HI> But we defie their notion of a <HI>Church Catholike</HI> in this &s;en&s;e; and &s;ay
<PB N="24" REF="31"> that it is but an odious repre&s;entation, nothing corre|&s;ponding to our principles. Our Brethren do, or may know, we are equally (with them&s;elves) engaged, a|gain&s;t <HI>Popes, Patriarchs, Arch-Bi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops,</HI> with all the re&s;t of tho&s;e Antichri&s;tian Derivatives; And learned Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> hath long &s;ince told our Brethren, that by <HI>Church Catholick vi&s;ible Organical</HI> we mean no other than,</P>
<Q><P>An habitual, Politico-Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;ociety, body, flock, in one and the &s;ame &s;heepfold of the Militant Church; in uniform &s;ubjection to the &s;ame Lord, the &s;ame lawes, united in the &s;ame Faith, and under the &s;ame Bapti&s;m, performing the &s;ame wor&s;hip&punc; and &s;er|vice,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mr. <HI>Hud&s;ons</HI> vindicati|on, &amp;c. p. 127. &amp;c.</NOTE> in kind, concerning which body we &s;ay, that al|though the members of it be di&s;per&s;ed far and wide, and divided into &s;everal parts, places, &s;ocieties, and &s;econdary combinations of vicinities, or Pari&s;hes, for actual, con&s;tant enjoyment of Ordinances, (as parti|cular Corporations, in a Kingdom are) yet &s;till, tho&s;e Ordinances, admini&s;trations, admi&s;&s;ions, 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, a|ny company of Chri&s;tians may, though every per&s;on &s;o meeting (and that but occa&s;ionally) may be of a &s;everal particular Church; and the Mini&s;ter di&s;pen|&s;ing a particular Pa&s;tor to none of them all: yea, though none of them all be fixed members to any particular Congregation; nor the Mini&s;ter di&s;pen&s;ing fixed in any particular congregation. And this by vertue of their general member&s;hip, and of the habi|tual indefinitene&s;s of the Mini&s;ters office, And the common donation of the ordinances to Chri&s;ts whole vi&s;ible Kingdom.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE>Now the tru<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">h is, there is no Civil Society, or King|dom, that in every thing corre&s;pondeth with this;
<PB N="25" REF="31"> but there u&s;e in the Kingdoms of the world to be &s;ome general officers, and offices; And &s;ome officers inferiour, and &s;ubordinate, receiving from them pow|er, and authority, by derivation, and &s;ubordination. And the inferiour are of le&s;s extent as to place, and power, than the &s;uperior. As the Lord <HI>Chief Ju&s;tice of England</HI> is above other inferiour <HI>Ju&s;tices.</HI></P></Q>
<P>And this is it (as Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> hath noted) which hath made &s;o many &s;tumble at the notion of a <HI>Church Catholick Or|ganical;</HI> and upon this &s;tone, our Brethren have &s;tum|bled in their Epi&s;tle. Fir&s;t, making a man of <HI>Clouts;</HI> and then writing over his head, <HI>This is the Pre&s;byterians Catholick Church;</HI> and then crucifying him with Argu|ments, which we are not concerned in.</P>
<P><Q>But (as Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> proceedeth) as in other things Chri&s;ts <HI>Kingdom is not of this world, nor like unto world|ly polities, &s;o neither in this: But every Mini&s;ter of</HI> the Church, in his particular place, &s;erveth the <HI>Church Catholick,</HI> admitting of members into a general free|dom in it; ejecting from general communion with it; he prayeth publickly for the whole body; and mana|geth his particular charge in reference to, &amp; &s;o as may &s;tand with the good of the whole body (of which his Congregation is but a member) The Ordinances there admini&s;tred, are the Ordinances given to the whole, not as a <HI>genus,</HI> (which is but a notion and can have no Ordinances given to it) but as unto a &s;piritu|al kind, of an habitual body, and Organical polity. As to a &s;ort of men, &s;o, and &s;o qualified, bound up in an union, and unity, of the &s;ame head, laws, &s;eals, wor&s;hip, communion.</Q></P>
<P>Thus had we di&s;covered our minds, before our Bre|thren publi&s;hed this Boook; and it had been fair for them, to have di&s;puted again&s;t this, not to deceive their Readers with fallacies, <HI>Ex ignoratione Elenchi,</HI> as Logi|cians &s;peak; di&s;puting again&s;t what their adver&s;aries do&punc;
<PB N="26" REF="32"> not &s;ay. In this &s;en&s;e we &s;ay, <HI>the office of the Mini&s;try</HI> correlateth to the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church.</HI> And what ever our Brethren &s;ay, in practice they will own this; for,</P>
<P N="1">1. I would fain know of our Brethren, whether one Church may according to Go&s;pel rules, receive into her bo&s;ome one whiom another Church hath ca&s;t out? if not, the officers that ca&s;t out do not only eject from the communion of that particular Church, but of all particular Churches, and &s;o con&s;equently from the uni|ver&s;al Church, which is but a whole made up of tho&s;e parts.</P>
<P N="2">2. While our <HI>Bretheren</HI> baptize into their <HI>par|ticular Church,</HI> I wonder whether they do not al&s;o Bap|tize into any other particular Church? if not, when any per&s;on &s;o baptized, is tran&s;lated into another Church, why is he not again Baptized? his relation to the former Church cea&s;ing.</P>
<P N="3">3. I would fain know with what con&s;i&s;tency of prin|ciples, our Brethren &s;ay a mini&s;ter or pa&s;tor is in <HI>office only to a particular Church,</HI> and yet &s;ay, he that is in office to this Church, may admini&s;ter the Sacrament of <HI>the Supper</HI> to the members of another Church? Oh but they do this (they tell us) by a communion of Chur|ches, by a communion of <HI>member&s;hip</HI> only, or of <HI>offices and officers</HI> only; the fir&s;t alone may give the member a right to take, but not the officer a right to give, except there be al&s;o a mutual communication or communion of offices and officers, and Acts of office.</P>
<P N="4">4. Although the&s;e 2 or 3 Brethren &s;ome-where in|deed &s;ay, that when the pa&s;tors of our Brethrens chur|ches preach out of their particular Church, they preach but as <HI>gifted men,</HI> yet I am &s;ure others of our Bre|thren, and tho&s;e (to &s;peak mode&s;tly) no way inferior to our Brethren, will own no &s;uch thing: for who &s;hould be then obliged to hear them, or who could go to hear them as to an ordinance, a publike ordinance of
<PB N="27" REF="32"> Chri&s;t, I am yet to learn. So that in practice our bre|thren do every day own, what in words they deny. But to come clo&s;e to the que&s;tion &s;tated by our Brethren thus. p. 8.</P>
<P><HI>What Church office hath relation to?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Preacher &s;ent eap. 2. p. 8.</NOTE> <HI>whether officers stand in relation to a particular Church only,</HI> or <HI>whether they be officers of an univer&s;al Church.</HI> I ob&s;erve our Brethren in the &s;ame page altering their phra&s;e, in&s;tead of &s;aying, <HI>We deny office to be a correlate to the &V;niver&s;al Church:</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>We deny Pastors and Teachers to be officers of an &V;niver&s;al Church.</HI></P>
<P>We hope our brethren have no de&s;ign to play at &s;o &s;mall a game with us, as that mu&s;t be which is only won by the <HI>homonomy</HI> of a term, however we will indeavour to prevent it.</P>
<P>For tho&s;e new terms <HI>Pa&s;tors, and Teachers,</HI> in eccle&s;ia&s;tical u&s;e they have obtained a double &s;ignifica|tion.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>In Scripture the terms are taken</HI> more largely for any &s;uch as have authority to feed people with <HI>&s;piritual food,</HI> whether it be <HI>occa&s;ionally</HI> or con&s;tantly, &s;o <HI>pa&s;tors</HI> is to be under&s;tood <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11. (the only place where it is u&s;ed in all the New Te&s;tament) &s;o al&s;o <HI>Jer.</HI> 3.15. &s;o <HI>Paul</HI> is called a <HI>Teacher</HI> of the Gentiles, and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.7. &s;o Teachers is u&s;ed <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 30.20. and <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. yea that term is u&s;ed &s;ometimes to expre&s;s the Private duties of private per&s;ons. <HI>Heb.</HI> 5.12.</P>
<P N="2">2. By a <HI>modern u&s;age</HI> the&s;e terms are u&s;ed to expre&s;s per&s;ons cho&s;en or accepted by particular churches for the work of the mini&s;try among&s;t them, and re&s;trained to that &s;en&s;e (by what warrant I cannot tell.) If our Brethren &s;tate the que&s;tion in the latter &s;en&s;e concer|ning Pa&s;tors and Teachers <HI>qua tales,</HI> as &s;uch, they have no adver&s;aries, for he that is <HI>pa&s;tor,</HI> or <HI>teacher,</HI> of a particular Church (as he is &s;uch a pa&s;tor or teacher) un|doutedly hath not the Church univer&s;al for his corre|late.</P>
<PB N="28" REF="33">
<P>But our Brethren of the <HI>Province of London</HI> &s;ay true|ly, that a Regular <HI>Pa&s;tor or Teacher</HI> of a particular Church, hath (be&s;ides a particular relation to them as their pa&s;tor and teacher, (which their election or &s;ub|mi&s;&s;ion to him or both have made them) a relation al&s;o to the Church Univer&s;al, as he is the mini&s;ter of <HI>Je&s;us Christ, &s;et apart and ordained for the preaching of the go&s;pel, &amp;c.</HI> which he may do as an officer of Chri&s;t in any place of the world. We do not &s;ay he is <HI>bound to do it in all places,</HI> that is impo&s;&s;ible, nor to travel up and down (as the Apo&s;tles were) for that work is cea&s;ed, at lea&s;t as to tho&s;e places where people have received the go&s;pel. But we &s;ay he may do it as opportunity is offe|red. And we believe, that in ca&s;e it were with us as it is with our brethren in New England, The Church <HI>might by fasting and prayer and impo&s;ition of hands,</HI> &s;et apart &s;ome particular per&s;ons to the office of the mini&s;try, without a particular de&s;ignation of them to this or that place, but only de&s;igning them as the officers of Chri&s;t to preach the Go&s;pel among&s;t the <HI>Indians,</HI> and to baptize &s;uch as &s;hould receive the Go&s;pel; and (though not by their &s;ingle Act as the Apo&s;tles) yet by the advice of the Church, and with their a&s;&s;i&s;tance, the&s;e might ordain Elders in their Cities, and form them up into complete Go&s;pel order; yet the office of &s;uch would differ from that of the Apo&s;tles, both in regard of their mi&s;&s;ion being more <HI>ordinary,</HI> and al&s;o in regatd of their <HI>power</HI> being more limitted.</P>
<P>The&s;e things being premi&s;ed, let us con&s;ider our Bre|threns Arguments: their fir&s;t reduced into form is this,
<Q><P>"What the Go&s;pel knoweth not, no Go&s;pel offi|cers can be correlates unto.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Of Preaching without ordi|nation. cap. 2 p. 8.</NOTE></P>
<P>"But the Go&s;pel knows no Univer&s;al vi&s;ible Poli|tical Church. <HI>Ergo</HI></P></Q></P>
<P N="1">1. At the fir&s;t da&s;h, our Brethren here take away the
<PB N="29" REF="33"> &s;ubject, or at lea&s;t the <HI>&s;uppo&s;itum</HI> of the que&s;tion: The <HI>&s;uppo&s;itum</HI> of the que&s;tion is, <HI>That there is a Church Particular and &V;niver&s;al.</HI> The que&s;tion is to which of the&s;e <HI>the office of the Mini&s;try is related?</HI> They <HI>&s;ay to the Church Particular, we &s;ay to the Church &V;niver&s;al:</HI> to prove their a&s;&s;ertion they tell us there is no <HI>Church &V;ni|ver&s;al.</HI> This is foul di&s;puting.</P>
<P N="2">2. But &s;econdly, The whole may be granted, and yet nothing proved by it: for whether the Go&s;pel knowes a Church univer&s;al under a <HI>political</HI> form or no, is not the que&s;tion, it is enough if it knowes a <HI>Church &V;niver&s;al</HI> under any notion.</P>
<P N="3">3. Thirdly the minor is fal&s;e, as Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> abun|dantly proves: the Church univer&s;al is in &s;cripture &s;et out under the notions of a political body; it is called a <HI>Kingdom,</HI> a <HI>City,</HI> &amp; Jews and Gentiles are called <HI>fellow-citizens;</HI> it is called an <HI>Army</HI> terrible with Banners, <HI>Cant.</HI> 6.10. &s;ee Mr. <HI>Hud&s;on</HI> more p. 133, 134, 135, &amp;c. for it nothing concerns me as to the pre&s;ent que&s;tion, as I &s;aid before.</P>
<Q>Their next and only argument is again drawn from the names and titles given unto the&s;e officers, viz. <HI>Pa&s;tors, teachers,</HI> 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. <HI>Over&s;eers,</HI> Acts. 20.28. 1 Tim 3.2. Titus 1.7.</Q>
<P>Them&s;elves form their argument thus, or at lea&s;t &s;hould have formed it thus. <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."></P>
<P><HI>That Church alone which is committed to mini&s;ters charge to feed, teach, and over&s;ee, is the Church to which the office of the mini&s;try is a correlate.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But the univer&s;al Church is not that Church which is committed to a Mini&s;ter to feed, teach, and over&s;ee,&mdash; Ergo,</HI></P>
<P>I am &s;ure that the Argument mu&s;t run thus, if it con|cludes the que&s;tion, which at pre&s;ent is not, whether a <HI>particular mini&s;ter,</HI> but whether the office of the mini&s;try (re&s;iding in all mini&s;ters) be a correlate to the particular,
<PB N="30" REF="34"> or to the Univer&s;al Church. And therefore our Bre|thren may &s;ee a fault in their laying of their Argument if they will but compare it with the que&s;tion &s;tated by them&s;elves.</P>
<Q><HI>Now to the argument thus formed I an&s;wer, By de|nying both the propo&s;itions. I deny that,</HI> That Church alone which is committed to a mini&s;ters charge to feed, teach, and over&s;ee is the Church to which the office of the mini&s;try is a correlate.</Q>
<P>For I &s;uppo&s;e that our Brethren mean, which is more e&s;pecially committed to his charge, as pa&s;tor thereof, in a re&s;trained &s;en&s;e; if they do &s;o, I &s;ay that Church a|lone is not <HI>correlate</HI> to his office, or to the office of the mini&s;try, becau&s;e another Church, viz. the <HI>catholike Church,</HI> is al&s;o in &s;ome &s;en&s;e committed to his charge, viz. &s;o far as <HI>pro re nat&acirc;</HI> (as occa&s;ion &s;erveth) he may and ought to feed others be&s;ides that Church, yea &s;uch as are of no Church, but may (for ought he knowes) be mem|bers of the invi&s;ible Church of Gods elect, and &s;o his office doth relate to them.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly the Minor is apparently fal&s;e, viz. That the particular Church is <HI>that alone which is commit|ted to a mini&s;ters eharge, to feed, teach, and over&s;ee. Go preach the go&s;pel to every creature,</HI> is a commi&s;&s;ion which hath put all the rea&s;onable world under the charge of the mini&s;teral office. And although (as our Brethren of London &s;ay right) that no mini&s;ter is an <HI>Actual Mini|&s;ter to the &V;niver&s;al Church, viz.</HI> in the&s;e two &s;en&s;es, 1 <HI>None can be here and there and every where,</HI> thus the Spi|rit of God is only an Univer&s;al actual teacher. Nor &s;econdly <HI>is any Minister (&s;et in a particular Church) bound,</HI> as the <HI>Apostles, to an itinerant Execution of his office:</HI> yet our Brethren of London do not &s;ay but that if three parts of this Nation were heathens, the Church may by fa&s;ting and prayer and laying on of hands con|fer the office of the Mini&s;try uppon &s;ome per&s;ons with a
<PB N="31" REF="34"> &s;pecial de&s;ignation of them as Chri&s;ts officers to carry the Go&s;pel to people all over the Nation; or over the world. Neither do our Brethren of London &s;ay but that he who is a fixed mini&s;ter in a particular Church, wherever he preacheth, preacheth as an officer of Chri&s;t in the worke of the Go&s;pel, whom people are bound to hear; nor do they &s;ay that he who is a fixed mini&s;ter in a particular Church may not by vertue of his mini&s;terial office (&s;o far as his opportunity, &s;trength, and finite nature gives him leave) feed and teach by the word, and as a mini&s;ter over&s;ee any others that are not members of his particular Church, Though indeed that be in a more &s;pecial manner committed to his tru&s;t, care, and over&s;ight.</P>
<P>But I ob&s;erve that our Brethrens argument, though put into the be&s;t form I could, and cured of one fault, yet is &s;ick of another; and indeed the Argument &s;hould have run thus.</P>
<Q>That Church, or tho&s;e Churches alone which are com|mitted to all mini&s;ters re&s;pectively to feed, teach, and over&s;ee, re&s;pectively are the Churches to which the office of the mini&s;try is a correlate.</Q>
<P><HI>But tho&s;e Churches are only particular Churches.</HI>&mdash; Ergo.</P>
<P>As they put it, there<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">s a great fallacy in it; for &s;uppo&s;e this or that particular Mini&s;ter had no work appointed him by Je&s;us Chri&s;t to do, but onely in his particular Church, and &s;o the office of the Mini&s;try, as it re&s;ided in that &s;ingle man, were only a Correlate to his particular Church; Yet it would not follow, That the office of the Mini&s;try, as it re&s;ides in every particular Mini&s;ter in the world, had no other Correlate; for all the particu|lar Churches in the world, make up the univer&s;al Church.</P>
<P>Though the office of a Ju&s;tice of Peace, as it re&s;ides in this, or that particular per&s;on, is limited by his Com|mi&s;&s;ion
<PB N="32" REF="35"> to &s;uch a County, is only a Correlate to the people of &s;uch a County: Yet &s;urely the office of a Ju|&s;tice of Peace, as it re&s;ides in the whole number of Ju&s;ti|ces of the Peace in <HI>England,</HI> is a relation to the whole Nation as a Correlate, becau&s;e the whole Nation is made up of tho&s;e Counties, and the office re&s;iding in &s;ome or other of them as to every County, mu&s;t needs relate to the whole. It is true, this is not all which we a&s;&s;ert; for we &s;ay, that in Gods Commonwealth, Mini&s;ters (though ordinarily charged more e&s;pecially as to &s;ome part with the feeding, care and over&s;ight of that part) yet as to &s;ome mini&s;terial acts are authorized al&s;o, to the whole, or to act in any part, not that they mu&s;t act in all ca&s;es, but that they may act, at le&s;t in &s;ome ca&s;es. But there was enough &s;aid before to the Argument; this on|ly to fault the phra&s;ing of it to impo&s;e a fallacy upon us.</P>
<P>I find nothing more in their 10, 11, 12, and 13. pages to prove their minor, &s;ave only one Text, <HI>Acts</HI> 20.28. Where the Apo&s;tle &s;peaking to the Elders of the <HI>Church of Ephe&s;us,</HI> bids them to <HI>take heed unto them|&s;elves,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Nor is it gran|ted, that the Church of <HI>E|phe&s;us</HI> was a particular Church. See the A&s;&s;emblies Propo&s;. and Rea&s;ons, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>and unto all the flock of which Chri&s;t had made them over&s;eers.</HI> This Text indeed proves what none denies, <HI>viz.</HI> that every Mini&s;ter is to take care of every &s;oul, over whom God hath given him a &s;pecial charge; but I cannot &s;ee how this Text proves, that the people of the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> were tho&s;e only to whom the Mini&s;ters were &s;et in relation. If God &s;hould &s;ay to a Mini&s;ter (as in effect he doth in his word,) <HI>Take heed to every &s;oul, in this Pari&s;h, which is thy flock;</HI> would it follow, that he need not take heed to any other? The words do not import that the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> were all the flock they were to feed; but that it was their du|to feed all them, as being more &s;pecially committed to them. If the words indeed had been thus, The peo|ple of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> are all the flock of which God hath gi|ven
<PB N="33" REF="35"> you any over&s;ight, they had been &s;omething to our Brethrens purpo&s;e: This is all our Brethren have argu|mentative in this ca&s;e. Let me now try in a few words, if I cannot by better Arguments prove that the office of the Mini&s;try relates not only to the particular Church, but to the Catholick Church, <HI>viz. That they may do acts of office and authority, beyond the bounds of that particu|lar Church over which they are more e&s;pecially &s;et.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Tho&s;e whom God hath given for the edifying of the bo|dy <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Arg."> of Chri&s;t, are related to the &V;niver&s;al Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But God hath given Pa&s;tors and Teachers, for the edi|fying of the body of Chri&s;t,</HI> Eph. 4.12, 13. The <HI>minor</HI> is the letter of Scripture, the major I prove.</P>
<P><HI>If the &V;niver&s;al Church be the body of Chri&s;t; and tho&s;e who are given for the edifying of it are related to it; Then tho&s;e whom God hath given for the edifying of the bo|dy of Chri&s;t, are related to the &V;niver&s;al Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But the &V;niver&s;al Church is the body of Chri&s;t; and tho&s;e who are of God given for it, are related to it.</HI> &mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>The <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is unque&s;tionable. The A&s;&s;umpti|on con&s;i&s;ts of two a&s;&s;ertions; one I &s;uppo&s;e that none who knows the definition of <HI>relata,</HI> will deny, <HI>viz.</HI> Tho&s;e whom God hath given for his Church are related to it. If any deny, <HI>That the &V;niver&s;al Church is the Body of Christ</HI> (there meant) <HI>I prove it. Either the &V;niver&s;al Church, or the particular Church is there meant. But not the particular Church</HI>&mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>I prove the a&s;&s;umption. <HI>If Christ hath but one my|stical body, then particular Churches</HI> (which are many) <HI>cannot be there meant.</HI></P>
<P>But Chri&s;t hath but one my&s;tical body? I prove the minor.</P>
<P><HI>If the Scripture &s;peaks but of one mystical body of Christ, and &s;ayes Christ is not divided, then we ought not to a&s;&s;ert that he hath more bodies than one, or that he is di|vided.</HI></P>
<PB N="34" REF="36">
<P>But the Scripture <HI>mentions but one body of Christ, and &s;aith Christ is not divided,</HI> Ergo. Tho&s;e who deny the minor mu&s;t produce tho&s;e Scriptures which a&s;cert Chri&s;t to have more than one body.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, it is plain from this argument, that the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks, in <HI>Eph.</HI> 4. of the Univer&s;al Church. From this argument.</P>
<Q><P>That Church for which God gave Apo&s;tles and Pro|phet for, <HI>he al&s;o</HI> gave pastors and teachers for, <HI>Eph. 4.12.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But</HI> he gave Apostles and Prophets for the Catholike Church&mdash;<HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>I think none will be &s;o ab&s;urd as to &s;ay that Apo&s;tles and Prophets were given for a particular Church: for then according to our Brethrens principles, their work mu&s;t have been terminated there.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Arg."> A &s;econd argument is this.</P>
<Q><P>Tho&s;e whom God hath commi&s;&s;ioned to preach and Baptize all Nations, are not related only to a particu|lar Church, but to the Catholike Church, yea to the whole world.</P>
<P>But God hath commi&s;&s;ionated his ministers <HI>to</HI> go preach and Baptize all Nations. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>The major is Evident, for all Nations &s;ignifies more than a particular Church. The minor only can be de|nied.</P>
<P>In proof of which we bring that known text, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19. <HI>Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations</HI>&mdash;&amp;c. <HI>I am with you to the End of the world.</HI> If our Brethren &s;hall &s;ay this was a commi&s;&s;ion only to the Apo&s;tles, they &s;hake hands with <HI>Socinus, Smalcius,</HI> and <HI>Theophilus Nicolaides;</HI> who indeed tell us that the Apo&s;tles were <HI>fundamentum Eccle&s;ia,</HI> and could have no &s;ucce&s;&s;ors: and de&s;ert all prote&s;tant writers, and are confuted by the <HI>promi&s;e</HI> annexed, for Chri&s;t would not have promi&s;ed a <HI>perpetual pre&s;ence</HI> to a <HI>temporary employment.</HI> What
<PB N="35" REF="36"> el&s;e our Brtheren &s;ay to this text, &s;hall in due place be con&s;idered.</P>
<P>A third Argument I &s;hall draw <HI>ab ab&s;urdo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>That opinion which di&s;chargeth all people from a duty in attending upon the word publikely preached by a Mini|&s;ter out of his particular Church, &amp; makes it impo&s;&s;ible for any people (not of that Mini&s;ters Church) to go in faith to hear any &s;uch Sermon, and makes it &s;infull for any Chri|&s;tian to receive the Sacrament, otherwhere than in his own Church, or of his own pa&s;tor, and di&s;chargeth all people (&s;ave members of particular formed Churches) from hea|ring the word publikely preached, and makes private rea|ding equivalent to it as to any institution, and denies pub|like ordinances to any people but &s;uch as are fixed mem|bers of particular Churches, that opinion is ab&s;urd, &s;chi&s;|matical, and fal&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>But this opinion <HI>that a Mini&s;ter is only in office to his particular Church</HI> doth all this. &mdash;Ergo</P>
<P>I pre&s;ume our Brethren will ea&s;ily grant the <HI>Major,</HI> I will prove the <HI>Minor.</HI> &mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>The proof of the <HI>Minor</HI> depends upon the&s;e two principles.</P>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>the authority of him who preacheth,</HI> is <HI>that which makes the action of him</HI> that heareth <HI>a duty.</HI> This is &s;o rational that none can deny it; for <HI>&s;in is the tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ion of a law,</HI> and all <HI>duty</HI> mu&s;t be an act of obedi|ence to &s;ome law <HI>natural, divine, po&s;itive</HI> or humane: now this is certain, that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that &s;peaketh a good di&s;cour&s;e, or reads a chapter, he mu&s;t be &s;pecially <HI>authorized</HI> to preach, or I &s;hall not be <HI>&s;pecially obliged</HI> to hear.</P>
<P N="2">2. The &s;econd principle is this, <HI>That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer.</HI> I think that none in their right wits will deny this; hence I &s;ay the&s;e five ab&s;urdities will notoriou&s;ly follow, from this princi|ple.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="36" REF="37">1. That in all places where are no <HI>particular Churches formed, let who will preach none are bound to come to hear,</HI> but they may all &s;tay at home, and read a good book if they plea&s;e; for none there hath any <HI>authority</HI> or <HI>is in office to preach,</HI> and &s;o none under an obligation to hear.</P>
<P N="2">2. That if you divide <HI>England</HI> into an hundred parts, ninety-nine of them <HI>cannot upon the Lords day wait up|on any publike Ordinance,</HI> which &s;hall lie under a more appointment of God to &s;ave their &s;ouls, than reading a chapter at home doth. The rea&s;on, is becau&s;e no parti|cular Churches are formed, and there can be <HI>none in office.</HI> It is not the place, or company, but the per&s;on admini&s;tring, who makes the ordinance publike.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Where there is a particular Church formed,</HI> it is true, the members are bound to come <HI>on the Lords day and hear their officer,</HI> but for all others, if they do &s;tay at home and read a chapter, or a good book, they &s;in not: for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them, than they have to preach at home one to another.</P>
<P N="4">4. Suppo&s;e any &s;hould <HI>come to hear any man preach, if he be not a member of his particular Church,</HI> he cannot <HI>come in faith,</HI> believing upon the account of any pre|cept or promi&s;e, that the word heard &s;hall <HI>profit him;</HI> any more than if he had &s;taid at home, and heard his &s;ervant read a chapter: for he that preacheth &s;tands in no office, is clothed with no more authority toward him. No he is only in office to the members of his own Church.</P>
<P N="5">5. If any pa&s;tor of any <HI>particular Church, at any time,</HI> uppon any occa&s;ion gives the Sacrament to any one per|&s;on, who is not an actual member of his Church, <HI>he &s;inneth again&s;t God,</HI> doing an act of office, to a per&s;on to whom he is in no office, and hath no authority. And I am mi&s;taken if this would not make the greate&s;t &s;chi&s;m ever yet heard of.</P>
<PB N="37" REF="37">
<P>And now I be&s;eech my <HI>dear</HI> and <HI>Reverend Brethren,</HI> to con&s;ider to what <HI>Athei<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">m</HI> and confu&s;ion this one prin|ciple improved, would in a &s;hort time bring us. And I am verily per&s;waded, that mo&s;t of our Brethren of the <HI>Congregational</HI> per&s;wa&s;ion, are of another mind from the&s;e three in this point: for &s;o wi&s;e, and learned men can never (&s;urely) think, that when at any time, they preach in any place, or to any people &s;aving to their par|ticular re&s;pective Churches, they preach but as gifted brethren, &s;o that a weavers di&s;cour&s;e who hath &s;pent all his week in his loom, is under as much appointment of Gods, for the &s;alvation of &s;ouls, as theirs, is, yet this is a true conclu&s;ion from this principle; up to which al&s;o our brethren cannot walk unle&s;s each of the Churches keep &s;o di&s;tinct, as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike wor&s;hip to be perfor|med by an officer: which would unque&s;tionably be the highe&s;t &s;chi&s;m in the world.</P>
<P>As for their third chapter, I might &s;pare my pains in an&s;wering of it, for it is but a conclu&s;ion from their pre|mi&s;es, in the fir&s;t, and &s;econd chapter, and it is too much to deny the premi&s;es, and conclu&s;ion too. In this third chapter, they give us the de&s;cription of office, then indeavour to prove it, and la&s;tly draw two conclu&s;ions from it; their de&s;cription is this.</P>
<Q>Office is a &s;piritual Relation between a par|ticular Church of Chri&s;t and a per&s;on rightly qualified,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preaching without Ordi|nation p. 14.</NOTE> founded upon a &s;pecial and regular call.</Q>
<P N="1">1 This definition offends two logick rules (&s;ay we) which are the&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;tot.</HI> l. 6. top. cap. 5.</NOTE></P>
<P>That <HI>all definitions &s;hould be adequate.</HI> That is, nothing mu&s;t be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition w^c^h is e&s;&s;ential-to the thing defined. A <HI>particular Church</HI> is not nece&s;&s;a|ry to one that is by office a mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel (as I
<PB N="38" REF="38"> proved before, yet that is put into the definition; &s;e|condly, <HI>Ordination</HI> which is e&s;&s;ential to a mini&s;ter in office is omitted (unle&s;s out brethren will &s;ay it is included in the notion of a per&s;on <HI>duly qualified,</HI> or in the notion of a <HI>regular call,</HI> which I &s;uppo&s;e our brethren will not grant.)<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;t.</HI> top. l. 6. a p 1.</NOTE></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>A &s;econd rule is this, That the definition of a Genus &s;hould agree to every &s;pecies.</HI> The mini&s;terial office is a <HI>Genus,</HI> here defined, but there are diver&s;s mini&s;ters (&s;ay we) that have no &s;uch particular Church, for we cannot think but a mini&s;ter may be &s;et apart for the work, though at pre&s;ent he hath no place: the order of the Church in ordaining none <HI>Sine titulo</HI> (without a title to a place) was no divine order, but prudential; to avoid the &s;can|dal of a <HI>Vagrant Mini&s;tery,</HI> and therefore <HI>Hierom</HI> re|fu&s;ed Ordination from <HI>Paulinus;</HI> becau&s;e he in&s;i&s;ted up|on the ordaining him to his particular Church: we grant that the office of a <HI>pa&s;tor</HI> in &s;trict &s;en&s;e, doth relate to a particular Church, but not the office of a <HI>pa&s;tor</HI> in a more large &s;en&s;e, and as it is u&s;ed in Scripture, both in <HI>Je|remy</HI> 3.15. &amp; <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.13. Our Brethren expound their de&s;cription.</P>
<P>For the <HI>Genus,</HI> we allow what they &s;ay. Office is <HI>a Relation.</HI> Their terms of relation we deny, we &s;ay the particular Church is not the only correlate, but the <HI>&V;|niver&s;al Church</HI> is al&s;o a correlate to the office, yea and the work, yea God him&s;elf, and all Nations (of which before.) Here's nothing more to prove than what I have already an&s;wered, be&s;ides that term <HI>Angel of the Church,</HI> u&s;ed <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.1.8, &amp;c. To which I an&s;wer, that our Brethren know that <HI>&s;ub Judice lis e&s;t,</HI> it is very di&s;putable whether a &s;ingle per&s;on, or the <HI>Pre&s;bytery</HI> be meant by that term. 2. But &s;econdly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove tho&s;e were particular Chur|ches.</P>
<P>The efficient cau&s;e we allow to be the <HI>Lord,</HI> and the
<PB N="39" REF="38"> <HI>Church.</HI> But not the <HI>flock,</HI> as our Brethren &s;ay. The A|po&s;tles ordained the Deacons, not the flock. It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain <HI>Paul and Barna|bas; Paul</HI> and the <HI>Pre&s;bytery</HI> ordained <HI>Timothy,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Acts. 6.</NOTE> and <HI>Ti|tus</HI> was to ordain mini&s;ters in <HI>Crete.</HI></P>
<P>As to the <HI>formal cau&s;e,</HI> we cannot agree with our bre|thren, that <HI>a &s;pecial regular call is it</HI> (in the &s;en&s;e they under&s;tand (all), we &s;ay it is a mini&s;ters <HI>Mi&s;&s;ion</HI> both internal and <HI>External,</HI> and the Apo&s;tle proveth it, <HI>How &s;hall they preach except they be &s;ent?</HI> that is, they cannot,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rom</HI> 10.10.</NOTE> Now, <HI>Forma dat e&s;&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>Our Brethren &s;ay The external call con&s;i&s;teth in <HI>Ele|ction and Acceptation,</HI> and tell us this is proved by <HI>Acts</HI> 6.5. where they argue thus, <HI>If the Church &s;hould chu&s;e a Deacon, much more their pa&s;tor.</HI> Our Brethrens argument is here a <HI>comparatis,</HI> from the le&s;&s;er to the greater, and they argue affirmatively,<NOTE PLACE="marg">See more as to the&s;e texts in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">y la&s;t chap.</NOTE> <HI>If the Church might chu&s;e the le&s;&s;er officer, then they ought to chu&s;e the greater.</HI> But this is fal&s;e Logick, our brethren will ea&s;ily &s;ee it in other things: will the&s;e things follow? If a man can carry an hundred pound <HI>weight,</HI> then much more a <HI>thou&s;and.</HI> If a band of men have right to chu&s;e a Serjeant, then much more a <HI>Colonel.</HI> Indeed negatively we may argue from the le&s;&s;er to the greater, but <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> and <HI>Ramus</HI> are both out if we may u&s;e this argumentation in all ca|&s;es affirmatively: tho&s;e that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Mini|&s;ter for the work of preaching. Be&s;ides, did the peoples choice there make them officers? &s;urely the text &s;ayes no &s;uch thing, the con&s;titutive act is by the Apo&s;tles expre&s;ly re&s;erved to them&s;elves, ver. 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. They do wrong to our tran&s;lation which tran&s;lates it <HI>ordained,</HI> not <HI>cho&s;e,</HI> as our Brethren do. The word &s;ig|nifies to &s;tretch out the hand; and by that &s;ign to chu&s;e,
<PB N="40" REF="39"> 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.19. but not when it governs an accu&s;ative ca&s;e &s;aith <HI>Stephen</HI> (in verbo <GAP DESC="foreign"> as it doth here: Not alwayes, witne&s;s, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.41. Ecc ld&s;ia&s;tical writers u&s;e it for ordaining,) and &s;o it &s;ignifies (&s;aith <HI>Stephen</HI>) when it governs an accu&s;ative ca&s;e.</P>
<P>But allow it to &s;ignify <HI>chu&s;e,</HI> they were <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> that <HI>cho&s;e,</HI> not the <HI>Church</HI> in our brethrens &s;en&s;e. Let any one one compare v. 20, 21, 22, 23, and ell me of whom that word is predicated. So that both <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ur Brethrens texts fail, with all that is built upon them in their book &mdash;As to the final cau&s;e we agree with our Brethren as to the general, <HI>That the work of the Mini&s;try is the End,</HI> and &s;o far allow their proof, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. But wonder with what rea&s;on our Bre|thren there &s;ay the particular Church is meant. I am &s;ure the text &s;ayes no &s;uch thing, nor any thing like it: except they make Chri&s;t to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches.</P>
<P>Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corol|laries, or inferences. Fir&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a mini&s;ter,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">p. 17. 1 Conc.</NOTE> <HI>and a Mini&s;ter to this or that Church:</HI> The &s;econd is this.</P>
<P><HI>That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio</HI> and <HI>ex dono,</HI> by <HI>office</HI> and by <HI>gift,</HI> is founded on Scripture.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Conc.</NOTE>As to the fir&s;t, I have already proved the contrary, for it &s;tandeth upon no other foundation than the con|ceit that <HI>Office relates not to the worke,</HI> but to the Church: Nor to the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church,</HI> but to the <HI>particular Church:</HI> which foundations (I think) I have &s;haken &s;o, that til they be repaired they will not bear this &s;uper-&s;tructure.</P>
<P>As to the &s;econd, we allow it in two ca&s;es, fir&s;t for <HI>Trial &s;ake,</HI> for we have a plain text for it in the ca&s;e of Deacons, 1 <HI>Tim:</HI> 3.10. and we may argue <HI>&agrave; minori ad majus negativ&egrave;,</HI> If the lowe&s;t officer of the Church mu&s;t
<PB N="41" REF="39"> be fir&s;t proved; then much more the higher officer, I mean ordinary officers, for Apo&s;tles, &amp;c. were not the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of officers.</P>
<P N="2">2. In ca&s;es of <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity.</HI> In times of per&s;ecution where Mini&s;ters in office cannot be had, which was the ca&s;e, <HI>Acts</HI> 9. Nece&s;&s;ity we &s;ay, hath no law; In &s;uch a ca&s;e as I &s;aid before, the <HI>Levites killed the &s;acrifice,</HI> at <HI>Heze|kiahs</HI> pa&s;&s;eover, which el&s;e they ought not to have done. We &s;ay the Scripture warrants no other preaching <HI>ex mero dono,</HI> by vertue of gifts only. Whether it doth or no is the i&s;&s;ue to be tried betwixt us.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. 11.</HI> In which what our Brethren &s;ay, by way of Limitation or Explication of the que&s;tion, is &s;ummed up; their limitations of the &s;ubject are proved to be of no va|lue: <HI>their</HI> de&s;cants about <HI>the term</HI> preaching <HI>but a beating of the ayr.</HI> Authoritative preaching de&s;crib|ed <HI>in three</HI> things differenced; from precarious prea|ching and the que&s;tion concerning the former fixed, and stated.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IT &s;eems we are not yet agreed about the &s;tate of que&s;tion: and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains, from their 19 p. to their 30 to &s;tate it for us.</HI> <Q>In which they di&s;tingui&s;h both concer|ning the Subject, and the Predicate. For the Subject, they tell us, it is not every Chri&s;tian, but every one that hath gifts. <HI>2.</HI> Not every one who thinks he hath gifts, but who really hath, <HI>and</HI> de convenienti the Church &s;hould judge whether he hath or no, according to <HI>Acts 6.3.</HI></Q> <HI>but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach (e&s;pecial+ly in &s;ome ca&s;es) without &s;uch approbation. As to the Predicate.</HI> <Q><HI>By preaching they under&s;tand any publi&s;hing
<PB N="41" REF="40"> opening or applying go&s;pel truthes to any per&s;ons for the u&s;es and ends they &s;erve to, be it in publike, or in private, to a Chri&s;tian, or to an idolatrous a&s;&s;embly; thus they con|tend the two words in the Greek tran&s;lated preaching &s;ig|nify, Lu.</HI> 16.16. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.16. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.32. <HI>Rom.</HI> 20.15. <HI>Acts.</HI> 5.42. <HI>Acts.</HI> 8.35. Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their de&s;cription of preaching, <HI>Jus divinum</HI> p. 77. &amp; much they &s;ay to them (who are doubtle&s;s of age to an&s;wer for them&s;elves) &amp;c. Our Brethren di&s;tingui&s;h concerning the term <HI>authoritatively,</HI> they &s;ay <HI>authority</HI> is taken for a right, and lawfull power, <HI>Lu.</HI> 20.2. Secondly, <HI>for maje&s;ty and gravity, Mar.</HI> 1.22. <HI>Tit.</HI> 2 15. Thirdly, <HI>for office-power.</HI> In the la&s;t &s;en&s;e they grant it, in the two fir&s;t, they &s;ay gifted men may preach <HI>authoritatively,</HI> this is the &s;ub&s;tance of what they &s;ay in many words.</Q> To all which I an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. As to what our Brethren &s;ay concerning the &s;ub|ject of the que&s;tion (if I mi&s;take not) it amounts to no more than this, <HI>Every private Chri&s;tian may not preach, but every one that can or will may,</HI> for what &s;hould hin|der him? who &s;hall be judges of his aptne&s;s to teach? &s;hall the Church? but by what rule? Secondly &s;uppo&s;e he will not &s;ubmit, &s;hall the gifted man &s;in? no &s;ay our Brethren. <HI>It is inexpedient</HI> and may have ill <HI>con|&s;equents,</HI> but for ought we know it is <HI>lawfull.</HI> So that it is every one that hath a tongue to &s;peak and a minde to &s;peak. Our Brethren tell us, the Church and no other <HI>judged of the abilities of the Deacons</HI> Acts 6. But it was a Church <HI>filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> Acts 4.31. A Church of which the twelve Apo|&s;tles were members: In &s;hort, all the Church Chri&s;t had on the Earth at that time; and let any reader be judge whether becau&s;e &s;uch a Church were thought fit to judge of Mini&s;ters or Deacons abilities; will it follow that every particular Church is? &s;o that our Brethren, by
<PB N="42" REF="40"> their limitations of the &s;ubject have not one jot mended the matter.</P>
<P N="2">2. Secondly for the predicate, we will ea&s;ily grant to our Brethren, that the Apo&s;tles and holy men in Scrip|ture (wanting proper words) made u&s;e of words to ex|pre&s;s the publike duty of preaching which are u&s;ed in many &s;en&s;es, and that <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies no more <HI>than to declare good tidings,</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies no more than to cry as an herald, in their native &s;ignification.</P>
<P>And we will grant that gifted men may in &s;ome &s;en&s;e do both; who ever denied to our Brethren, but that a private per&s;on might declare the glad tidings of the Go&s;pel to his neighbour, or to his child? But this is all but to play with an <HI>Equivocal term,</HI> Our brethren may call this preaching if they plea&s;e, and in that &s;en&s;e their que&s;tion is granted them, a M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">te may in this &s;en&s;e preach to his people, a <HI>Colone<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">is Regiment, &amp;c. But our <HI>Brethren of London</HI> ju&s;tly re&s;trained their que&s;tion to <HI>Authoritative preaching,</HI> by which that we may not quarrel about a &s;trife of words, we mean, that <HI>Preaching which is the ordinance of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, to be di&s;pen&s;ed in the publike a&s;&s;emblies of his people, to which all people are bound in con&s;cience to attend, and which lies under the &s;pecial appointment of Chri&s;t for the &s;alvation of &s;oules.</HI> If our Brethren plea&s;e they may take this more formal de&s;cription.</P>
<P>Authoritative preaching, <HI>is an Ordinance of the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t under the Go&s;pel, to be di&s;pen&s;ed in the pub|like a&s;&s;emblies of people, by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God, which he hath appointed, as the ordinary means of faith and &s;alvation, to which all peo|ple are in Con&s;cience bound to attend.</HI> Now the que&s;tion is concerning the in&s;tituted <HI>admini&s;trator,</HI> whether it be every one that hath gifts, or onely &s;uch as are ordain|ed; we contend for the latter, we &s;ay in this &s;en&s;e a gifted man cannot preach, nor ought to undertake it
<PB N="44" REF="41"> in this notion. We &s;ay this is <HI>office-preaching,</HI> for none can thus preach but who is in office. The Authority of this preacher doth two things. 1. <HI>It obligeth him to preach. Woe to me (&s;aith Paul) if I do not preach the Go&s;pel.</HI> 2. <HI>It obligeth people to hear;</HI> for the preacher is to that purpo&s;e &s;ent; we &s;ay then,</P>
<P N="1">1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an <HI>Herald</HI> with a loud and roaring voice, and it may be <HI>Vox &amp; praeterea nihil</HI></P>
<P N="2">2 He may as to the matter <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;peak of the good things of the Go&s;pel, either more publikely, or more privately&mdash;But we &s;ay,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>He may hold his peace too if he plea&s;eth,</HI> for who hath required his &s;ervice at his hands? Chri&s;t hath not by his Church &s;aid to him <HI>go and preach,</HI> much le&s;s imme|diately &s;aid it.</P>
<P N="2">2. He may preach, <HI>But he may preach to the walls too if people plea&s;e;</HI> no &s;oul &s;inneth in neglecting to hear him; they may go if they plea&s;e, but Gods word requireth them not to go, nor can any Magi&s;trate with a good Con&s;cience command them to go, any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours hou&s;e to hear him read a chapter: nay if people &s;pend the Lords days in hearing &s;uch, when they may hear others, it is a &s;in unto their &s;ouls, as much as if they &s;hould &s;pend their time at home and read chapters; for his preaching is not under &s;o much appointment to &s;ave my &s;oul, as my pri|vate reading is.</P>
<P N="3">3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they plea&s;e (if no &s;candal be in it, nor other circum&s;tan|ces make it unlawfull) but they cannot <HI>go in faith as to a publike appointment of God, for the &s;aving of their &s;ouls.</HI> On the contrary, he that preacheth authoritatively, 1. <HI>Is bound to preach, if God gives him opportunity.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear, he may &s;hake off the du&s;t of his feet again&s;t
<PB N="45" REF="41"> them, and it &s;hall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. People may and ought to go out to hear him <HI>in faith,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lu.</HI> 10.11, 12.</NOTE> believing <HI>that his preaching is the publike Ordi|nance of Chri&s;t for the &s;aving of their &s;ouls.</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay, and &s;ay again, that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one &s;uch Sermon. And now our Brethren under&s;tand what we mean by <HI>authorita|tive preaching;</HI> it is not &s;o directly oppo&s;ite to <HI>charita|tive</HI> preaching, as to <HI>precarious preaching,</HI> in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either <HI>audito|ry</HI> or <HI>attention.</HI></P>
<P>If our Brethren have any thing to &s;ay to the que&s;tion thus plainly &s;tated, Let them &s;peak on; what ever el&s;e they &s;peak to is plainly <HI>Ex ignoratione elenchi,</HI> not knowing, or not willing to own what we under&s;tand by preaching.</P>
<P>And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part, I &s;hall be&s;eech tho&s;e who have power as civil officers, or particular per&s;ons, to &s;end men to places, to take heed whom they &s;end, and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day, and put them upon &s;ome kinde of nece&s;&s;ity to hear none but &s;uch, as the Lord never &s;ent, never promi&s;ed his pre&s;ence with, and &s;uch as they cannot go to hear in &s;uch a manner as it is the will of God that people &s;hould hear, viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Je&s;us Chri&s;t in order to their eter|nal Salvation. My &s;oul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account. But not to digre&s;s.</P>
<P>Let us come in the next place, to con&s;ider what our Brethren have to prove that <HI>gifted men</HI> may thus preach.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="45" REF="42">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. III</HI> Containing an an&s;wer to our Brethrens book from p. <HI>29.</HI> to p. <HI>60.</HI> and therein to their two fir&s;t Arguments, for Non-ordained per&s;ons preaching, wherein the nece&s;|&s;ity of a particular Churches Election, as antecedane|ous to Ordination, is examined, and denied, and di&s;|proved; the &s;en&s;e of <HI>1</HI> Pet. <HI>4.10.</HI> is enquired, and an an&s;wer given to what our Brethren urge from that text, and their Agrument from it proved in&s;ufficient.</HEAD>
<P>OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments, for the <HI>Preaching of gifted per&s;ons</HI> without Or|dination, p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their fir&s;t is his.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Preaching without Ordi+nation a. p. 29. ad p 60.</NOTE></P>
<Q><P>If Election from a Church ought by Go&s;pel order to precede Ordination <HI>of</HI> Officers, then per&s;ons not ordained may ordinarily preach.</P>
<P>But &s;uch election ought by Go&s;pel order to precede Or|dination.&mdash;<HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>Both propo&s;itions in this argument may &s;afely be de|nyed. <Q>They prove the Con&s;equence from the rea&s;o|nablene&s;s that good experience &s;hould precede Electi|on, for they mu&s;t be per&s;waded that he is gifted, and qualified, or they cannot in faith Elect, now this per&s;wa&s;ion cannot be wrought in them without a mans frequent preaching, to give them this experi|ence. </Q>This is the &s;um of p. 30. To which I an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. Surpo&s;ing that Election is nece&s;&s;ary to precede Or|dination, we deny that <HI>ordinary preaching</HI> is nece&s;&s;ary in order to <HI>Election.</HI> I know no need of any preaching at all, but only to try his <HI>utterance;</HI> his &s;oundne&s;s in
<PB N="46" REF="42"> the faith, and other qualifications are better tried by ordinary conver&s;e than by many Sermons. Tho&s;e who cho&s;e the Deacons had not 6 monthes experience of them, as is plain from the <HI>Chronology</HI> of the Scripture; twice or thrice <HI>preaching</HI> is enough to try that &s;ingle gift of <HI>utterance &s;urely.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Secondly we deny the <HI>Minor, &s;uch Election, viz.</HI> the Election of a <HI>particular Church</HI> is not nece&s;&s;ary to precede <HI>Ordination,</HI> nor have our Brethren a title of plain Scripture for it, they only quote, <HI>Acts</HI> 6. v. 5, 6.<NOTE PLACE="marg">See more Ch. 6. of this trea|ti&s;e.</NOTE> To which I &s;aid enough before; but let me add, Do our Brethren think that the election there was by the whole multitude? let any one in rea&s;on judge whether 8000 people &amp; odd (for &s;o many was the number at that time, and tho&s;e of different languages too, <HI>Acts</HI> 2.41. <HI>Acts</HI> 4.4. <HI>Acts</HI> 2.6.) can rea&s;onably be &s;uppo&s;ed (being al&s;o divided among&s;t them&s;elves <HI>Acts</HI> 6.1.) to have agreed in that choice; the Apo&s;tles indeed &s;pake to &s;ome (proba|bly the mo&s;t judicious of them) to commend per&s;ons to them, whereas our Brethren &s;ay I grant, Ordination is but <HI>Actus ultimus;</HI> he that looks the place [<HI>Vindiciae mini&s;terii</HI> p. 18.] will &s;ee my &s;en&s;e. I &s;ay 1. <HI>In ca&s;e he be pa&s;tor of a Church.</HI> 2. I &s;ay <HI>examination,</HI> &amp;c. mu&s;t precede. Our Brethren here de&s;ire one text to prove <HI>Ordination</HI> antecedent to, or <HI>without Election.</HI> On the contrary we want one Scripture to prove <HI>Election</HI> ne|ce&s;&s;ary: we grant it indeed upon <HI>parity of rea&s;on,</HI> for the Pa&s;tor of this or that Church, and judge it highly con|venient, but I mu&s;t profe&s;s I &s;ee not one clear Scripture for it. Doth <HI>Paul</HI> give any &s;uch in&s;tructions to <HI>Timothy</HI> or <HI>Titus</HI> to be ob&s;erved before their <HI>Ordinations?</HI> If there was any, <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. <HI>Paul and Barnabas</HI> made them; what election do we read of upon the Ordinati|on of <HI>Paul and Barnabas?</HI> Acts 13. Weigh the&s;e things (Chri&s;tian Reader) and judge how much this fir&s;t argu|ment is worth.</P>
<PB N="48" REF="43">
<P>Our Brethrens &s;econd argument is this.</P>
<Q>All that by Go&s;pel commands are required to preach, they may &amp; ought to preach. But &s;ome men meerly gifted are &s;o required. Ergo.</Q>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> we grant <HI>the Minor</HI> we deny. They proceed.</P>
<P><HI>"All that have preaching gifts, and graces, or are apt to teach, are required by Go&s;pel-commands to preach.</HI></P>
<P><Q>But &s;ome men meerly gifted, not ordained, are apt to teach, &amp;c. <HI>Ergo.</HI></Q></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> we grant, the <HI>Major</HI> we deny. Our Bre|thren in&s;tance in two texts to prove it: the fir&s;t (upon which they mo&s;t enlarge) is 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10, 11. I will crave leave to tran&s;cribe the 9. too.</P>
<P>v. 9. <HI>&V;&s;e ho&s;pitality one to another without grudging.</HI></P>
<P>v. 10. <HI>As every man hath received the gift, even &s;o mini&s;ter the &s;ame one to another, as good &s;tewards of the ma|nifold grace of God.</HI></P>
<P>v. 11. <HI>If any man &s;peak, let him &s;peak as the Oracles of God; if any man mini&s;ter, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Je&s;us Chri&s;t, to whom be prai&s;e and dominion for ever. Amen.</HI></P>
<P>Here our Brethren ob&s;erve &s;everal things.</P>
<P N="1">"1. <HI>That the text is to be meant of any &s;piritual gift.</HI></P>
<P N="2">"2. That v. 11. <HI>There is a particularizing of that &s;pecial gift of &s;peaking to others for Edification in the things of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>"They &s;ay p. 33. <Q>That the nature of the direction <HI>how to &s;peak,</HI> and the reference the 11. v. hath to the 10. argue it is not <HI>common &s;peaking</HI> here meant, but &s;ome <HI>&s;pecial gift</HI> of <HI>Scripture-interpretation,</HI> and &s;o it is u&s;ually carried by interpreters. </Q>And it followeth the 10. v. &s;o immediately, that it mu&s;t needs be an expli|cation of it.</P>
<P N="3">"3. <HI>There is a divine command to exerci&s;e &s;uch gift,</HI>
<Q><PB N="47" REF="43">"This commvnd is univer&s;al. <HI>Every man.</HI></Q></P>
<P>This is the Sum of what they &s;ay. To all which I an|&s;wer. 1. If it be not plainly proved that the gift here is <HI>preaching parts, a &s;pirituul gift,</HI> and <HI>that &s;piritual gift,</HI> and 2. <HI>That the term every man</HI> mu&s;t be under&s;tood in the latitude. I &s;ay in ca&s;e any of the&s;e fail, every one &s;eeth that our Brethrens argument falls to the ground.</P>
<P>As to the fir&s;t que&s;tion then.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 1. <HI>What is meant by gift there.</HI></P>
<P>The word is <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is u&s;ed in the New Te&s;ta|ment 16 times, (of which this is one) the learned ob&s;erve it is a word that is not to be found in any hea|then Author, &s;o that from the Scripture alone we mu&s;t under&s;tand the import of it, where (as by com|paring all the texts will mo&s;t evidently appear) it &s;igni|fies,</P>
<P><HI>Any good thing which is freely given us of God; whe|ther in a way of &s;pecial providence or common or &s;pecial grace.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. It is u&s;ed to expre&s;s gifts of <HI>&s;pecial grace. Ju&s;tifi|cation, Rom.</HI> 5.15, 16. Election, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.28. Eter|nal life. <HI>Any experiences</HI> which may be imparted for <HI>Edification, Rom.</HI> 1.11.</P>
<P N="2">2. It is u&s;ed to expre&s;s <HI>extraordinary gifts,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 30.</P>
<P N="3">3. To expre&s;s <HI>any gifts common or &s;pecial,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.4.</P>
<P N="4">4. To expre&s;s <HI>common gifts. The gift of continency,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.7. <HI>Pauls deliverance from danger</HI> is called a gift, and expre&s;&s;ed by this word, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.11.</P>
<P N="5">5. To expre&s;s office, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. as appears by the di&s;tribution, v. 7, 8. So 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6. (for the impo&s;ition of the hands of the Presbytery did not conferr other gifts ordinary or extraordinary)
<PB N="48" REF="44"> The que&s;tion is now, in which of the&s;e &s;en&s;es this word is to be taken, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10.</P>
<P>It is plain that it cannot be meant of tho&s;e gifts of God which we cannot <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> to others, &s;o that it cannot be under&s;tood of <HI>Election,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.28. nor of <HI>Iu&s;tification,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.15, 16. nor <HI>eternal Life,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 6 23. The&s;e are indeed <HI>Free-gifts,</HI> be&s;towed on the <HI>Elect,</HI> but not to be by them <HI>mini&s;tred</HI> to others; but of any of the re&s;t (except that 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.7.) it may be un|der&s;tood, that is,</P>
<P N="1">1 Either of <HI>extraordinary gifts,</HI> &s;uch as tho&s;e of hea|ling, called by this name, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9, 29 30.</P>
<P N="2">2. Or of <HI>Experiences of Gods goodne&s;s to us,</HI> in a way of <HI>common providence</HI> or <HI>&s;pecial grace,</HI> or of <HI>outward good things, or inward,</HI> which by our <HI>hand,</HI> or <HI>tongue</HI> we may admini&s;ter, as <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.11. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.11.</P>
<P N="3">3. Or of <HI>Acts of office,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6.</P>
<P N="4">4. Or of the <HI>gifts of knowledge and utterance or any o|ther,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.4.</P>
<P>If it be to be under&s;tood here in any of three former &s;en&s;es, it will not &s;erve our brethrens turn; for extra|ordinary gifts are cea&s;ed: For telling one another what God hath done for us, or di&s;tributing to tho&s;e in want, we allow it to private per&s;ons. If by gift, <HI>Office</HI> is meant, then none but tho&s;e in office have received the gift.</P>
<P>As to the la&s;t, we grant that he who hath received the gift of <HI>utterance and knowlege, may impart it,</HI> and ought to do it in his place, and &s;tation, but this may be done, by private <HI>conference, admonitions, exhortations, &amp;c.</HI> But this lies upon our Brethren to prove.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That the gift here meant, mu&s;t needs be the gift of preaching in the publike A&s;&s;emblies of people, and that they may do this without Ordination.</HI></P>
<P>We have told them it may be under&s;tood,</P>
<P N="1">1 <HI>Of Office.</HI> As any one hath received any office,
<PB N="49" REF="44"> &s;o let him mini&s;ter in it, as <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.6.</P>
<P>Or of <HI>common gifts of providence. The good things relating to this life,</HI> 2 <HI>Cor</HI> 1 11. then it is a command for <HI>alms,</HI> according to the connexion, v. 10, 11. Our Brethren mu&s;t &s;hew us good rea&s;on why it mu&s;t be un|der&s;tood of <HI>&s;piritual gifts,</HI> and this gift of preaching.</P>
<P N="3">3 Or if he be <HI>under&s;tood of the gift of opening Scripture, <MILESTONE N="4"></HI> it may be under&s;tood of the <HI>extraordinary gifts of prophe|cy,</HI> or at lea&s;t mu&s;t be <HI>limited to a due time place &amp; man|ner.</HI> Or la&s;tly, <HI>it may be under&s;tood by the gifts called by this name,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9, 28, 30. We do not &s;ay it can be under&s;tood of all the&s;e, as our Brethren &s;eem to hint out of a fondne&s;s to find a contradiction in mee: not of <HI>Alms,</HI> and <HI>office</HI> too, this is but a childi&s;h reply of theirs in their fir&s;t an&s;wer to my fir&s;t objection. p. 35. of their book, it is enough for us if it be under&s;tood of one of the&s;e. For if I under&s;tand any thing of &s;en&s;e or rea&s;on, tho&s;e who affirm this text to be a precept for the exerci&s;e of preaching gifts (as our Brethren do) mu&s;t prove either,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That that gift is &s;pecially meant here,</HI> or, Secondly</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That the precept is general, and not to be limited to this or that gift, but under&s;tood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others.</HI></P>
<P>Now which of the&s;e our Brethren will &s;tand to by their an&s;wer, I cannot learn; for one while they tell us the next words are <HI>Exegetical</HI> of the former, <HI>another while</HI> they tell us <HI>Preaching</HI> is one of tho&s;e gifts. But let them take which they plea&s;e. Is this then our Brethrens &s;en&s;e, That the import of that text is</P>
<P><HI>That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift</HI> [that is <HI>any ability</HI> to do good to his brother] <HI>&s;hould do it?</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Why then p. 32, 33. do our Brethren come in with their [i. e. <HI>Spirituul gift</HI>] by the &s;ame rule they re&s;train the text to <HI>&s;piritual gifts,</HI> we re&s;train it to
<PB N="50" REF="45"> <HI>Office,</HI> as <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.7, 8. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.16. Or to <HI>outward good things,</HI> the word is &s;o u&s;ed in Scripture; the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren: <HI>ver.</HI> 10. <HI>&V;&s;e ho&s;pitali|ty one to another,</HI> &amp; that is out of que&s;tion meant <HI>ver.</HI> 11. <HI>If any man minister, let him do it of the ability God giveth.</HI></P>
<P>Object. <HI>But this &s;ay our Brethren, is not the</HI> manifold grace of God; Charity is but one Grace,</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Though Charity be but one grace, yet there be manifold Free gifts of God, by the di&s;tribution of which we may exerci&s;e Charity: The gift of Miracles was but one gift, yet <HI>Heb.</HI> 2.4. you have <GAP DESC="foreign">, various or manifold miracles. The body of <HI>lu&s;t</HI> is but one body of death, yet there are many <HI>lu&s;ts,</HI> 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.6. A man may mini&s;ter from the grace of charity, by gi|ving money, meat, cloaths, &amp;c. and every one of the&s;e is <GAP DESC="foreign"> a free gift of God to him.</P>
<P N="2">2. If any one who hath <HI>ability</HI> may di&s;pen&s;e the gift, then gifted. Brethren may <HI>admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m,</HI> and the <HI>Lords Supper too</HI> (by vertue of this Text) for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in tho&s;e acts; but this our Brethren will not allow: And why? Be|cau&s;e the&s;e are Acts of Office (&s;ay our Brethren) &s;o &s;ay we is the <HI>Preaching</HI> we contend about. Our Brethren may &s;ee by this, a nece&s;&s;ity of re&s;training this Text: Ei|ther as we contend,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>To &s;uch Gifts as other Scriptures authorize them to admini&s;ter:</HI> Or,</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>To an Admini&s;tration of this Gift,</HI> according to due Go&s;pel Order, which (we &s;ay) cannot be without preceding Ordination.</P>
<Q>Will our Brethren take the Second, and &s;ay, That <HI>an ability to Preach,</HI> is the <HI>Gift here only meant:</HI> and this Text will warrant a Mini&s;tring of that gift without any more ado?</Q>
<P N="1">1. Then we ask them by <HI>what authority they impo&s;e
<PB N="51" REF="45"> this upon us; why may it not</HI> as well be expounded by the words <HI>immediatly going before,</HI> as tho&s;e immediatly fol|lowing after? then the Gift is the <HI>good things of this world:</HI> The &s;en&s;e of the coherence will not con&s;train this interpretation, it makes as much for us, as it doth for them, nay more.</P>
<P N="2">2. For the next words limit him that &s;peaks, to a &s;peak|ing as the <HI>Oracles of God;</HI> but he who never had the <HI>Oracles of God committed to him,</HI> is not like to &s;peak the word <HI>as the Oracles of God;</HI> he may &s;peak the <HI>Ora|cles of God,</HI> but he cannot &s;peak them <HI>as the Oracles of God,</HI> becau&s;e not &s;ent by God.</P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;e we &s;hould allow this, that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant, <HI>How doth this Text prove, either a Liberty for, or a duty to d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> this in publike A&s;&s;emblies?</HI> otherwi&s;e our Brethren know we allow it.</P>
<P N="4">4. La&s;tly, to whom doth <HI>Peter</HI> &s;peak this? read <HI>ch.</HI> 1. <HI>v.</HI> 1. <HI>To the &s;trangers &s;cattered through A&s;ia, Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Bythinia.</HI> Our di&s;pute is not, what may be Lawfully done in the <HI>&s;cattred &s;tate</HI> of the Church, where no Mini&s;ters are at hand, but what may be done in ordinary Ca&s;es, to which this Scripture &s;peaks nothing (If it be &s;o to be under&s;tood) we do not doubt but in &s;uch a per&s;ecuted &s;tate of the Church, a pri|vate per&s;on Gifted may Preach, and people ought to hear, as well as the <HI>Levites</HI> might <HI>kill the Pa&s;chal Lamb</HI> at <HI>Hezekiahs pa&s;&s;eover:</HI> but (ble&s;&s;ed be God) that's not our Ca&s;e. Thus the Reader may &s;ee how inconclu&s;ive our Brethrens Argument is from this Text, upon more accounts than one.</P>
<Q>Our Brethren have entred exceptions again&s;t two material things which we in&s;i&s;t upon, for the interpretation of this Text.</Q>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Again&s;t what we &s;ay, that if this Text may be un|der&s;tood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking, yet it may be done privately.</HI></P>
<P N="2"><PB N="52" REF="46">2. Again&s;t what we &s;ay, <HI>That by Gift, very probably is meant Office.</HI></P>
<P>Let us con&s;ider what our Brethren &s;ay to either of the&s;e.</P>
<Q>They &s;ay fir&s;t, that <HI>private exerci&s;ing</HI> cannot &s;a|tisfie <HI>this precept,</HI> nor can this <HI>exerci&s;e</HI> be ju&s;t|ly &s;o limited.</Q>
<Q><P N="1">1. Becau&s;e as a Church member, he may admoni&s;h and exhort &s;everally, and then why not when they are met together?</P>
<P N="2">2. Becau&s;e a publike Gift, cannot be fully impro|ved in a private way: A man in &s;uch a ca&s;e hideth his talent.</P>
<P N="3">3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office, they &s;ay.</P>
<P N="4">4. Charity binds men &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">metimes to go out of their callings to help others.</P>
<P>Therefore our Brethren may &s;ometimes &s;tep out of their Calling to Preach.</P>
<P N="5">5. A man may lawfully choo&s;e it for his calling to preach. And then he goeth not out of his Calling.</P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>"They have a Divine allowance,</HI> Heb. 10.25. there|fore they go not out of their Callings.</P>
<P>"This is the &s;umm of what they &s;ay to the fir&s;t, <HI>&agrave; p.</HI> 46. <HI>ad p.</HI> 56. To all which I an&s;wer.</P></Q>
<P N="1">1. We will not contend with our Brethren, that it is unlawfull for a private gifted per&s;on to &s;peak in the <HI>pub|like A&s;&s;emblies of the Church,</HI> provided it be not on the <HI>Lords day,</HI> which ought to be &s;pent in peoples attend|ance upon <HI>publike Ordinances,</HI> of which nature their Preaching cannot be: but we deny, that any are bound to <HI>hear them,</HI> or that any can come to <HI>hear them</HI> as unto that <HI>Ordinance</HI> of Preaching, which lyes under the great <HI>appointment of God,</HI> to &s;ave peoples &s;ouls. And we &s;ay, the Church of God hath had no &s;uch cu&s;tom.</P>
<P>As to the Second, We do not under&s;tand our Brethrens
<PB N="53" REF="46"> notion of a <HI>publick Gift,</HI> it may be taken in a double &s;en&s;e. 1. <HI>For a Gift which God hath given to men, wil|ling them to u&s;e it publikely.</HI> 2. For a Gift which <HI>if u&s;ed publikely might be of publike &s;ervice.</HI> If our Brethren under&s;tand it in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e, we deny any not ordain|ed have any &s;uch publike Gift: if (as they mu&s;t) they under&s;tand it in the latter &s;en&s;e, we &s;ay it may be &s;o far improved as to free men from &s;in, in not improving it, without publike exerci&s;e: How many hundred men in <HI>England,</HI> have gifts for the Magi&s;tracy, that might be of publike u&s;e (were they &s;o employed) yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text, to prove that they ought to admini&s;ter Judgement publikely: Why? Be|cau&s;e God hath required another Order, and a &s;pecial regular Call for the exerci&s;e of tho&s;e publike Gifts; and we &s;ay the like for the Mini&s;try.</P>
<P>To the Third, We grant that <HI>all publike a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">ings are not peculiar to Office;</HI> but we &s;ay, the admini&s;tration of <HI>publike Ordinances,</HI> is peculiar to publike Officers; and t is &s;carce &s;en&s;e, to &s;ay a private per&s;on may admini&s;ter <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>publike Ordinance,</HI></P>
<P>To the Fourth, we &s;ay, That we grant that <HI>Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another,</HI> and &s;o Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach, in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity; but this is not <HI>Ordinary preaching,</HI> of which the que&s;tion is &s;tated.</P>
<P>To the Fifth, We grant a private per&s;on may <HI>choo&s;e preaching for his Calling,</HI> but his <HI>choo&s;ing</HI> of it doth not make that his Calling: the Church, &s;ay our Brethren, mu&s;t choo&s;e him too, he mu&s;t be ordained (&s;ay we.)</P>
<P>To the Sixth, Our Brethren &s;ay, they have a divine allowance, <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.25. But to do what? Is it &s;aid to Preach <HI>publikely</HI> and <HI>ordinarily?</HI> But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men; they indeed mu&s;t not <HI>for&s;ake a&s;&s;embling together:</HI> but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort? however our bre|thren
<PB N="54" REF="47"> make that Text a warrant for private meetings, and then it is nothing to the que&s;tion.</P>
<P>But to the Second, whereas we have told our Bre|thren, that by <GAP DESC="foreign"> probably is meant Of|fice, as in <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.16. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. They think it cannot be &s;o taken here, for the&s;e Rea&s;ons.</P>
<Q><P N="1">1. Becau&s;e the Context cannot be &s;o re&s;trained; the Apo&s;tle exhorteth to &s;obriety, watchfulne&s;s unto prayer, <HI>ver. 7.</HI> to charity, <HI>ver. 8.</HI> to ho&s;pitality, <HI>ver. 9.</HI> The&s;e ex|hortations concern private Chri&s;tians, and the per&s;ons &s;poken to ver&s;e <HI>10.</HI> are the &s;ame.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>The Apo&s;tle</HI> &s;peaketh indefinitely [a gift] <HI>now</HI> indefinite Propo&s;itions are u&s;ually equipollent to univer|&s;als <HI>(they &s;ay.)</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>The word <GAP DESC="foreign"> will not re&s;train it unto Office, be|cau&s;e it is oft u&s;ed otherwi&s;e;</HI> nor doth the term <HI>Stewards</HI> limit it, nor the terms <HI>exhorting and mini&s;tring.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>"The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter,</HI> ver. 2, 3.</P></Q>
<P>To all which I again an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. We do not peremptorily determine that by <GAP DESC="foreign"> is meant <HI>Office</HI> there; it is enough for us to &s;ay, <HI>it may be &s;o;</HI> for our Brethren mu&s;t prove it cannot, or el&s;e they can prove no precept to their purpo&s;e from hence.</P>
<P N="2">2. That by the term <HI>Office</HI> cannot be under&s;tood here, is not proved by any thing our Brethren have &s;aid. The learned Authors of the <HI>Dutch</HI> Annotations think <HI>Office</HI> is meant, <HI>ver.</HI> 11. Why may not the Apo&s;tle, after he had di&s;patched his exhortations to &s;ome common duties, &s;ubjoyn this to Officers? he doth &s;o <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. and 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 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 per&s;ons &s;poken to <HI>ver.</HI> 9. and &s;poken to <HI>ver.</HI> 11. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">elthe &s;ame in|dividuals?
<PB N="55" REF="47"> and why may not the gift then be the &s;ame too, and &s;o neither office, nor gifts of this nature meant?</P>
<P N="3">3. Our brethren mu&s;t not tell us, that <HI>indefinite pro|po&s;itions are mo&s;t u&s;ually equipollent to univer&s;als,</HI> becau&s;e it is no Logick.</P>
<P>Their Logical Rule is this.</P>
<P><HI>Indefinitae propo&s;ititiones interdum aequipollent univer&s;ali|bus, interdum particularibus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Keckerman,</HI> Sy&s;t. Log. c. 5.</NOTE> <HI>illis quide in materi&acirc; nece&s;|&s;ari&acirc;, his vero in contingenti:</HI> nay with that re&s;triction (&s;aith <HI>Keckerman</HI>) it will not always hold true. <HI>A living crea|ture is not a man;</HI> turn this into an <HI>univer&s;al negative,</HI> No living creature is a man, and it is fal&s;e. Becau&s;e therefore the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks indefinitely, as every one hath <HI>received a gift,</HI> &s;o <HI>let him mini&s;ter;</HI> it doth not fol|low he mu&s;t under&s;tand <HI>every gift;</HI> for what will our Brethren &s;ay to <HI>gifts of wi&s;dom for Government of Na|tions,</HI> Armies, &amp;c. or to <HI>abilities</HI> to Baptize and <HI>admini|&s;ter the Lords Supper?</HI> But to come to an i&s;&s;ue.</P>
<P>I am very inclinable to under&s;tand the Text in the la|titude, and to think this the &s;en&s;e. <HI>As any man hath re|ceived any communicable gift; &s;o let him mini&s;ter it unto others, in that due way and order, and upon that regular Call, which God in his word hath required for tho&s;e to exer|ci&s;e gifts that have them: If it be a gift of Govern|ment (when God hath called him to Magi&s;tracy) let him u&s;e his gift; if it be a gift for opening and applying Scri|pture, for admini&s;tring Bapti&s;m or the Lords Supper, let him fir&s;t be duly ordained, and &s;et apart for the work of the Mini&s;try, and &s;o let him u&s;e his Gift.</HI> When our Brethren have &s;aid their utmo&s;t, this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utter|ance may forthwith Preach, than it will prove, that by the authority of this Text, he who hath a gift of wi&s;|dom may u&s;e it in the Magi&s;tratical &s;ervice, or that he who hath a gift of knowledge, or zeal, may admini&s;ter
<PB N="56" REF="48"> the two Sacraments, meerly by authority of his gifts, without any more ado. And this is enough for their Fifth Chapter.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>CHAP. IV.</HI> Containing a &s;hort An&s;wer to the three latter Arguments brought by our Brethren for Gifted mens Preaching, in their Sixth Chapter, from a (pretended) promi&s;e an|nexed to it: The preaching of <HI>Apollo,</HI> and the &s;catter|ed Saints; and the prophecying, and Prophets mention|ed in <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>ch. 12. ch. 14.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>OUR Brethren in their Sixth Chapter, produce three Arguments, to prove the Lawfulne&s;s of per|&s;ons Preaching (if Gifted) though not Ordained. Their fir&s;t is this.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">The Preacher &s;ent, <HI>chap.</HI> 6.</NOTE></P>
<Q><P>That practice which hath a Go&s;pel Promi&s;e annex|ed, is warrantable.</P>
<P>But the Preaching of &s;ome &s;uch, hath a Go&s;pel Promi&s;e annexed: </P></Q>
<P><HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> we grant, the <HI>Minor</HI> we deny. They prove it from <HI>Mat.</HI> 25.29.</P>
<P><HI>For unto every one that hath &s;hall be given, and he &s;hall have abundance.</HI></P>
<P>Let us put it into Form.</P>
<Q><HI>What the Go&s;pel promi&s;eth unto him that</HI> hath a talent, <HI>i. e. that improves it,</HI> That it pro|mi&s;eth to Gifted mens Preaching without Or|dination.</Q>
<P>Here's enough: Let me have the &s;ame Liberty, and our Brethren will quickly &s;ee the vanity of this Argu|ment.</P>
<Q><PB N="57" REF="48">
<P>What the Gospel promi&s;eth to him that hath a ta|lent, <HI>i. e.</HI> that improves his talent; that it promi|&s;eth to every one that will (having a gift of wi&s;|dom and ju&s;tice) execute ju&s;tice, though not any other way called to it than by his gifts. <HI>But the Go&s;pel promi&s;eth, &amp;c. Or thus.</HI></P>
<P>What the Go&s;pel promi&s;eth to him that hath a ta|lent or ability, <HI>i. e.</HI> that by practice improves it, that it promi&s;eth to gifted per&s;ons that have ability to bap|tize and admini&s;ter the Supper, and will do it without any other authority than what their gifts give them. Therefore gifted men, not Commi&s;&s;ionated for the Magi&s;tracy, nor ordained to the Mini&s;try, may execute ju&s;tice, and admini&s;ter Sacraments.</P></Q>
<P> I believe my Lord <HI>Protector</HI> will hardly allow the fir&s;t, and I think our bre|thren will not allow the latter; and when our Brethren have found out a di&s;tinction to help them&s;elves, we hope it will help us. Our Brethren, <HI>pag.</HI> 63. &s;ay plainly, <HI>they re&s;train not the Text to preaching Gifts.</HI> But they mu&s;t do it, or el&s;e our Arguments from it are as good as theirs: and if they do re&s;train it, we &s;hall hardly re&s;t in their &s;en&s;e without good rea&s;on to ju&s;tifie their re&s;tricti|on. And this is enough for their third Argument, to which the &s;ame an&s;wer may be applied which was given before, to that drawn from 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10.</P>
<P>Let us &s;ee if they be more happy at a fourth.</P>
<P>Their fourth Argument is drawn <HI>from Go&s;pel Pre&s;i|dents,</HI> thus formed.<NOTE PLACE="marg">The Preacher &s;ent, or preaching without Or|dination, <HI>p.</HI> 66.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>What is holden forth by Gospel Pre&s;idents with Divine allowance may be practi&s;ed. But the ordinary exerci&s;e of preaching Gifts in publick A&s;&s;emblies,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Is &s;o holden forth.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<P>I can neither allow the <HI>Major</HI> nor the <HI>Minor:</HI> I can|not allow the <HI>Major</HI> (in the terms our Brethren have put it) for they might as well a&s;&s;ume.</P>
<P>But <HI>Apo&s;tle&s;hip,</HI> or an <HI>univer&s;al inspection and govern|ment
<PB N="58" REF="49"> of all Churches,</HI> is holden forth by Go&s;pel Pre&s;i|dents, <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Peter.</HI> Therefore we may have <HI>Popes, Archbi&s;hops,</HI> and <HI>Bi&s;hops.</HI> Or thus,
<Q>But the Holy ki&s;s, and anointing with oyl, are held forth by Gospel Pre&s;idents with divine allowance. <HI>Ergo, Mr.</HI> Tilham, <HI>and Mr.</HI> Pooly <HI>are in the right.</HI></Q></P>
<P>If our Brethren under&s;tand the <HI>Major thus</HI> (I &s;hal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> allow it.)</P>
<Q>What is holden forth by Gospel Pre&s;idents, to be in or|dinary Ca&s;es a &s;tanding practice, may be lawfully practi&s;ed.</Q>
<P>Then we deny the A&s;&s;umption, <HI>viz. That the preach|ing of Gifted per&s;ons</HI> (in the &s;en&s;e before expre&s;&s;ed) <HI>is by any Gospel Pre&s;idents held forth as a &s;tanding practice to be continued in the Church of Chri&s;t.</HI> Our Brethren prove it.</P>
<P N="1">1. By the in&s;tance of <HI>Apollo,</HI> upon which they de&s;|cant <HI>&agrave;</HI> p. 66. <HI>ad</HI> p. 73.</P>
<P N="2">2. By the in&s;tance of the <HI>&s;cattered Saints,</HI> Acts 8. &amp; 11. upon which they de&s;cant <HI>ad</HI> p. 88. It mu&s;t be granted, that the Scriptures &s;ay, that <HI>Apollo</HI> &s;pake, and <HI>taught diligently,</HI> Acts 11.24, 25. and that &s;ome of the &s;cattered brethren <HI>preached.</HI> But to an&s;wer all in &s;hort, Every under&s;tanding Reader will grant, the Argument being <HI>ab exemplo pari,</HI> If the&s;e examples prove not <HI>(paria)</HI> matches, the Argument falls to the ground: If either there were not a <HI>parity of &s;pecies,</HI> in their gifts, or in their <HI>acts,</HI> or not a <HI>parity,</HI> in the &s;tate of the Church at that time, with that which is the pre&s;ent &s;tate of it; now we &s;ay, that in &s;ome, if not in all the&s;e their argument from hence halteth.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="1"> Fir&s;t, I &s;ay, there mu&s;t <HI>be a parity in the species of their gifts:</HI> for I hope our brethren have no de&s;ign to put this fallacy upon their Readers; <HI>if tho&s;e who were furni&s;hed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t,
<PB N="59" REF="49"> &s;uited to the fir&s;t plantation of the Church, might preach, then tho&s;e who have but very ordinary gifts, according to the &s;ize of the&s;e times, and the opportunities of that little lei&s;ure they could get from their Trades, may do the like;</HI> this were ju&s;t &s;uch an Argument, as if one &s;hould con|clude, that becau&s;e one who had the gifts of healing, might go to a &s;ick per&s;on, and anoint <HI>him with oyl,</HI> and lay <HI>hands on him,</HI> and pray, and by a <HI>faith of miracles,</HI> believe he &s;hould upon this recover; therefore one may do &s;o now: So that if it appear that <HI>Apollo,</HI> or tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> 8. or 11. had gifts of another &s;pecies; either <HI>Of|fice,</HI> or <HI>extraordinary gifts</HI> of the Holy Gho&s;t, which all grant to be now cea&s;ed, our brethrens Argument &s;inks. Now let us examine the in&s;tances by this rule, Accord|ing to which our brethren have been told concerning <HI>Apollo.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <Q>That he is ranked with <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Peter,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.12. called a Mini&s;ter, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.5.</Q></P>
<P N="2">2. <Q>That it is very probable his gifts were of ano|ther <HI>species,</HI> from that which our gifted men now a|days have; it is &s;aid he was mighty in the Scriptures.</Q></P>
<P>Our brethren &s;ay nothing to this: <HI>but let tho&s;e who &s;ay it prove it;</HI> but as I take it they a&s;&s;ert, and &s;hould prove; however we have proved, that he is <HI>called a Mi|ni&s;ter,</HI> and ranked with <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Peter.</HI> But &s;ay our brethren, this was <HI>afterward.</HI> A very little time it &s;eems; for the Text &s;aith, he went &s;oon into <HI>Achaia;</HI> and in the fir&s;t ver&s;e of the next chapter, <HI>he is reported in Co|rinth.</HI> So that it is plain that he preached only <HI>in order to Office,</HI> that <HI>he might be proved;</HI> in which ca&s;e our bre|thren know we allow preaching <HI>ex dono.</HI></P>
<P>But Secondly, for the <HI>&s;cattered Chri&s;tians,</HI> they have <MILESTONE N="2"> been told,</P>
<P N="1">1. <Q>That it is the opinion of &s;ome, the&s;e were &s;ome of the 70. who&s;e Office-gift was of another &s;pecies, being an extraordinary Mi&s;&s;ion.</Q></P>
<P N="2"><PB N="60" REF="50">2. <Q>That the Sctipture &s;aith expre&s;ly of one of the&s;e, <HI>Philip,</HI> he was an Evangeli&s;t, <HI>Acts</HI> 21.8. and he is the only Preacher named.</Q></P>
<P N="3">3. "That tho&s;e were members of the <HI>Church of Jeru&s;alem,</HI> &s;ome of the 8000. who were filled with the extraordinary gifts <HI>of the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> and might &s;peak <HI>the word with boldne&s;s,</HI> Acts 4.31. If our brethren have any indued with gifts of that <HI>species,</HI> God forbid we &s;hould deny them liberty; but we conceive them cea&s;ed, and with them the &s;trength of this Argument too.</P>
<P>Now what &s;ay our brethren to take off the&s;e An|&s;wers?</P>
<P>I &s;hall not meddle with what they &s;ay to the fir&s;t; it being an an&s;wer not to be re&s;ted upon, and &s;upernume|rary. As to the &s;econd, they tell us <HI>p.</HI> 81. <HI>The con&s;e|quence is feeble, becau&s;e one was an Officer:</HI> Ergo, <HI>all were.</HI> It is an ea&s;ie thing our brethren know to break a mans legs, and then &s;ay he is lame: This Argument was not brought as <HI>demon&s;trative,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 81.</NOTE> but as a good <HI>topick;</HI> but the &s;trength lay here, <HI>Every one of them whom the Scri|pture names was an Officer;</HI> and therefore it is not <HI>pro|bable</HI> any preached but Officers, and what ever Office <HI>Philip</HI> was <HI>ordained</HI> to, <HI>Acts</HI> 6. certain it is he was an <HI>Officer,</HI> and &s;o our brethren grant. As to the la&s;t An&s;wer (which alone is &s;ufficient) they have &s;aid nothing. So then upon this enquiry, our brethrens Argument lyes thus.</P>
<Q>If <HI>Apollo</HI> who was &s;oon after to be made an Officer of the Church at <HI>Corinth,</HI> preached in order to Ordination, and &s;ome &s;cattered Members of the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> who had received the ex|traordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t preached, a|mong&s;t whom <HI>(we think)</HI> there were &s;ome no Of|ficers, then private per&s;ons, who have but very ordinary gifts, and intend no &s;uch Ordination, may preach too.</Q>
<PB N="61" REF="50">
<P>To which we mu&s;t crave leave to an&s;wer. &mdash;<HI>Non &s;equitur.</HI></P>
<P>But our Brethrens Argument is &s;ick of more <HI>Non &s;equiturs</HI> than one. To proceed therefore.</P>
<P>Secondly, In ca&s;e there were no parity in their <HI>acts,</HI> <MILESTONE N="2"> then our Brethrens Argument is naught, for I hope our brethren have no de&s;ign to &s;erve us with &s;uch a fallacy as this. <HI>If the &s;cattered Chri&s;tians, wherever they became in pri|vate hou&s;es commended the Gospel to people, then gifted men may in the publick A&s;&s;emblies of the Church, or any people, perform that Ordinance of Chri&s;t called preaching.</HI> That were ju&s;t &s;uch an Argument as this. If <HI>John a Nokes</HI> may turn a &s;ervant out of communion with his Family, then he may excommunicate him out of the <HI>Church.</HI> Our Brethren in that Text, <HI>Acts</HI> 8. have found the word <HI>preach;</HI> but nothing to evidence it was in <HI>publick A&s;&s;emblies,</HI> nor will Gods ble&s;&s;ing their labours prove it; God may, and oft doth ble&s;s private means when publick cannot be had. The ca&s;e was otherwi&s;e indeed concerning <HI>Apollo,</HI> it is &s;aid, he preached in the <HI>Syna|gogues;</HI> but &s;o might any one, according to the corrupt &s;tate of the Jewi&s;h Church at that time; and be&s;ides (as I &s;aid before) he was to be proved in order to <HI>office,</HI> which our Brethren grant he afterward had.</P>
<P>But thirdly, There mu&s;t be a <HI>parity in the State of the Church</HI> too, or el&s;e their Argument will not hold: but <MILESTONE N="3"> this there is not. 1. <HI>It was an infant &s;tate,</HI> and is is a true ob&s;ervation of <HI>Didoclavius,</HI> that many things may be lawfull in the <HI>infancy</HI> of a Church, which are not to be <HI>imitated</HI> nor <HI>induced</HI> in a &s;etled Church. 2. <HI>It was a per|&s;ecuted State.</HI> This is indeed the be&s;t an&s;wer, and there|fore our Brethren &s;pend mo&s;t pains in trying to an&s;wer it, <HI>pag.</HI> 85, 86, 87, 88. Let us con&s;ider what they &s;ay.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>They grant that nece&s;&s;ity may legitimate an action otherwi&s;e not lawfull.</HI></P>
<P N="2"><PB N="62" REF="51">2. <Q><HI>They &s;ay, though</HI> they were nece&s;&s;itated to traevel, yet they were not nece&s;&s;itated to preach.</Q> What do our brethren think we mean by nece&s;&s;ity? or how comes nece&s;&s;ity into the que&s;tion, <HI>which is whether it be not law|full for private per&s;ons to do &s;omething in a per&s;ecuted State of the Church, which is not lawfull in a &s;etled &s;tate of it?</HI> But to take our Brethren at their own re|bound.</P>
<P><HI>Nece&s;&s;e e&s;t quod nec e&s;&s;e aliter pote&s;t;</HI> there is a <HI>natural nece&s;&s;ity,</HI> and there is a <HI>moral nece&s;&s;ity:</HI> We never thought this nece&s;&s;ity was <HI>natural;</HI> and yet again&s;t that our bre|thren argue. There is an <HI>ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity,</HI> and an <HI>hypo|thetical nece&s;&s;ity.</HI> In &s;hort, we &s;ay, they might be under a manifold nece&s;&s;ity.</P>
<P N="1">1. A nece&s;&s;ity of the <HI>precept;</HI> they were <HI>filled with the gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> and tho&s;e extraordinary gifts might be attended with an extraordinary praeceptive im|pre&s;&s;ion, <HI>Acts</HI> 4.31.</P>
<P N="2">2. There was <HI>nece&s;&s;it as medii;</HI> there was no other or|dinary means of &s;alvation for tho&s;e people where they came, than that extraordinary cour&s;e of theirs, the A|po&s;tles being yet left at <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Upon this &s;uppo&s;ition, that it was the will of God his Go&s;pel &s;hould at that time be made known to tho&s;e people, it was nece&s;&s;ary; for there were no others in of|fice to do it.</P>
<P><Q><HI>Thirdly,</HI> Our Brethren que&s;tion whether nece&s;&s;ity can legitimate an action, in it &s;elf unlawfull: <HI>but grant,</HI> it may legitimate an action unlawfull at this or that time.</Q> Not to di&s;pute the fir&s;t, which yet we might by our Sa|viours in&s;tance of the <HI>Shew-bread</HI> taken by <HI>David,</HI> &amp;c. The later part granted, is enough for us, if our Bre|thren mean ingenuou&s;ly: We do not &s;ay it is again&s;t the light of nature to preach without Ordination.</P>
<Q><HI>But it is unlawfull at &s;uch a time when the Church hath plenty of Mini&s;ters, and there is no need of
<PB N="63" REF="51"> their extraordinary actings, being calm and &s;etled.</HI> Now that which is unlawfull at &s;uch and &s;uch a time, our Brethren grant nece&s;&s;ity may make lawfull; we ask no more at their hands at this time.</Q>
<P N="3">3. <Q>Our Brethren enquire when is there &s;uch a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity? and conclude, when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way.&mdash;And they can finde no lawfull Ordi|nation without a preceding election to a particular Church: And therefore all Gifted men lye under &s;uch a nece&s;&s;ity.</Q> Let us put this loo&s;e di&s;cour&s;e into form; It mu&s;t be thus:</P>
<P><HI>If Gifted men may Preach in a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity, and it be a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity when they cannot have Ordination in Gods way, and this cannot be till they be cho&s;en Officers to a particular Church, then till that time their Preaching is ju&s;tified by nece&s;&s;ity.</HI> But, &amp;c. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>But our brethren know, that although they &s;ay they cannot, yet we can &s;ee regular Ordination, without a Call to a particular Church; we are at a lo&s;s to know what election to a particular Church preceded the Or|dination of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> of <HI>Timothy,</HI> of any one preaching Elder in Scripture.&mdash;Our Brethren go on.</P>
<P><Q><HI>They that preach in &s;uch ca&s;es of nece&s;sity, are ei|ther</HI> 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.&mdash;<HI>If they be Officers, then</HI> Ordination is not e&s;&s;ential to office: Then another Mi&s;&s;ion mu&s;t be found out be&s;ides Ordination; then Bapti&s;m is valid without Ordination, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>To an&s;wer to all this. Tho&s;e who preach in &s;uch Ca&s;es of nece&s;&s;ity, where people can have no ordained Mini|&s;ters to hear, may be &s;aid to, Preach by an extraordinary <HI>authority,</HI> which the word of the Lord hath in &s;uch ca&s;es given them, which may be called a Mi&s;sion, and they may be Officers, as to that time, and &s;tate; yet it
<PB N="64" REF="52"> will not follow but in another <HI>&s;tate of the Church</HI> Or|dination is e&s;&s;ential to an <HI>ordinary Mini&s;ter,</HI> that is, to one who according to the Rule of Chri&s;t in ordinary ca&s;es <HI>ought to preach.</HI> All this arguing is nothing to the purpo&s;e: for our brethren are to prove, that <HI>Gifted men may ordinarily preach</HI> in a tranquil, and &s;etled &s;tate of the Church, where are Mini&s;ters Ordained enough to &s;upply the place, or at lea&s;t to ordain and authorize them. Their Argument <HI>&agrave; pari</HI> here, is no Argument, be|cau&s;e of the di&s;parity of the Churches State. If our bre|thren can bring us any Texts out of the Epi&s;tles wrote to &s;etled Churches, requiring, commanding, or allowing &s;uch a practice for per&s;ons not in office, nor furni&s;hed with extraordinary gifts to preach publickly, and ordina|rily, they &s;ay &s;omething; all this is no better than <GAP DESC="foreign">, or go round about the bu&s;h, but never &s;trike one blow at it.</P>
<P>I come therefore to their fifth Argument, p. 88.</P>
<Q><P>All that are Prophets may publickly (they &s;hould have put in ordinarily too) preach.</P>
<P>But &s;ome men <HI>[they &s;hould have &s;aid &s;ome &s;uch Gifted men as we have now]</HI> who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>If our Brethren will not allow my correction of their Propo&s;itions, I will deny the Conclu&s;ion, <HI>becau&s;e the que&s;tion is not in it.</HI></P>
<P>If they will allow my corrections, I deny their A&s;|&s;umption, and &s;ay,
<Q>No &s;uch Gifted men as now live <HI>(for whom our Bre|thren mu&s;t plead)</HI> are Prophets.</Q></P>
<P>They prove it, p. 89. <HI>All that have the gifts of pro|phecie, are Prophets.</HI></P>
<Q>But &s;ome &s;uch Gifted men as are now to be found have the gift of prophecie; <HI>Ergo.</HI></Q>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> I grant; The <HI>Minor</HI> I deny.</P>
<P>Three things our Brethren undertake to prove; p. 90.</P>
<LIST>
<PB N="65" REF="52">
<ITEM>1. <HI>That prophecie is a Gift, not an Office.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>That &s;ome have the gift of prophecie, and that gift &s;till continueth.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. <HI>That &s;ome per&s;ons not ordained have it.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>I &s;hall only premi&s;e this, that I hope our Brethren un|der&s;tand by <HI>prophecie,</HI> &s;uch <HI>prophecie</HI> as the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks of in the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> otherwi&s;e they deceive their Reader with an <HI>equivocal word;</HI> and then I deny all three of their Po&s;itions, and &s;hall proceed to examine their proof of them.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That prophecie is a gift, not an office,</HI> they prove,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Becau&s;e there is no Scripture-warrant to ordain pro|phets.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Becau&s;e they cannot be ordained, till they be di&s;cern|ed to have the gift of prophecie.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Becau&s;e &s;ome have this gift, who are no officers.</HI> This la&s;t I deny, they pretend to prove it hereafter.</P>
<P>As to the two fir&s;t, our Brethren di&s;pute <HI>ex ignoratione Elenchi,</HI> again&s;t what none deny; who ever &s;aid tho&s;e Prophets were ordinary Officers? We &s;ay they were ex|traordinary Officers, who were furni&s;hed with an ex|traordinary Gift, <HI>either to foretell things to come, or el&s;e to interpret Scripture by an infallible Spirit, without the u&s;e of &s;uch means as we now mu&s;t u&s;e;</HI> and being thus furni&s;hed, were made Officers at that time by an <HI>imme|diate Mi&s;&s;ion,</HI> to which Ordination was not nece&s;|&s;ary.</P>
<P>So then two things we in&s;i&s;t upon. 1. That Prophets were <HI>extraordinary Officers.</HI> 2. <HI>That their gift was an extraordinary gift of the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> The fir&s;t is enough for this place: That they were <HI>officers,</HI> appears from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1, 2. And that they were <HI>extraordinary,</HI> appears in that they are &s;et before Evangeli&s;ts, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. and from their extraordinary gifts, <HI>Acts</HI> 11.27, 28. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9, 10, 11. and from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.26. from which text it is plain, that they &s;pake
<PB N="66" REF="53"> from <HI>revelation,</HI> this hath been told our Brethren both by our reverend Brethren of <HI>London,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jus Divinum,</HI> pag. 97, 98. <HI>Vindiciae mini|&s;te<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ii,</HI> p. 50, 51, &amp;c.</NOTE> &amp; by my &s;elf. Now for our Brethren to argue again&s;t this, becau&s;e <HI>they were not ordained,</HI> is a pitifull <HI>Non &s;equitur;</HI> for none ever &s;aid <HI>Ordination</HI> was nece&s;&s;ary to the con&s;titution of an <HI>A|po&s;tle,</HI> or any <HI>extraordinary</HI> Officer.</P>
<Q>But our Brethren judge that they can prove, that prophecying was not an office, but a gift, <HI>p. 90. And this they endeavour by two Arguments, p. 91. &amp;c.</HI></Q>
<P>Their fir&s;t Argument in form is this,
<Q><P>If all who have the gift of prophecie are Prophets, then prophecie is a gift, not an office.</P>
<P>But all who have the gift of prophecie are Pro|phets; <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>We deny the Con&s;equence, and &s;ay our Brethren have not proved it; for this it all they &s;ay,</P>
<P><Q>They mu&s;t fir&s;t have the gift before they can be made Prophets.</Q> We deny that. God in the &s;ame moment clo|thed them with an extraordinary Authority, &amp; furni&s;hed them with an extraordinary <HI>gift.</HI> So he did <HI>Jeremy, A|mos,</HI> and all the Prophets of old. I wonder which of them could be &s;aid to have the <HI>Gift of prophecie one mo|ment</HI> before they were Prophets by Office too? this is &s;till a fallacy <HI>ab ignoratione Elenchi;</HI> to extraordinary Officers, no &s;uch thing was needfull.</P>
<P>Our brethrens &s;econd Argument is this,
<Q><P>That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church in <HI>Co|rinth,</HI> was a gift only, not an office.</P>
<P>But Prophecying might &s;o be coveted; <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>Before I give a direct an&s;wer to the Argument, I con|ceive <HI>prophecying</HI> (to &s;peak properly) to be neither a <HI>gift</HI> nor <HI>office,</HI> but an act by which either is exerci&s;ed, which act we &s;ay none could exerci&s;e, but he who had the <HI>gift</HI> for it, and al&s;o the extraordinary authority
<PB N="67" REF="53"> which impowred him to it; and that <HI>prophecying</HI> is in no &s;en&s;e to be called a gift, but as an <HI>office</HI> is a <HI>gift,</HI> being con&s;tituted for the good of the Church, and an honour to them that have it. But to &s;peak to their Argument.</P>
<P>In the fir&s;t place, I deny the <HI>Major. That which ought in tho&s;e times to be coveted, and might in faith have been coveted by every member of the Church of</HI> Corinth, <HI>might be an extraordinary office.</HI> But &s;ay our Brethren.</P>
<Q>The Lord had no where promi&s;ed to make every member of the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> a Church officer, therefore it could not be an office.</Q>
<P N="1">1. Our Brethren did not con&s;ider, that the &s;ame Argu|ment will prove it was no gift, except they can &s;hew us where the Lord had promi&s;ed to give every member of the Church the gift of prophecie, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.29. Are all Prophets? The Lord no where promi&s;ed to give all Chri&s;tians a <HI>power to work miracles,</HI> or to &s;peak with tongues, yet &s;urely, they might covet it, as it is plain from the next words, where though prophecying be preferred before tongues, yet that is left upon record as one of tho&s;e gifts might be coveted.</P>
<P N="2">2. God hath no where promi&s;ed that <HI>John a Stiles</HI> &s;hould recover of his &s;ickne&s;s; doth it therefore follow he cannot <HI>pray in Faith?</HI> We u&s;e to teach our People, that our prayers for things not nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, &s;hould be prayed for with &s;ubmi&s;sion to Gods will, and the prayer is in Faith, while he that prays believes, God will do that which is mo&s;t good for him; &s;o might every member of the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> pray for a gift, that he might be able to prophe&s;ie; but he ought to regulate his de&s;ires with a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the will, and wi&s;dom of God; and doing &s;o he might pray in <HI>faith,</HI> though there were no &s;uch particular promi&s;e.</P>
<Q><P><HI>Object.</HI> But &s;ay our Brethren, this was impo&s;&s;ible to be obtained, <BIBL><HI>1 Cor. 12.17.</HI></BIBL></P>
<P>If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?</P></Q>
<PB N="68" REF="54">
<P>If I &s;hould tell our Brethren here, <HI>To God nothing is impo&s;&s;ible,</HI> they would think I equivocated with them, yet it is the coyn they have much u&s;ed in payment to me; but where lyes the impo&s;&s;ibility, in re&s;pect of Gods re|vealed will? they in&s;tance in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 22.17. <HI>If the whole body were an eye, where would hearing be?</HI></P>
<P>That Text indeed proves, that all the Members of a particular Church, cannot be officers to that Church (and we wi&s;h our Brethren would think of that Text, who gave leave to any of their members to be <HI>tongues</HI> to &s;peak the word, <HI>ears</HI> to hear, and <HI>heads</HI> to govern, whiles they order all affairs by common &s;uffrage) But &s;urely it will not follow, but that all tho&s;e who are mem|bers in this particular Church, may yet be in time Offi|cers to other Churches, there is no impo&s;sibility in this at all: yea and they ought to labour after &s;uch a per|fection.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, univer&s;al holine&s;s (our Brethren know) may and ought to be laboured for, yet <HI>it is not promi&s;ed,</HI> nor can be attained.</P>
<P>We allow al&s;o that Text, to prove that <HI>all the Mem|bers of the univer&s;al Church,</HI> &s;hould not be ordinary Officers.</P>
<P>But it doth not prove an impo&s;sibility of their being <HI>extraordinary officers:</HI> Much le&s;s doth any thing they have &s;aid, prove that all Chri&s;tians in that Church, might not labour for &s;uch gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office, when God &s;hould &s;et them in &s;uch re|lations. Neither can I under&s;tand the <HI>har&s;hne&s;s of the &s;ound,</HI> which our Brethren hint, <HI>pag.</HI> 92. That it &s;hould be the duty of every private Chri&s;tian to pray for &s;uch a proportion of gifts, as (if God plea&s;ed &s;o to imploy him) he might al&s;o be able to interpret Scriptures by an <HI>uner|ring Spirit,</HI> and <HI>&s;peak with tongues,</HI> or be able to heal the &s;ick, provided his End were right in de&s;iring. For the&s;e were peculiar favours that God had promi&s;ed by
<PB N="69" REF="54"> <HI>Joel,</HI> and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apo&s;tle <HI>might wi&s;h for, them they might pray for:</HI> but 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.5. <HI>I would that you all &s;pake with tongues.</HI> They proceed to the proof of the <HI>Minor:</HI> viz.</P>
<P><Q>That the prophecying &s;poken of, ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of <HI>Corinth; this they prove from the terms,</HI> ye, <HI>and</HI> all, v. <HI>1.</HI> v. <HI>5. To which I an&s;wer:</HI></Q></P>
<P N="1">1. Having denyed the <HI>Major,</HI> and made good our denial of it: I need not trouble my &s;elf with denying this.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our Brethren al&s;o know the term <HI>all</HI> doth not in|clude every individual always. <HI>Are all Prophets?</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.29. Let us hear what they &s;ay to our Arguments, to prove that the&s;e prophets were Officers.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>We argued from two Texts of Scriptures,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. <HI>Where they &s;tand di&s;tingui&s;h|ed from the people, and enumerated among&s;t officers, pla|ced before Evangeli&s;ts, and next to the Apo&s;tles.</HI> To this they an&s;wer, <HI>p.</HI> 93, 94, 95.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>"That priority of order is no infallible Argument.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>"That &s;ome not Officers are enumerated,</HI> 1 Cor. 12.28. and prophecie is called a gift, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6.</P>
<P N="3">3. <Q>Tho&s;e texts might be meant of extraordinary Pro|phets, <HI>&s;uch as</HI> Acts <HI>11.27, 28.</HI></Q></P>
<P>To all which I &s;hall give a &s;hort an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. We grant <HI>priority of order</HI> is no infallible Argu|men, where there is any other Scripture, or any &s;ound rea&s;on to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men, to expre&s;s the Order; but we &s;ay our brethren have no &s;uch Text, nor rea&s;on neither, and that the Apo&s;tle in that Text, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. &s;eems to rank <HI>Preaching Of|ficers,</HI> according to their dignity, beginning with <HI>A|po&s;tles,</HI> then reckoning <HI>Evangeli&s;ts,</HI> Thirdly, <HI>Pro|phets,</HI> Fourthly, <HI>Pa&s;tors,</HI> Fifthly, <HI>Teachers:</HI> And ver&s;e 12. To <HI>di&s;tingui&s;h them from ordinary Saints,
<PB N="80" REF="55"> and the common Members of the Body of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. We &s;ay, there are none but Officers mentioned, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. Nor any, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. But &s;uch as were either <HI>officers,</HI> or <HI>gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> from whence we conclude, That <HI>Pro|phets were either extraordinary officers,</HI> or <HI>ordinary offi|cers,</HI> or gifted with <HI>extraordinary gifts (peculiar to that &s;tate of the Church.)</HI> Now it is indifferent to us (as to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie) of which it be under&s;tood; So our Brethren will grant, that one of them mu&s;t be meant, and &s;o much that Text will evince. <HI>If Gifted men</HI> be meant, I wonder who are the <HI>Church</HI> in which they are &s;et? <HI>ver.</HI> 29. Our Brethren &s;ay, <HI>prophecie</HI> is called a <HI>Gift,</HI> Rom. 12.6. but there is nothing plainer, than that by <HI>gift,</HI> is meant <HI>office,</HI> to him that readeth <HI>ver.</HI> 7.8.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whereas our Brethren &s;ay tho&s;e Texts, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. may be meant of <HI>extraordinary prophets,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 96.</NOTE> we take them at their word; and &s;ay it is all we have been contending for; only then it lies upon our brethren to prove, that the <HI>prophets</HI> &s;poken of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. are not the &s;ame &s;poken of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. we appeal to every judicious Chri&s;tian to judge in the Ca&s;e.</P>
<P>In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it <HI>a gift &s;till continuing in the Church.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Becau&s;e there is no Go&s;pel Rule for the cea&s;ing of it:</HI> So &s;ay the <HI>Prelates</HI> for <HI>Arch-bi&s;hops,</HI> and <HI>Bi&s;hops;</HI> where is the rule for the cea&s;ing of their Office? We &s;ay the Apo&s;tles giving Rules for the ordaining <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers</HI> in Churches, and committing government to them, was enough, and the ce&s;&s;ation of their <HI>extraordina|ry Mi&s;&s;ion</HI> was enough. So we &s;ay for the&s;e <HI>Prophets,</HI> the ce&s;&s;ation of the Gift manife&s;ted by obvious experi|ence, is a demon&s;tration to us that <HI>prophecie</HI> is cea&s;ed, where is there any now that can without &s;tudy and me|ditation, infallibly give the &s;en&s;e of Scriptures, from <HI>re|velation,</HI> or can <HI>foretell things to come?</HI> we have pitifull
<PB N="71" REF="55"> experience every day that tho&s;e pleaded for cannot do the <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> and the year 1657. being come and gone, and the Jews not converted, proves that <HI>John Tillingha&s;t</HI> (though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for) prove they cannot do the <HI>later.</HI> As we &s;ay to the <HI>Prelatical party,</HI> &s;o we &s;ay to our Brethren, St. <HI>Pauls</HI> charging <HI>Timothy</HI> to <HI>&s;tudy</HI> and <HI>meditate,</HI> &amp;c. was a cer|tain proof, that this prophecying is cea&s;ed.</P>
<P>Secondly, "Our Brethren &s;ay it was an <HI>ordinary gift,</HI> and <HI>therefore it continues;</HI> the gift of tongues, and heal|ing in tho&s;e days were ordinary, yet none of them is con|tinuing, I hope.</P>
<P>What el&s;e our Brethren mean by <HI>ordinary,</HI> I cannot tell; for if they mean it was given by God for a <HI>&s;tand|ing Ordinance,</HI> it is yet to be proved; for this they refer us to Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> (a man whom I honour, but am not of his minde in this thing.) It was indeed his opini|on, that the Apo&s;tle by <HI>prophecying,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.1. means no other <HI>than the ordinary acts of Pa&s;tors and Teachers,</HI> though from an <HI>extraordinary principle and faculty;</HI> &s;o that &s;till he thought, <HI>the gift was extraordinary,</HI> which they by their <HI>prophecying</HI> did exerci&s;e. For tho&s;e eight particulars in&s;tanced in by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> recited by our brethren, p. 99, 100. we &s;ay they were no other than <HI>rules of order,</HI> which extraordinary officers, as well as ordinary were to be limited by. But I wonder our bre|thren &s;hould quote Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> and &s;et down his words too, which plainly &s;ay, he thought the <HI>gift ex|traordinary,</HI> though their <HI>acts</HI> were but the <HI>acts of or|dinary Officers.</HI> The&s;e are his words as quoted by our Brethren.</P>
<Q>Only the internal principle, to wit the infu&s;ed gift of prophecying, made them extraordinary pro|phets <HI>in fieri,</HI> as our prophets become prophets <HI>in fieri</HI> by ordinary &s;tudies and indu&s;try; but in <HI>facto e&s;&s;e,</HI> and according to the &s;ub&s;tance of
<PB N="72" REF="56"> the acts of prophecying, the&s;e extraordinary Pro|phets, and our ordinary Pa&s;tors differ not in &s;pecie, &amp;c.</Q>
<P>Let any <HI>Reader,</HI> who under&s;tands <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> judge whe|ther Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> thought the <HI>Gift</HI> of prophecie was <HI>ordinary;</HI> he indeed thought the <HI>Act was,</HI> viz. That God in tho&s;e days by <HI>Revelation</HI> immediatly gifted the Mini|&s;ters of his Go&s;pel in the Church of <HI>Corinth;</HI> but our brethren are to prove the <HI>Gift</HI> is ordinary; if they re|member what they undertook, <HI>pag.</HI> 96. to prove which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> will do them no kindne&s;s: The faculty of &s;eeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the <HI>blind man;</HI> and the conver&s;ion of the water into wine at <HI>Cana,</HI> John 2. (which are the two in&s;tances Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> in&s;i&s;ts upon) were both <HI>extraordinary,</HI> though when the blind man had his <HI>vi&s;ive faculty</HI> by a Miracle conferred, his &s;eeing was but ordinary as other men, and when the Wine was made, it ta&s;ted like other Wine.</P>
<Q>Our <HI>Brethren</HI> proceed &s;till with their fallacy of argu|ing from the <HI>Act</HI> to the <HI>Gift,</HI> or rather of putting in <HI>Act,</HI> where they &s;hould have put in <HI>Gift,</HI> pag. 100.</Q>
<P N="1">1. And they again tell us the <HI>Rules to regulate the work are ordinary,</HI> what is this to prove the gift is &s;o? the Act may be ordinary, and yet the <HI>Gift</HI> not &s;o; as in the ca&s;e of the <HI>blind man</HI> before mentioned. The work of ex|traordinary <HI>officers</HI> and <HI>gifts</HI> were to come under gene|ral Rules of order, I hope.</P>
<P N="2">2. But they tell us the de&s;cription <HI>of the work is ordi|nary:</HI> What if it be? The que&s;tion is what the de&s;cripti|on of the <HI>Gift</HI> would be: the de&s;cription of the <HI>Gift</HI> of &s;eeing, and the Act of <HI>&s;eeing</HI> are two things, I hope, &s;o in this ca&s;e; but where is that de&s;cription? They tell us, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.3. <Q>He that prophecyeth &s;peaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort.</Q> Hete they tell us is the <HI>Act,</HI> Exhortation, 2. The Ends of it, <HI>exhortation</HI>
<PB N="73" REF="56"> and <HI>comfort.</HI> Surely our Brethren pre&s;umed that none &s;hould ever examine what they &s;ay; the Text is,</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edifi|cation, and exhortation, and comfort.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. (So far as it is a de&s;cription) It is a de&s;cription of the <HI>Act</HI> not of the <HI>gift.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, Our Brethren if they had plea&s;ed, might as well have &s;aid <HI>edification,</HI> or comfort was the <HI>Act,</HI> as they &s;ay <HI>exhortation</HI> is; for the Text proves the one as well as the other.</P>
<P>The truth is, the Apo&s;tle by the&s;e words only expre&s;|&s;eth the end of prophecying, and &s;uch ends as were common to that, with other ordinances &amp; duties too. If I &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>Paul</HI> working miracles <HI>confirmed the Go&s;pel f r the conver&s;ion of unbelievers;</HI> would it follow that the Act of <HI>working miracles</HI> was confirming the Go&s;pel?</P>
<P>In the third place they tell us, <Q>That one great end of extraordinary prophecying, and their main and proper act, <HI>viz.</HI> foretelling future events, is denyed to this prophe|cying:</Q> This they &s;ay, but they have not told us where that <HI>denial</HI> is to be found, and I cannot find it. All that I can find them &s;aying is this, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.22. It is &s;aid, <HI>Tongues were for a &s;ign to them that believed not; but Prophecy &s;erveth not for them who believe not, but for tho&s;e that believe.</HI> Hence they ob&s;erve, That the <Q>antithe&s;is <HI>betwixt</HI> Tongues and Prophets, that tongues were for a &s;ign, but not prophecie, proves, that prophecy could not be for a &s;ign.</Q> But this is wofully fallacious.</P>
<P N="1">1. The <HI>Antithe&s;is lyes not there,</HI> that <HI>Tongues were for a &s;ign, but prophecie not &s;o:</HI> but here, That <HI>tongues were for a &s;ign to heathens that bel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">eved not; but prophe|cying was a &s;ign only for &s;uch as believed;</HI> viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church; this text only proves, that prophecie was no &s;ign to them that believed not.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="74" REF="57">2. Though the <HI>foretelling of things to come,</HI> might bear the <HI>nature of a &s;ign;</HI> yet this was not the only end of it; but the faith, and holine&s;s of the per&s;ons to whom the prophecie was directed; neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come <HI>confirm any thing to any,</HI> till they &s;aw them accompli&s;hed.</P>
<P N="3">3. I conceive the chief act of tho&s;e Prophete&s;&s;es, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. was their <HI>infallible interpretation of Scripture, by an extraordinary gift,</HI> which indeed to them that be|lieved not the Scriptures, would be of no u&s;e; but was to &s;uch as did believe them.</P>
<P>Fourthly, <Q>Our Brethren &s;ay, Women Prophete&s;&s;es are forbidden to &s;peak in the Church, <HI>1</HI> Cor. <HI>14.34.</HI> But wo|men Prophete&s;&s;es might prophe&s;ie things to come, <HI>Luke 2.38.</HI></Q></P>
<P N="1">1. I an&s;wer, that our Brethren do not find <HI>women pro|phete&s;&s;es</HI> mentioned 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.34. only <HI>women.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Secondly, our Brethren do not finde that <HI>Anna, Luke</HI> 2.36. &s;pake things to come; the Text only &s;aith, <HI>She gave thanks unto the Lord, and &s;pake of him to all them that looked for redemption in I&s;rael:</HI> She &s;pake of a Chri&s;t already born. She was called a <HI>Prophete&s;s</HI> (in all probability) becau&s;e of an extraordinary faculty &s;he had from <HI>Divine revelation to interpret Seripture:</HI> So that our Brethren &s;ee this kinde of publike prophecying (by their own in&s;tance) belonged to <HI>women;</HI> and there|fore by their own Argument was extraordinary. But the truth is, this Liberty was re&s;trained by the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.37. But this is enough to &s;hew the weakne&s;s of our Brethrens Argument.</P>
<Q>Our Brethren <HI>having</HI> &s;pent their &s;hot upon us, come at la&s;t to receive a <HI>volly</HI> from us; to prove prophecie an <HI>extraordinary gift,</HI> we had told our Brethren,</Q>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>ver.</HI> 26. it was evident. When therefore you come together, <HI>every one of you hath a P&s;alm, a doctrine,
<PB N="75" REF="57"> a revelation, an interpretation,</HI> (I have put in the word <HI>doctrine</HI> now, though I think it will not much &s;erve our Brethrens turn.)</P>
<P N="2">2. That <HI>proph<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">s</HI> are mentioned with a <HI>note of &s;ingu|larity,</HI> denying it to be a gift common to all, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 29, 30. <HI>Are all prophets?</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That <HI>prophets</HI> in all the Old Te&s;tament, and new too, &s;ignified <HI>extraordinary officers,</HI> who acted from <HI>immediate revelation.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. That <HI>prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rare&s;t gifts the Apo&s;tles had,</HI> 1 Cor. 13.2. 1 Cor. 14.16. pre|ferred before <HI>Tongues,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.1, 2. <HI>Paul</HI> compared him&s;elf with them, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.37.</P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>That it is di&s;tingui&s;hed from the word of wi&s;dom and knowledge.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>That it is &s;aid prophecyes &s;hall fail,</HI> 1 Cor. 13.8.</P>
<P N="7">7. <HI>That prophecying is &s;aid not to &s;erve for tho&s;e that believe not,</HI> 1 Cor. 14.22.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t our Brethren an&s;wer, that we left out the word <HI>doctrine,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.26. The charge falls not on me, but now it is put in, let us &s;ee what our brethren get by it. The &s;en&s;e of the text mu&s;t be, <HI>Either that every in|dividual member of the Church of</HI> Corinth <HI>had all the&s;e,</HI> and then they all had extraordinary gifts; for &s;urely the gift of <HI>compo&s;ing P&s;alms,</HI> and the gift of <HI>Revelation,</HI> &amp;c. mu&s;t be no ordinary gifts. If this be the &s;en&s;e, the prophecying in the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> was by per&s;ons extraordinarily gifted, infallibly in&s;pired, and &s;o the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails, becau&s;e they argue <HI>&agrave; pari,</HI> where is no parity in the <HI>&s;pe|cies</HI> of Gifts. Or el&s;e the &s;en&s;e mu&s;t be, one of you hath a <HI>doctrine,</HI> another a <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> another a <HI>Revelation,</HI> &amp;c. If this be the &s;en&s;e, how do our Brethren prove, that the <HI>Doctrine</HI> belonged to the <HI>prophets?</HI> Other Scri|ptures quoted by our Brethren, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.9. make labouring in Doctrine, the <HI>work of Pa&s;tors and
<PB N="76" REF="58"> Teachers,</HI> &amp; if the Doctrine were the <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> &amp; <HI>Teachers</HI> part, either the <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> or the <HI>Revelation</HI> mu&s;t be the <HI>Prophets work;</HI> for the interpretation clearly belonged <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">o tongues, or at lea&s;t related to it, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.13. 1 <HI>Cron.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">hren take which they will, the <HI>Gift was extraordinary.</HI> Our Brethren &s;ay, that <HI>Revelation</HI> is di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>Prophecy,</HI> ver. 6. but they did not con&s;ider that in the &s;ame words, it is di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>Doctrine too.</HI> What &s;hall I profit you, except I &s;hall &s;peak to you either by <HI>revelation, or by prophecying, or by doctrine?</HI> From whence we ea&s;ily conclude, that the <HI>prophecying</HI> meant, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. was not <HI>speaking to people by doctrine,</HI> and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But &s;ay our brethren, <HI>It may be meant of or|dinary revelation,</HI> Eph. 1.16, 17, 18.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let what revelation will be meant, <HI>It is not doctrine;</HI> the&s;e Prophets &s;pake not by Doctrine, that was another thing, <HI>ver.</HI> 6. Now I think <HI>preaching is a &s;peaking by Doctrine.</HI> And that is it to ju&s;tifie which we &s;ay no proof can be produced from this Text.</P>
<P>Secondly, We grant an <HI>ordinary revelation (&s;ano &s;en|&s;u)</HI> that is, That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people, in the u&s;e of due means, &s;uch a know|ledge <HI>of his written word, as is nece&s;&s;ary for their &s;al|vation;</HI> yea, <HI>as may be for their con&s;olation,</HI> that they may as to their own &s;ouls, <HI>know the hope of his Calling</HI> (as in that text, <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.16, 17, 18. quoted by our bre|thren) and <HI>know their own grace, and right unto glory,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.9, 10, 11, 12. <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.15. That they may be re|&s;olved in their doubts, and come up to perfection in knowledge and holine&s;s. But all this as to their own private u&s;e. Let our Brethren bring us any &s;hadow of Scripture, to prove that God hath promi&s;ed ordina|rily to reveal unto his people &s;uch a knowledge of the Scriptures, as they may publikely and ordinarily commu|nicate it in Church A&s;&s;emblies.</P>
<Q><PB N="77" REF="58">Whereas we told them <HI>Prophets are mentioned with a note of &s;ingularity,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.29, 30. they tell us &s;o was the gift of Teaching, yet it is an ordinary office.</Q>
<P>Every Reader will con&s;ider, that it was enough for us to prove, either that the&s;e Prophets were Officers, or that they had an extraordinary gift. It is true, the note of &s;ingularity affixed (or indeed the term of re&s;triction affixed rather) will not prove the gift was extraordina|ry; but it will prove that <HI>either the Prophets</HI> were Offi|cers, or the <HI>gift was extraordinary;</HI> for no others are there enumerated, but extraordinary, or ordinary offi|cers, or &s;uch as had the <HI>extraordinary gifts of the Ho|ly Gho&s;t.</HI></P>
<Q><HI>To our third Allegation,</HI> That the title Prophets, and the term prophecying in all the Old Te&s;tament is peculiar to per&s;ons that were extraordinary Offi|cers, and extraordinarily gifted, <HI>and</HI> generally <HI>&s;o in the</HI> New Te&s;tament;</Q>
<P>Our Brethren an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. <Q>That they have given many Arguments to prove that in <HI>1 Cor. 14.</HI> neither Officers, nor per&s;ons extra|ordinarily gifted are meant; and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the &s;ubject is mo&s;t fit to interpret it.</Q> But their &s;everal Rea&s;ons being an&s;wered, no more need be added.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>It is que&s;tionable they &s;ay, whether in &s;ome of the places mentioned, the word prophecying be taken, either for an act of Office; or for an exerci&s;e of an extraordinary gift;</HI> and to this purpo&s;e they mention, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1. <HI>Rev.</HI> 10.11. <HI>Mat.</HI> 7.22. <HI>Mat.</HI> 13.57. <HI>Luke</HI> 4.24. <HI>Mat.</HI> 10.41. <HI>Acts</HI> 15.32. To which I an&s;wer.</P>
<P>Indeed our Brethren of <HI>London,</HI> p. 94. and my &s;elf (from others) p. 50. did &s;ay, that we conceive, where ever <HI>Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture, &s;ome extraordinary Gift or Office is under&s;tood.</HI> It had
<PB N="78" REF="59"> been enough for us to have &s;aid that <HI>generally</HI> it is &s;o. But being the word is out, let it go, and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary.</P>
<P N="1">1. For that Text, <HI>Matth.</HI> 7.22. <HI>Many &s;hall &s;ay to me in that day, Lord, Lord, we have prophe&s;ied in thy name, and in thy name have we ca&s;t out devils, and done many miracles:</HI> We grant, that it cannot be from hence de|mon&s;tratively proved, that the <HI>prophecying</HI> here menti|oned was an <HI>extraordinary Gift;</HI> becau&s;e the other two things mentioned were; but we appeal to all the world, whether this be not a &s;trong pre&s;umption on our &s;ide, and &s;uch as our Brethren can never di&s;prove. For that text, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.1. <HI>There were certain Prophets and Tea|chers in the Church at</HI> Antioch. The&s;e were &s;uch Pro|phets as were <HI>joyned with Teachers.</HI> 2. <HI>Preferred before them,</HI> according to the order al&s;o u&s;ed, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28, 29. <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.11, 12. 3. <HI>Such as the Spirit called to ordain</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barnabas: Let any rea&s;onably judge, whether the&s;e can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church; for <HI>Rev.</HI> 10.11. <HI>John in a vi&s;ion took a little Book from the Angel, and did eat it</HI>&mdash;And then the Angel &s;aid to him, <HI>Thou maye&s;t prophe&s;ie again,</HI> &amp;c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we? Their next is, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13.57. <HI>A prophet is not without honour, but in his own Country;</HI> this Rule they &s;ay, <HI>is true of all faith|full Teachers.</HI> Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.5. commands <HI>Timo|thy to watch in all things, to endure afflictions, to do the work of an Evangeli&s;t, and to make proof of his Mi|ni&s;try;</HI> the&s;e things are the duties al&s;o of Ordinary Mi|ni&s;ters: doth it therefore follow, that Evangeli&s;ts were no extraordinary officers? For their two other Texts both to the &s;ame &s;en&s;e, <HI>Luke</HI> 4.24. <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.41. <HI>He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, &s;hall re|ceive a Prophets reward.</HI> What though the promi&s;e here by analogy concerneth all &s;uch as &s;hall entertain Mini|&s;ters,
<PB N="79" REF="59"> &amp;c. So doth the promi&s;e made to <HI>Jo&s;huah Jo&s;h.</HI> 1.5. <HI>I will never leave thee, nor for&s;ake thee</HI> (wit|ne&s;s the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.6.) belong to all Chri&s;tians, yet it will not follow, that therefore <HI>Jo&s;huah</HI> was no ex|traordinary per&s;on, but a meer private per&s;on, nor yet that the promi&s;e did not primarily concern <HI>Jo&s;huah,</HI> as to his extraordinary &s;ervice in &s;ubduing the <HI>Canaanites.</HI> For the Text, <HI>Acts</HI> 15.32. <HI>Judas and Silas being pro|phets al&s;o them&s;elves, exhorted the brethren, and with ma|ny words confirmed them.</HI> Hence our Brethren conclude, <HI>the work of Prophets was exhorting, and &s;ay, they ex|horted becau&s;e they were Prophets.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 109.</NOTE></P>
<P>Two things, or three mu&s;t here be enquired: 1. Whe|ther <HI>Judas</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> were not furni&s;hed with extraordi|nary gifts, or clothed with an extraordinary office or authority. 2. <HI>Whether they preached or no.</HI> 3. Whether what they did, was done by them as Prophets.</P>
<P N="1">1. As to the <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> it is plain from <HI>ver.</HI> 22. that both <HI>Judas</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> were no ordinary per&s;ons, there the Holy Gho&s;t calls them, <GAP DESC="foreign">, we tran&s;late it <HI>chief men among&s;t the Brethren.</HI> The word &s;ig|nifies men <HI>in &s;ome office among&s;t their Brethren;</HI> compare the u&s;age of it in other texts, <HI>Matth.</HI> 2.6. A <HI>Governour: Luke</HI> 22.26. Where it is oppo&s;ed to <GAP DESC="foreign"> one that &s;erveth, <HI>Acts</HI> 7.10. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.7, 24. <HI>Tho&s;e that have the rule over you:</HI> But this is not all, if it were the &s;ame <HI>Judas</HI> mentioned, <HI>Acts</HI> 1.13. he was one of the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and yet (might have the gift of prophecie too) we read of no other <HI>Judas</HI> (but he that was the Traitor) For <HI>Si|las,</HI> Acts 15.40. he was <HI>Pauls fellow labourer,</HI> and acting in equal work with him, <HI>Acts</HI> 16.29. they were un|doubtedly two of the hundred and twenty, who were <HI>all filled with the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> Acts 2.4.</P>
<P N="2">2. But another que&s;tion is, Whether this text proves <HI>they preached,</HI> the text &s;ays they <HI>exhorted,</HI> but all exhort|ing is not preaching: The truth is, they were &s;ent with
<PB N="80" REF="60"> the Synods Letters, and per&s;waded them to an unity in obedience to them.</P>
<P N="3">3. But yet thirdly, Suppo&s;e they <HI>(being Prophets)</HI> preached; how doth it prove that this act was perform|ed by them as <HI>Prophets?</HI> we may &s;ay <HI>Stephen</HI> being a Deacon preached, yet it will not follow preaching is an act of the Deacons office.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 109.</NOTE> Our Brethren add to the Scripture, when they &s;ay, <HI>their exhorting is &s;aid to be becau&s;e they were Prophets.</HI> The text &s;ays no &s;uch thing, <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth not &s;ignifie becau&s;e. The mention of their being Prophets, 1. di&s;tingui&s;hed them from ordinary Brethren. 2. It was made to let us know the dignity of the per&s;ons &s;ent as Me&s;&s;engers from the Synod; they were no ordinaty per&s;ons, no, they were <HI>Prophets.</HI> For their la&s;t Text, <HI>Rev.</HI> 11.8. concerning <HI>the prophe&s;ying of the two witne&s;&s;es,</HI> Our brethren grant that they cannot determine <HI>what act is meant by it:</HI> No more can we, only I ob&s;erve there were to be but two of them, &s;o that the <HI>gift</HI> or <HI>office</HI> was no ordinary gift or office, and that is enough for us: We do not &s;ay, but to &s;ome &s;ingle Chri&s;tian &s;ince the Apo&s;tles times, yea even in our times, God may have given to know and foretell <HI>things to come.</HI> Our brethren know there are &s;everal rare in&s;tances in &s;everal Ages to prove it. For our Brethrens la&s;t in&s;tance, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19, 20. <HI>We have al&s;o a more &s;ure word of prophe|cie,</HI> ver. 20. <HI>No prophecie of the Scripture is of private interpretation,</HI> I cannot conceive the force of any thing in that Text: That the Scripture is partly a word of Prophecie, every one knows; and our Brethren hnow the whole is oft denominated from the name of the part, by an ea&s;ie trope. We think that text rather fights again&s;t our Brethren than for them; for it &s;ays, <HI>no pro|phecie of the Scripture</HI> (i. e. which is found in the Scri|pture) <HI>is of private interpretation.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. As to our fourth pre&s;umption that prophecie was no ordinary but extraordinary Gift, becau&s;e <HI>it
<PB N="81" REF="60"> is reckoned among the rare&s;t gifts of the Apo&s;tles.</HI></P>
<P><Q>Our Brethren an&s;wer, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.20.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 111.</NOTE> that the rea&s;on why it is preferred before tongues, is expre&s;&s;ed, there becau&s;e <HI>it is of more publike u&s;e for edification.</HI></Q></P>
<P>We &s;ay that was <HI>one rea&s;on,</HI> but according to the A|po&s;tle (in ca&s;e he that &s;pake <HI>with tongues did interpret</HI>) that rea&s;on failed, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.5. and then another mu&s;t be found. And as to this rea&s;on, though the Prophet were greater in one re&s;pect, yet he was le&s;s in another; for he could &s;hew no <HI>&s;ign</HI> for the confirmation of the truths he &s;pake.</P>
<P N="5">5. We had told our Brethren, that the formal effect of <Q><HI>publike edifying, comforting, edifying, convincing, converting &s;ouls,</HI> are a&s;cribed to the&s;e <HI>Prophets,</HI> 1 Cor. 14. and therefore &s;ome thought they were officers.</Q> To this our Brethren an&s;wer, <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers are or|dinary Officers, and their gifts ordinary, yet they are u&s;e|full to the&s;e ends:</HI> What doth this prove? <HI>Ergo, If Pro|phets be officers,</HI> their gifts al&s;o may be &s;o u&s;efull: I think that is all. If the&s;e Prophets were any <HI>species</HI> of officers, it is enough for our turn.</P>
<P N="6">6. <Q>We told our brethren, <HI>prophecying is di&s;tingui&s;h|ed from the word of wi&s;dom, and from the word of know|ledge,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.8, 9, 10, 11. To this our brethren an|&s;wer three things. 1 <HI>So exhortation is di&s;tingui&s;hed from prophecy,</HI> Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. yet the Prophets ex|horted, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.3. <HI>Acts</HI> 15.32. 2. It is hard to de|termine the &s;pecial rea&s;on, <HI>why the Apo&s;tles &s;ometimes di&s;tingui&s;hed</HI> tho&s;e things each from other, which in them&s;elves &s;eem alike, as 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.6. 3. If becau&s;e prophecying is di&s;tingui&s;hed from the word of know|ledge, and the word of wi&s;dom, we will conclude, that by prophecying mu&s;t be meant foretelling things to come, then we mu&s;t conclude two &s;orts of Prophets, one who&s;e proper work &s;hould be to foretell things to come; Another who&s;e proper di&s;tinctive act &s;hould be
<PB N="82" REF="61"> to <HI>exhort,</HI> convince and comfort, 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 14.</Q></P>
<P>To all which I Reply.</P>
<P N="1">1. That there is nothing more clear, than that the Apo&s;tle in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. is &s;peaking of a <HI>diver&s;ity of Gifts,</HI> divided (as he &s;aith) <HI>ver.</HI> 11. <HI>to every man &s;everally;</HI> from whence it will follow, that <HI>pro|phecy</HI> is neither the <HI>word of wi&s;dom,</HI> nor <HI>knowledge, nor faith,</HI> nor the <HI>gift of healing,</HI> nor the <HI>gift of working miracles,</HI> nor the <HI>gift of di&s;cerning spirits,</HI> nor the <HI>gift of tongues,</HI> nor the <HI>interpretation of tongues;</HI> but the <HI>for|mal gift of prophecy,</HI> mu&s;t be &s;ome ninth thing, di&s;tinct from all the&s;e.</P>
<P>But Secondly, it will not follow, but &s;ome per&s;ons might have more than <HI>one of the&s;e gifts,</HI> though every one had not more than one, yet &s;ome might, as <HI>Paul had the word of knowledge,</HI> and <HI>wi&s;dom,</HI> and <HI>tongues,</HI> and <HI>mi|racles,</HI> and <HI>interpretation of tongues:</HI> So I &s;ee nothing to hinder, but he that had the <HI>special gift of prophecie,</HI> might be&s;ides have the <HI>word of wi&s;dom and knowledge.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;ing prophecie to have been a gift of <HI>fore|telling things to come,</HI> or <HI>explication of Scripture by an in|fallible Spirit, without u&s;e of means;</HI> yet they might &s;peak <HI>edification, exhortation,</HI> and <HI>comfort,</HI> which is all menti|oned, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.3. the Prophets of old, <HI>I&s;aiah, Jeremiah,</HI> &amp;c. did all; but the <HI>nature of their gift,</HI> and the &s;peci|fical difference of it did not lye <HI>in the thing spoken,</HI> or <HI>the End,</HI> but in the <HI>principle,</HI> enabling them &s;o to &s;peak.</P>
<P N="4">4. Our Brethren therefore &s;hall never prove, that <HI>exhortation,</HI> &amp;c. was the <HI>di&s;tinctive act</HI> of the Prophet (as they would in&s;inuate) for they them&s;elves mu&s;t grant that common to <HI>Apo&s;tles, Evangeli&s;ts, Pa&s;tors,</HI> and <HI>Teachers</HI> with them, and this is an an&s;wer to their third thing. For what they &s;ay before, that <HI>prophecie,</HI> Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. is di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>exhortation,</HI> it &s;ignifies nothing, becau&s;e <HI>exhortation</HI> was not the act of Prophets as <HI>Prophets.</HI></P>
<PB N="83" REF="61">
<P>It was told our Brethren, that 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13.8. the A|po&s;tle &s;aith: <Q>Whether there be prophecies, they &s;hall fail, whether there be tongues, they &s;hall cea&s;e, whether there be knowledge, that &s;hall vani&s;h away. <HI>Our Bre|thren an&s;wer,</HI> ver. <HI>9, 10. it &s;hall be,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 114.</NOTE> when that which is in part is done away: <HI>2.</HI> Not till the cea&s;ing of know|ledge in part.</Q></P>
<P N="1">1. We may as well <HI>maintain tongues not to be cea&s;ed;</HI> for they al&s;o are mentioned, <HI>ver.</HI> 8. as things which &s;hould fail, and we know they are failed, and &s;o (we judge) are <HI>prophecies</HI> too: nor will it help our Brethren (which they &s;ay) that <HI>ver.</HI> 9. it is not &s;aid <HI>tongues are in part;</HI> for the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e they were perfect <HI>in their kinde,</HI> and &s;o need not be done away, when that which is <HI>perfect &s;hould come;</HI> but if we take <HI>perfect in a true &s;en&s;e,</HI> for a <HI>perfection of the Saints in glory,</HI> then indeed they were imperfect things, &s;erving only as means in order to that end: Neither doth the Apo&s;tle &s;peak of the <HI>coming of that which is perfect,</HI> as the moving cau&s;e, or rea&s;on of that cea&s;ing of things that were in part; he doth not &s;ay, <HI>that which is in part &s;hall be done away, by the coming of that which is perfect;</HI> but he &s;peaks of it as a con&s;equent. The true &s;en&s;e is this, <HI>Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church &s;hall cea&s;e when we come in heaven;</HI> we conceive by tongues, and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary; By <HI>knowledge</HI> ordinary gifts and offices, the&s;e &s;hall all fail at that day, but &s;ome of the&s;e &s;hall fail before others. We lay no great &s;tre&s;s upon this Text, I have only &s;aid thus much to prevent our Brethrens u&s;ing of it, as they here do, though without any ju&s;t ground; for the truth is, it will &s;erve neither party.</P>
<Q>It was told our Brethren, that prophecying, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. is &s;aid not to &s;erve <HI>for tho&s;e that believed not, and therefore our Brethren mu&s;t keep their Gifted men to their Churches.</HI> If any
<PB N="84" REF="62"> thing can be clear in Scripture; &s;urely this is from that Text, <BIBL>1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.22.</BIBL></Q>
<P>To this our Brethren An&s;wer,</P>
<Q><P N="1">1. "<HI>That it will warrant their preaching in Church A&s;&s;emblies.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. That the Apo&s;tles intent &s;eemeth to be, but to deny prophecy to be a &s;ign to unbelievers, and to &s;erve onely for Believers to edifie them; but they &s;ay the Apo&s;tle acknowledgeth it to be u&s;efull to unbelievers to convert them.</P></Q>
<P>To which I an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. If there were any Prophets indeed, this would war|rant the exerci&s;e of their gifts to Church A&s;&s;emblies; but our Brethren cannot prove any &s;uch Prophets now exi&s;tent.</P>
<P>But Secondly, It is well our Brethren &s;ay no more, than this <HI>&s;eemeth to be the Apo&s;tles intent;</HI> for the Letter of Scripture is expre&s;s again&s;t them in the&s;e words.</P>
<Q>Wherefore tongues are for a &s;ign,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.22.</NOTE> not to them that be|lieve, but to them that believe not, but prophecy|ing, not for them that believe not, but for them that believe.</Q>
<P>Our Brethren would make us believe, that the &s;en&s;e is only, that prophecie was not for a &s;ign to them that be|lieved not, but for their conver&s;ion it might be. Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little, and judge be|twixt us.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is plain, that if prophecying were <HI>for any &s;ign,</HI> it mu&s;t be for unbelievers, for believers needed no &s;ign, they had already received the Go&s;pel: but the Apo&s;tle plainly &s;ays, it was not for <HI>unbelievers.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Let any Reader judge, whether tho&s;e words&mdash; <HI>But prophecying not for tho&s;e who believe not</HI>&mdash;do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to un|believers; if it were a <HI>&s;ign</HI> at all, it mu&s;t be for them who believed not: but &s;ay our Brethren, it is denied to
<PB N="85" REF="62"> be a <HI>&s;ign for them;</HI> and the words are plain enough, it is <HI>not for them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Oh! <HI>But though it be not a &s;ign for them, yet it might be to convert them,</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convet&s;ion; now that prophecy &s;hould be for their con|ver&s;ion, and not a &s;ign for it, &s;eems very har&s;h, con&s;i|dering, that the world had no greater &s;ign of the truth of the Go&s;pel than <HI>Prophecies.</HI> For what our Brethren &s;ay, that <HI>ver</HI> 25, 26. prove that <HI>prophecy</HI> is u&s;efull for the conver&s;ion of unbelievers, We grant it, but it is <HI>When the unbeliever comes in to the Church A&s;&s;embly,</HI> not when the <HI>Prophet goes out to them,</HI> ver. 23. <HI>If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place,</HI>&mdash;and ver. 24. <HI>There come in one that believeth not, or is unlearn|ed, he is convinced</HI> [or reproved] of all [<HI>i. e.</HI> tho&s;e that prophe&s;ie] <HI>he is judged of all,</HI> &amp;c. Mark, the Prophet is tied up to the <HI>A&s;&s;embly of the Church in one place:</HI> If our <HI>Brethrens</HI> Brethren be of this &s;ort of Prophets, what do they travelling up and down Countreys? (whom they think unbelievers) or intruding upon Congregati|ons that are vacant? where there is no A&s;&s;embly, our Brethren will own as a Church? the&s;e Prophets were not (by vertue of this Text) to be &s;ent out of the Church, only to be heard in it.</P>
<P>This is all our Brethren &s;ay about the&s;e Prophets, and although I really think their Argument from this Text, the mo&s;t probable of any they have; yet I hope an equi|table Reader will from what I have &s;aid, judge it not <HI>conclu&s;ive</HI> in the ca&s;e. I wonder at the reverend opini|on our Brethren expre&s;s of their other Arguments in compari&s;on of this. But let the Reader judge. Only led me add one text more to prove this <HI>prophecying</HI> an <HI>extraordinary gift,</HI> not <HI>ordinary;</HI> it is that,</P>
<P>Acts 19.6. <HI>And when</HI> Paul <HI>had laid his hands on them, the Holy Gho&s;t came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophe&s;ied,</HI></P>
<PB N="86" REF="63">
<P>Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text, and con|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ider, whether that the <HI>Gospel-prophe&s;ying</HI> were not one of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> Containing a Vindication of all my Arguments, brought in my <HI>Vindiciae</HI> again&s;t the ordinary preaching of Per|&s;ons meerly gifted, from what&s;oever our Brethren have &s;aid to infringe them, either in the &s;eventh, or in the tenth Chapters of their Book.</HEAD>
<P>OUr <HI>Brethren</HI> in their tenth Chapter pretend to An&s;wer my Arguments again&s;t the licentious pre|&s;umption of the ordinary Preaching of private per|&s;ons. My fir&s;t Argument I laid thus,
<Q><P>Not to ob&s;erve Gospel-order in acts of in&s;tituted wor|&s;hip is &s;infull.</P>
<P>But for private Chri&s;tians (how well gifted &s;oever) to preach ordinarily, <HI>i. e.</HI> to open and apply Scri|ptures, in publike Church-A&s;&s;emblies, is for them in acts of in&s;tituted wor&s;hip, not to ob&s;erve Gospel-Order&mdash;<HI>Ergo,</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>I pre&s;umed our Brethren would only deny the <HI>Mi|nor,</HI> which I thus proved.</P>
<Q><P>To adventure upon an admini&s;tration of a Gospel-Ordi|nance, without &s;uch a Mi&s;&s;ion, as Gospel-precepts require, and Gospel-Pre&s;idents hold forth &s;uch &s;hould have as &s;o admini&s;ter, is not to ob&s;erve Go|&s;pel-Order in Gospel-Wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>But for &s;uch to open and apply Scriptures is to do &s;o: <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<PB N="87" REF="63">
<P>I proved the <HI>Minor,</HI> becau&s;e all the precepts we have for the con&s;titution of Elders in Churches con&s;tituting, or con&s;tituted, required that be&s;ides their gifts, they &s;hould, likewi&s;e be &s;et apart by Ordination; and all the Pre&s;idents we have of per&s;ons Preaching in a &s;etled &s;tate of the Church ordinarily, were of per&s;ons &s;o &s;et apart by Ordination.</P>
<P>Now what &s;ay our Brethren to all this?</P>
<Q><P N="1">1. They doubt whether I would have my Major Propo&s;ition under&s;tood univer&s;ally.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 194.</NOTE></P>
<P N="2">2. But anon, they &s;uppo&s;e it, and they deny my <HI>Mi|nor, and &s;ay,</HI> that neither do Go&s;pel-Precepts require, nor Go&s;pel-Pre&s;idents hold forth, that all tho&s;e that preach the Go&s;pel &s;hould be &s;olemnly &s;et apart to the work. <HI>Then they review the Texts quoted by me: as to the Text,</HI> Titus <HI>1.5. they &s;ay,</HI> it only concerns El|ders. <HI>The &s;ame they an&s;wer to</HI> Acts <HI>14.23.</HI> Acts <HI>13.3, 4, 5. only as to 1</HI> Tim. <HI>5.22.</HI> they doubt whether by laying on of hands be not meant, conferring the gifts of the holy Gho&s;t (becau&s;e laying on of hands was u&s;ed in that ca&s;e too) and <HI>Timothy</HI> was an Evangeli&s;t, and as for <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> Acts <HI>13.3.</HI> they were officers and preachers before; <HI>this</HI> is all they have, <HI>pag. 193, 194, 195.</HI> as to my fir&s;t Argument <HI>I an&s;wer,</HI></P></Q>
<P N="1">1. That according to our Brethrens <HI>Logick</HI> deliver|ed to us before, <HI>That indefinite Propo&s;itions are u&s;ually equipollent to univer&s;als:</HI> Our Brethren needed not have doubted, but that I under&s;tood the Propo&s;ition univer|&s;ally. However, I do not love to trouble my Readers with &s;uch fallacies, as arguing from particulars to gene|rals; but I &s;till maintain, that <HI>no precept,</HI> no <HI>pre&s;ident in the Go&s;pel allows the ordinary publike preaching of per|&s;ons meerly gifted, in a &s;etled &s;tate of the Church, un|le&s;s they</HI> were &s;uch as had the extraordinary <HI>gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t;</HI> or &s;uch (as according to Scripture-direction) preached only <HI>probationis</HI> Ergo.</P>
<PB N="88" REF="64">
<P>Secondly (this being a negative) I had no way to make a &s;trict proof, unle&s;s we had come to an argument <HI>viv&acirc; vo|ce,</HI> then our Brethren know I &s;hould have argued thus,</P>
<P><HI>If the Go&s;pel-hath any Precepts, or Pre&s;idents, they mu&s;t be found in the Gospels, Epi&s;tles, Acts, or Revelations:</HI> And &s;o have followed on the Argument, till I had brought them to a&s;&s;ign the Place, or the Pre&s;ident. If they had in&s;tanced in the <HI>&s;cattered Chri&s;tians,</HI> Acts 9.11. all would have &s;een it had been nothing to the pur|po&s;e; for they were &s;ome of tho&s;e upon whom the Holy Gho&s;t fell; and the Church was under per&s;ecution. If they had in&s;tanced in <HI>Apollo,</HI> he was either an <HI>officer,</HI> or at lea&s;t a <HI>probationer;</HI> if they had told us of the <HI>Pro|phets</HI> at <HI>Corinth,</HI> if they were not ordinary officers (as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> thinks) yet it is plain they had <HI>extraor|dinary gifts</HI> (as I have proved) if they had brought that general Text, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10. I had told them (what I have now &s;aid) that if they will under&s;tand that Text in the general of any gift to be exerci&s;ed, without any more ado, then the gifted men may command <HI>States</HI> and <HI>Ar|mies,</HI> and admini&s;ter <HI>Sacraments;</HI> if they re&s;train it, we have as much warrant to re&s;train it to <HI>Ho&s;pitality,</HI> exe|cuted in the di&s;tribution of the gifts of Providence. So that con&s;idering the nature of my Argument, it was enough for me (till they had a&s;&s;igned precepts, or pre|&s;idents) to in&s;tance in &s;uch precepts and pre&s;idents as the Scripture afforded, laying mo&s;t &s;tre&s;s upon what I found in <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> (tho&s;e Epi&s;tles containing the &s;tanding Rules for the Government of the Churches planted and &s;etled.)</P>
<P>Thirdly, It was enough for me, who knew no other ordinary Preachers than <HI>teaching Elders</HI> (be&s;ides extra|ordinary officers) that the Scripture owns; to prove <HI>they</HI> were ordained; they are tho&s;e only that were to <HI>la|bour in the word and Doctrine,</HI> that was their work, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. and they have their <HI>denomination</HI> from it,
<PB N="89" REF="64"> from feeding called Pa&s;tors, and from <HI>Teaching</HI> called Teachers, and if every one might ordinarily, and pub|lickly feed and teach; I know not for what u&s;e their names &s;erved, which u&s;ually are given to per&s;ons and things to di&s;tingui&s;h them from others.</P>
<P>Fourthly, as to what they &s;ay, that 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. <HI>may be meant of conferring the gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> They &s;hould fir&s;t have proved that <HI>Timothy</HI> had any &s;uch power, his being an <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> proves no &s;uch thing, but only that he was left at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> to put the newly planted Churches into order; the Apo&s;tles in regard of their travelling, not being able to &s;tay &s;o long, nor do I finde any thing to per&s;wade me <HI>Timothy</HI> him&s;elf had re|ceived tho&s;e <HI>extraordinary gifts;</HI> however, the <HI>caution</HI> had bin needle&s;s; for it is plain, there was no long trial of any who received tho&s;e gifts, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.4.4.31. <HI>Act.</HI> 8.17. Neither do I believe tho&s;e gifts were by the Apo&s;tles hands con|veyed to any, but upon <HI>extraordinary revelation</HI> made fir&s;t to them, directing upon whom they &s;hould lay their hands: Hence they prayed, <HI>Acts</HI> 8.15. <HI>That the people might receive the Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> and yet laid no hands on <HI>Simon,</HI> though <HI>he believed,</HI> and was <HI>baptized,</HI> Acts 8.13. Be&s;ides, I hope our Brethren will not &s;ay, the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. was the conferring tho&s;e Gifts.</P>
<P>Fifthly, As to that in&s;tance, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. I made no further u&s;e of than to conclude the great honour God put upon this Ordinance; I granted <HI>Paul</HI> was an extra|ordinary Officer, and Preacher before: yet that the Lord may let us know his everla&s;ting will, concerning &s;uch as &s;hould be mediately &s;ent out by the Church, <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> (though extraordinarily Commi&s;&s;iona|ted) yet being to be &s;ent out by the Church, are (to &s;hew what all Churches &s;hould do) &s;ent out by <HI>&s;olemn fa&s;ting, and prayer, and laying on of hands;</HI> how much more &s;hould others, who can pretend no &s;uch extraor|dinary
<PB N="90" REF="65"> gifts or office. And this is I think enough to &s;et my fir&s;t Argument on its legs again.</P>
<P>My &s;econd Argument I &s;tated thus.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vindiciae</HI> pag. 33.</NOTE><HI>For any who are no Officers to take upon them to do Acts of office is &s;infull.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But for per&s;ons meerly gifted; to preach ordinarily in publike A&s;&s;emblies in the &s;etled &s;tate of the Church, is for per&s;ons who are no officers, to take upon them to do Acts of office.</HI></P>
<P>Not to multiply words needle&s;ly; by Acts of Office I meant <HI>Acts peculiar to office;</HI> then (&s;ay our Brethren) <HI>they deny my a&s;&s;umption.</HI> Preaching (they &s;ay) is not an act peculiar to office; I fore&s;aw this, and therefore laid in &s;ome proof for it.</P>
<P><Q>The proper acts of Pa&s;tors and Teachers, &amp;c. are acts peculiar to office.</Q></P>
<P><Q>But ordinary preaching in publike Church-A&s;&s;em|blies, in a &s;etled &s;tate of the Church, is the proper act of <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> &amp;c.</Q></P>
<P>By <HI>proper Acts</HI> our Brethren might have concluded, that I meant proper <HI>quarto modo,</HI> &s;uch as are peculiar to them: Then (they tell me) they deny the <HI>Minor;</HI> and (Reader) this is it that they affirm, <HI>That preaching is not the peculiar work of a preaching Elder, teaching the truth</HI> is not the <HI>peculiar work of a Teacher;</HI> but although <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers</HI> be &s;tanding Officers in the Church of Chri&s;t, who mu&s;t and ought to Preach, yet others may preach as well as they. Our Brethren do allow, that Pa&s;tors and Teachers are needfull to feed the flock of Chri&s;t; but yet that <HI>this flock</HI> may feed it &s;elf; that Chri&s;t hath appointed &s;ome, who&s;e ordinary work &s;hould be to <HI>teach,</HI> and who&s;e <HI>office</HI> it <HI>&s;hould be,</HI> to the performance of which <HI>they mu&s;t be &s;et apart;</HI> but yet there are others who may do the &s;ame thing without being &s;et apart; this is clearly our Brethrens &s;en&s;e, but how con&s;i&s;tent with rea&s;on, let the <HI>Reader</HI> judge. As to the making of my <HI>Argument</HI> good.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="91" REF="65">2. My former di&s;cour&s;e will make it appear, that i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> will lye upon our Brethren to give an in&s;tance <HI>of any one in Scripture,</HI> except <HI>extraordinary per&s;ons</HI> (in re&s;pect of <HI>extraordinary gifts and offices</HI>) who (not in order to Ordination) <HI>in a &s;etled &s;tate of the Church, did ordina|rily preach, or any precept to warrant &s;uch for the fu|ture.</HI> We have proof enough in Scripture that the El|ders, and <HI>Officers of the Church did it.</HI> I can yield it our Brethren, that the name <HI>Teacher</HI> is to di&s;tingui&s;h from him that <HI>exhorteth;</HI> but the name of <HI>Teacher</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;tor</HI> too, mu&s;t have <HI>teaching</HI> and <HI>exhorting,</HI> as their proper acts, by the force of the &s;ame Text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.7, 8. <HI>That work upon which the Officer of the Church is to wait, that is his peculiar work: but preaching is that work upon which Pa&s;tors and Teachers are to wait,</HI> Rom. 12.7, 8. <HI>That by Gods appointment</HI> it &s;hould be the work and charge of &s;ome, to wait upon the performance of an action, which any others may do as well, and as ordi|narily as they, is a &s;trange piece of &s;en&s;e:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 199.</NOTE> Our Bre|thren, <HI>p.</HI> 199. argue fallaciou&s;ly, when they &s;ay, <HI>Di&s;tri|bution is an act of the Deacons office,</HI> and yet <HI>every one may di&s;tribute: Di&s;tribution of the Churches &s;tock</HI> is indeed an act of the <HI>Deacons Office,</HI> and this none but they may di&s;tribute: They might as well have &s;aid, <HI>&s;peaking is the act of a man:</HI> Ergo, Preaching the word is not peculiar to office: He that <HI>breaks Bread,</HI> and gives it to another, doth materially (in our Brethrens &s;en&s;e) the Acts of him that admini&s;treth the Lords Sup|per: Yet our Brethren will grant, that the Sacra|mental breaking of Bread is an act of Office; Di|&s;tribution to the poor is not materially an act of the Deacons Office; but <HI>di&s;tribution of the Churches &s;tock is,</HI> and that none may do (if the Church have Deacons) but they.</P>
<P>I proceeded to prove Preaching an Act of Of|fice, thus;
<Q><PB N="92" REF="66">
<P>If Baptizing be an act peculiar to office, then is preaching &s;uch.</P>
<P>But baptizing is: <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>I proved the con&s;equence,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>Becau&s;e they are both in the &s;ame Commi&s;&s;ion.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>The Apo&s;tle makes preaching the greater Act,</HI> 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Our Brethren of <HI>London</HI> had u&s;ed the &s;ame Argu|ment, and brought the &s;ame Text in ju&s;tification of it, to which the&s;e Brethren endeavoured an an&s;wer, <HI>ch.</HI> 9. <HI>pag.</HI> 165, 166, &amp;c. To which here they refer me, yet withall, <HI>pag.</HI> 200. they give me a repetition. I will fair|ly &s;um up what they &s;ay in both places.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Our Brethren &s;ay, 1. <HI>That the Argument fal+leth as heavy upon us; for we will allow Probationers to preach, yet not to Baptize.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>Some</HI> (they &s;ay) <HI>think the Commi&s;&s;ion,</HI> Matth. 28.19, 20. <HI>is given to the Apo&s;tles as Officers; and that there is another Commi&s;&s;ion for gifted men.</HI></P>
<P>But (Thirdly) <HI>they tell us it is a mi&s;take; for the Commi&s;&s;ion,</HI> Matth. 28.19, 20. <HI>is not that which impower|eth men to preach. It was only an enlarging of a former Commi&s;&s;ion, and a making the Gentiles capable of being preached unto. For the Apo&s;tles preached, and bapti|zed before,</HI> Mark 10. <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6, 7.&mdash;The Apo&s;tles (they &s;ay) <HI>received as much power by this Commi&s;&s;ion, as any others their Succe&s;&s;ors could, but they received no Office-power by it.&mdash;It can,</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>only be concluded from hence, that tho&s;e who were in office before, might go and preach to the Gentiles.</HI>&mdash;Hence they deny, <HI>that the joyn|ing tho&s;e two acts together in that Commi&s;&s;ion doth con|clude that all who may do the one may do the other.</HI></P>
<P>Fourthly (they &s;ay) &s;ome deny that <HI>preaching</HI> is a greater <HI>work than baptizing:</HI> Here they quote (a great Friend of theirs) Dr. <HI>Homes.</HI></P>
<P>Fifthly, <HI>page</HI> 170. they &s;uppo&s;e <HI>preaching the grea|ter
<PB N="93" REF="66"> work;</HI> (el&s;e where our Brethren ingenuou&s;ly grant they think it is, <HI>pag.</HI> 233.) <HI>yet it doth not follow, that tho&s;e who do the greater may do the le&s;s, becau&s;e the le&s;s may be more limited.</HI></P>
<P>Sixtly, and la&s;tly, <HI>They finde, that men out of Office are allowed to perform the &s;ame acts, which have the de|nomination of preaching, and for the &s;ame end,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Preaching without Ordi|nation, <HI>p.</HI> 165, &amp;c.</NOTE> Matth. 18.15. <HI>Heb.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.25. <HI>Now they cannot finde the Go&s;pel allowing men out of Office, to perform that act called Baptizing, and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of Bapti&s;m is in&s;tituted for.</HI> This is the &s;um of all &s;aid in many more words, <HI>page</HI> 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 199, 200.</P>
<P>Now let us examine what there is in all this to prove, <HI>That tho&s;e who may preach, may not baptize,</HI> when as Chri&s;t with the &s;ame breath &s;aid, <HI>Go preach and baptize,</HI> and Saint <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith, he was not &s;ent to <HI>baptize,</HI> i. e. <HI>that was not his main act, but to preach.</HI> I &s;hall &s;hortly an|&s;wer to all our Brethren &s;ay.</P>
<P N="1">1. Under favour, our Brethren are mi&s;taken in the fall of the Argument from this Text upon us, who allow <HI>Probationers</HI> to preach: For 1. They were excepted out of the que&s;tion, as being by a &s;pecial rule in Gods word di&s;pen&s;ed with. Our Brethren can &s;hew no &s;uch Rule for their gifted men. 2. Neither do we allow them to preach <HI>ordinarily.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. As to the <HI>&s;econd</HI> thing they &s;ay, to make their a&s;&s;erti|on good, they mu&s;t bring forth that &s;ame other <HI>Com|mi&s;&s;ion for gifted men,</HI> before we &s;hall believe it: if it be that <HI>Matth.</HI> 10. <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6, 7. Our Brethren acknow|ledge they <HI>baptized too,</HI> the Text proves they had power to <HI>work miracles, ver.</HI> 1.</P>
<P N="3">3. As to what they &s;ay next, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Commi&s;&s;i|on, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. <HI>is not that Commi&s;&s;ion which au|thorizeth any to preach,</HI> we mu&s;t crave leave to deny it. Their Argument is this.</P>
<Q><PB N="94" REF="67">
<P>That Commi&s;&s;ion which did not give authority to the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves to Preach and Baptize, did not give others authority, claiming by and under the &s;ame Commi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>But that Commi&s;&s;ion did not give them Authority: <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> we confe&s;s (as to the pre&s;ent Commi&s;&s;i|on) The <HI>Minor</HI> we deny. All they have to prove it is this:
<Q><P>What authority they had before, that Commi&s;&s;ion did not give.</P>
<P>But they had authority before to Preach, and Bap|tize: <HI>Ergo,</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> we grant, the <HI>Major</HI> we deny.</P>
<P N="1">1. I &s;ay, that if a man hath two Commi&s;&s;ions to the &s;ame work, he is by both of them impowered, and au|thorized, and made in Office. Suppo&s;e an act of Par|liament con&s;tituteth &s;ome as Commi&s;&s;ioners for <HI>ejection of &s;candalous Mini&s;ters in the County of</HI> Norfolk: and afterwards, another Act pa&s;&s;eth to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, en|larging al&s;o their power, to the <HI>City and County of</HI> Nor|wich, doth not the later <HI>Commi&s;&s;ion authorize</HI> and <HI>im|power</HI> them as well as the fir&s;t? It is true, that Commi&s;&s;i|on, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. was not the fir&s;t Commi&s;&s;ion that impowered them to Preach, but it did impower them &s;urely; for the &s;ame authority is in the latter as in the former.</P>
<P>Secondly, our Brethren grant <HI>they were in no office to the Gentiles without that Commi&s;&s;ion;</HI> therefore I think that Commi&s;&s;ion impowred them.</P>
<P>Thirdly, our Saviour &s;aw, that after his A&s;cen&s;ion, there might be &s;ome que&s;tion, whether they might Preach, and Baptize, as they had done (during his Life) and whether any others might in that work &s;ucceed them, by authority from Chri&s;t, he therefore reneweth, and en|largeth their Commi&s;sion, and by making an everla&s;t|ing
<PB N="95" REF="67"> promi&s;e to tho&s;e who &s;hould &s;ucceed them in that work, he doth e&s;tabli&s;h a con&s;tant office of the Mini|&s;try, to the worlds end.</P>
<P>As to their fourth Allegation, it being that which our Brethren refu&s;e to own, or in&s;i&s;t upon, I &s;hall &s;pend no time about it.</P>
<P>For what they &s;ay fifthly, that <HI>&s;uppo&s;ing Preaching the greater work,</HI> yet it may be that <HI>Baptizing, which is the le&s;s, may be limited to Officers, and yet not that;</HI> I<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> may be &s;o indeed, but it is not very likely.</P>
<P>And I &s;uppo&s;e our Brethren mu&s;t produce a very plain Scripture to prove the limitation, before they will make any endued with a competency of rea&s;on believe tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> God hath by his <HI>will</HI> in his word authorized <HI>Mini&s;ters in office,</HI> to <HI>Preach,</HI> and to <HI>Baptize,</HI> and in the &s;ame word declared, that <HI>Preaching</HI> is the great, and <HI>chief act,</HI> to which he hath &s;ent them, and rather &s;ent them for that than for the other, <HI>viz. Baptizing,</HI> and yet it is his will, that any ordinary gifted per&s;ons may perform that greater act, but none but tho&s;e Officers may do the le&s;s: He that hath &s;o much, credulity as to afford any to &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion may; in the mean time our Brethren have not brought us one title of Scripture, to prove the <HI>limitation</HI> of <HI>Bapti&s;m:</HI> Some thing of rea|&s;on they pretend to, in what they &s;ay in the &s;ixth place, that they finde in Scripture, that other per&s;ons be&s;ides Officers may <HI>do the acts of Preaching,</HI> and <HI>for the ends;</HI> the acts, <HI>viz. admonition, exhortation,</HI> Mat. 18.15. <HI>Heb.</HI> 3.13.10.25. for the ends, <HI>viz. to prevent &s;in, build up in grace,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>To which I An&s;wer.</P>
<P>Sixthly, <HI>Admonition</HI> and <HI>Exhorting,</HI> &s;imply con&s;ider|ed without reference to the <HI>per&s;ons</HI> or <HI>manner,</HI> are not the <HI>acts of Preaching; ordinary Admoni&s;hing,</HI> and <HI>ex|horting</HI> in the publick A&s;&s;emblies of the Church, are in|deed. <HI>The pronouncing of the words,</HI> which <HI>the Judge</HI> pro|nounceth
<PB N="96" REF="68"> in pa&s;sing Sentence upon a Malefactor, is not the act of <HI>his Office,</HI> unle&s;s pronounced in due manner, upon the Arraignment, and condemnation of a Male|factor in an open Court after Trial.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>Oh but it &s;erveth to the &s;ame end.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Re&s;p.</HI> This is not enough to make it the <HI>&s;ame act.</HI> An Highway-man may pronounce the &s;ame Sentence the Judge doth, and to the &s;ame end, yet his act is <HI>not the &s;ame:</HI> But it is they &s;ay, <HI>materially</HI> the &s;ame.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our Brethren in this &s;ay nothing, for this doth not Legitimate the action; our Brethren may do actions <HI>materially</HI> the &s;ame with &s;uch as are commanded, and yet &s;in in doing of them, in this or that place, or man|ner; it is therefore no con&s;equence, that becau&s;e our Brethren no where read in Scripture that any but Offi|cers did <HI>materially</HI> the <HI>acts of Bapti&s;m,</HI> &amp;c. But do read that they did the <HI>material acts</HI> of Preaching, <HI>Ergo</HI> They may Preach but not Baptize.</P>
<P>But Thirdly, Our Brethren need no Scripture to prove, that any man may do the <HI>material acts</HI> of <HI>Bap|ti&s;m,</HI> and admini&s;tring the Supper: The material act of the one is <HI>sprinkling or powering water</HI> upon a face; of the other, a <HI>breaking of bread, and giving it to others.</HI> None ever que&s;tioned but every one may do the&s;e acts, and our Brethren oft do it to their children: There|fore this is no ground of re&s;training tho&s;e from Admi|ni&s;tring the Sacraments who&s;e authority to preach we implead. And &s;o much &s;hall &s;erve for the vindication of my &s;econd Argument.</P>
<P>My third Argument was: <Q>From the u&s;ele&s;ne&s;s of the great Ordinance of the Mini&s;terial Office, as to its chief act, <HI>viz.</HI> Preaching, if this practice be allowed.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Now the word of God cannot be &s;o contrary to it &s;elf, as, fir&s;t to &s;et up an Office, and then to make it u&s;ele&s;s as to its chief work.</Q></P>
<PB N="97" REF="68">
<P>To make this good, I had but two things to prove: 1. <HI>That Preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial Office.</HI> 2. <HI>That if every one who hath gifts may preach, there were no need of the Mini&s;terial Office</HI> (as to its chiefe&s;t act.)</P>
<P>To prove it to be the chief Act of the Mini&s;terial Of|fice, I urged,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That it is the fir&s;t Act mentioned in the Mini&s;teri|al Commi&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That</HI> St. <HI>Paul makes it his chief act,</HI> 1 Cor. 1.17. <HI>Chri&s;t &s;ent me not to Baptize, but to Preach.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Either this is the chief act of the Mini&s;terial Of|fice, or a Mini&s;ter hath no act proper to him, but that of admini&s;tring Bapti&s;m, and the Lords Supper.</HI> But no Scripture &s;hews the&s;e more peculiar to him.</P>
<P>To all this our Brethren an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. <Q>That <HI>the order of words</HI> doth not prove <HI>preaching</HI> the chief act, <HI>in that Commi&s;&s;ion, Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. Neither did I bring it as a demon&s;trative Argument: but I do not think Dr. <HI>Homes</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion true, that <HI>Preaching</HI> is but a preparation to <HI>Bapti&s;m;</HI> for he will find it mu&s;t follow Bapti&s;m as well as go before it, <HI>Teaching them</HI> to ob&s;erve, &amp;c. That &s;ame <HI>But</HI> there|fore is a but of the Doctors own &s;etting up, which all Scripture, and right rea&s;on will throw down.</Q></P>
<P N="2">2. <Q>But to make my work &s;hort, our Brethren, <HI>p.</HI> 203. at la&s;t do grant that Preaching is the <HI>chief act</HI> of the Mini&s;terial office, and that Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17. doth evidently prove it: So doth that <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.7, 8.</Q> Take from tho&s;e two Texts the&s;e two Arguments.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. That piece of the Mini&s;terial work, for the di&s;charge of which God e&s;pecially de&s;igns his Mi|ni&s;ters when he &s;ends them, that is their chief work.</P>
<P>But Preaching is &s;uch, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. That piece of the Mini&s;terial working, upon
<PB N="98" REF="69"> which the Mini&s;ter is mo&s;t e&s;pecially to wait, and ra|ther to neglect other parts than that, that is their chief work.</P>
<P>But Preaching is that piece of the Mini&s;terial work upon which Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel are e&s;pecially to wait, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.7, 8. to which they are e&s;pecially ordained, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.7.<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.11.</NOTE> to which they are in &s;pecial manner to give attendance, both to be prepared for it, and to do it, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and to do it well, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.15. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.2. they are rather to neglect others than that, as <HI>Paul</HI> did <HI>Baptizing,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.14, 15, 16, 17. And the Apo&s;tles judged it not meet they &s;hould <HI>leave the word of God to &s;erve Tables,</HI> Acts 6.2.&mdash;<HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>Therefore I think our Brethren have but done them|&s;elves right, in judging Preaching the <HI>chief and main work of the Mini&s;terial Office,</HI> p. 203. But (&s;ay they)</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 203.</NOTE><Q>Yet we do not finde any Scripture Rule to evidence, that Preaching in it &s;elf, is either an act of Office, or peculiar to the di&s;tinctive act of Office; to make it &s;o, there is required a being over them in the Lord, who are preached to, <HI>1 The&s;. 5.12.</HI> &mdash;and this they conceive doth make Preaehing an act of Office, &mdash;<HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>What this &s;erveth for, more than to blinde the Rea|der that he may not &s;ee the &s;trength of our Argument, I cannot tell. Our Argument was this.</P>
<Q><P>That which is the main Act of the Mini&s;terial Of|fice, for the performance of which God especially de&s;igned it, that is not lawfully to be performed, by &s;uch as are in no Office; for it is the peculiar act of Office.</P>
<P>But Preaching is the main and chief act for the per|formance of which God hath &s;et up an Office of the Mini&s;try, and de&s;igned it, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Ergo.</P></Q>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> our Brethren have granted; &s;o that they mu&s;t deny the <HI>Major</HI> or nothing; we prove it,
<Q><P>God doth nothing in vain.</P>
<PB N="99" REF="69">
<P>But in ca&s;e he had &s;et up an Office in his Church chiefly for the performance of an act, which many out of Office might do; he had as to that act &s;et it up in vain.&mdash;<BIBL>Ergo,</BIBL> <HI>It is fal&s;e that any other may do it.</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is evident to common &s;en&s;e or rea&s;on; were it not a vain thing for a Prince to e&s;tabli&s;h an Or|der of Officers (&s;uppo&s;e <HI>Ju&s;tices of the Peace, Colonels,</HI> and <HI>Captains</HI> of Armies, <HI>Con&s;tables</HI> in Pari&s;hes) if by the Law every man, though in no &s;uch office might do the main work that belonged to &s;uch an Office?</P>
<P>Hence we &s;ay, that the Lords e&s;tabli&s;hing a &s;tand|ing office of <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> and declaring in his Word, that the main end of his e&s;tabli&s;hing them, is for the <HI>Preaching of the Go&s;pel,</HI> doth clearly reveal his will, that this &s;hould not be the work of any but &s;uch Officers. Now what &s;ay our Brethren?</P>
<P><HI>The Preaching of a man in Office is an act peculiar to Office.</HI></P>
<P>This is the &s;um of what they &s;ay. If it be &s;en&s;e, I am &s;ure it is nothing to the que&s;tion, which is plainly beg|ged in the an&s;wer. For what is the Que&s;tion but this?</P>
<P><HI>Whether any but &s;uch as are in Office may ordinarily Preach?</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay no, becau&s;e Preaching is an act <HI>peculiar to Office:</HI> this we prove, becau&s;e it is the <HI>main and chief act</HI> and end, for which God &s;et up the Office. Our Bre|thren grant it to be the main and chief act, for the exer|ci&s;e of which God &s;et up the Office; and yet tell us, by and by, that Preaching is not &s;o. <HI>But the Preaching of one in Office is &s;o.</HI> Reader, if thou can&s;t pick out the &s;en&s;e of this, I cannot.</P>
<P>Our Brethten &s;hould have done well to have given us the difference between <HI>&s;imple Preaching,</HI> as it is an Or|dinance of Chri&s;t, and <HI>Office-Preaching</HI> as they call it.</P>
<PB N="100" REF="70">
<P>If they mean by Preaching, <HI>An act of a per&s;on clo|thed with the authority of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, by which in obe|dience to his Command, the Agent openeth and applyeth Scriptures in order to the conver&s;ion and edification of &s;ouls, and that in the publick A&s;&s;emblies, and to which people ought to attend.</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay, this mu&s;t be an act of Office, and all &s;uch Preaching is <HI>Office-Preaching,</HI> his <HI>authority</HI> puts him in Office. If they mean by Preaching,</P>
<P>Any per&s;ons di&s;cour&s;ing of the Scripture, either pri|vately, or publickly, in &s;uch a way, as that none is by Gods command obliged to hear him, nor can hear him looking upon what he does as the publick appointment of Chri&s;t, for the &s;alvation of his &s;oul; we allow gift|ed men may <HI>Preach</HI> in this &s;en&s;e: But we &s;ay, that (&s;trictly) this is no <HI>Preaching;</HI> it is no more than a pri|vate per&s;ons reading a good Book, to whom people are not bound to re&s;ort to hear, nor ought they &s;o to do upon the Lords days, which &s;hould be &s;pent in the du|ties of publick wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>Our Brethren, <HI>p.</HI> 203. ju&s;tly think, that in the hearts of &s;ome <HI>&s;erious Christians,</HI> there may be &s;ome &s;uch workings as the&s;e.</P>
<Q><P>If this Doctrine be true, that all gifted men may by the command of Chri&s;t Preach ordinarily, as well as Pa&s;tors, and Teachers; and all the Brethren have as much to do in ruling tne Church, as <HI>ruling Elders,</HI> &s;urely both Preaching and Ruling Elders are u&s;ele&s;s: for to what purpo&s;e are they &s;et a part for a work, which they might do without &s;uch a &s;etting apart, or any others do as well as they, when made Of|ficers.</P>
<P>And therefore &s;urely the&s;e principles have too much ab&s;urdity in them, and bear too much con|tradiction to the revealed will of God to be true.</P></Q>
<P> But &s;ay our Brethren,</P>
<Q><PB N="101" REF="70">
<P>If all acts which Officers might put forth,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 204.</NOTE> might be performed by members not in Office, yet there would be enough to speak Officers nece&s;&s;ary, and of great u&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. Though they put forth the &s;ame Acts, yet it is not under the &s;ame relation: A man provideth for his children as a Father, for the poor under another noti|on: A Chri&s;tian friend occa&s;ionally gives whol&s;om in&s;tructions to the children of his acquaintance; &s;o doth the Parent of the&s;e children; yet the manner is different, the one is under a &s;tanding Obligation, the other not. The Bayliffs are needfull in Corporations, where the major part carry it without the Bayliffs &s;ometimes, <HI>pag. 205.</HI> Church-Officers have a special over&s;ight <HI>over the</HI> flock, <HI>pag. 206. they</HI> are under a special de&s;ig|nation.&mdash;If a Church hath Officers, they by their place, are to go before the Church, in directing, and exe|cuting determinations.&mdash;But the Church may cen|&s;ure without Officers, <HI>p. 207.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>They &s;ay, that we</HI> allow &s;uch an Office as hath no act peculiar to it, <HI>viz.</HI> Ruling Elders.</P>
<P N="3">3. They do not &s;ay all may preach, but &s;uch as are really gifted.</P>
<P N="4">4. If there be Scripture-Warrant for gifted mens Preaching, it is needfull, whether we can &s;ee it or no.</P>
<P N="5">5. The Preaching of Apo&s;tles, and Evangeli&s;ts did not make the Office of Pa&s;tors and Teachers needle&s;s; nor <HI>&egrave; contra,</HI> becau&s;e every Church-member may di|&s;tribute to the poor, it will not follow the Office of Dea|con was needle&s;s.</P>
<P>This is the &s;um of what our Brethren &s;ay, <HI>pag.</HI> 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209.</P></Q>
<P> in many more words: To all which I &s;hall give a &s;hort an&s;wer:</P>
<P N="1">1. As to the pre&s;ent debate, I have nothing to do with arguing the needle&s;ne&s;s of Officers, as to the <HI>Go|vernment
<PB N="102" REF="71"> of the Church,</HI> of Officers; if others, be&s;ides &s;uch <HI>Officers,</HI> may act with them: Acts of Juri&s;diction in the Church were never by Chri&s;t committed to the &s;ingle hand of any per&s;on, nor yet to any &s;ingle Office; I think neither the Mini&s;ter alone, nor the Ruling El|ders alone, nor the multitude alone are the Church, to which offences &s;hould be told, or who can &s;ingly act in any formal cen&s;ure (except in a very high Ca&s;e of Ne|ce&s;&s;ity.) The work of <HI>Preaching</HI> is of another nature, it is by Chri&s;ts Order to be performed by this or that <HI>&s;ingle hand.</HI> It will not therefore follow, that becau&s;e there is a need of a <HI>Pa&s;tor,</HI> though <HI>ruling Elders</HI> (as we &s;ay) and the multitude as our Brethren &s;ay, ought to concur with them in acts of Cen&s;ure and Di&s;cipline; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">herefore there <HI>is a need of Teaching Elders,</HI> though others may <HI>teach as well as they;</HI> for the work of teach|ing may be (as I &s;aid before) performed by <HI>&s;ingle hands,</HI> without a concurrence to the act of any others, whe|ther Officers or Members, &s;o may not acts of Govern|ment.</P>
<P N="2">2. As to what our Brethren &s;ay, That <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers,</HI> act under another relation, as <HI>&s;et over people in the Lord,</HI> this amounts to no more than a <HI>notion,</HI> and makes no real difference: Let us examine what this &s;ig|nifies. Will our Brethren &s;ay the&s;e Preach as appoint|ed by Chri&s;t, others not &s;o? <HI>pag.</HI> 209. No &s;ay our Bre|thren, <HI>the gifted men are al&s;o by Divine appointment to preach,</HI> &s;o their authority is the &s;ame; Chri&s;t appoint|eth both the one, and the other (they &s;ay:) What then, do <HI>they not do the &s;ame material acts?</HI> That they do our Brethren told us, <HI>p.</HI> 200. they had <HI>found that</HI> in Scri|pture: What then? Is not the end the &s;ame, to <HI>con|vince, convert, exhort, edifie?</HI> Our Brethren told us, <HI>pag.</HI> 112. <HI>They knew not wherefore they &s;hould prophe&s;ie, if there were no hope of &s;uch effects.</HI> So then, our <HI>Bre|thren</HI> &s;ay, that gifted men have the &s;ame authority to
<PB N="103" REF="71"> preach, that <HI>teaching Elders;</HI> and <HI>teach the &s;ame things,</HI> &amp; <HI>to the &s;ame end.</HI> Now I wonder what this different <HI>rela|tion,</HI> which they here tell us of, &s;ignifies more then an empty notion: let us &s;ee if their &s;imilitudes will help us: <HI>A man they &s;ay provideth for his children, as a father;</HI> for <HI>the poor under another notion.</HI> But the que&s;t. is quite ano|ther thing, viz. Whether it would be nece&s;&s;ary, that there &s;hould be a <HI>&s;pecial order of per&s;ons,</HI> called <HI>fathers,</HI> to provide for the poor, if every one were bound to pro|vide for them; and to do the &s;ame acts, in the &s;ame order, and to the &s;ame end that they &s;hould do. <HI>A Christian Friend,</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>occa&s;ionaelly gives whol&s;om in&s;tructions to the children of his acquaintance, &s;o doth the parents of tho&s;e children, yet the manner is different; the one is under a &s;tanding Obligation, the other not.</HI></P>
<P>If this &s;imilitude runs on four feet, our Brethrens &s;en&s;e is this, That there is a need of Pa&s;tors and Tea|chers, though gifted men may Preach, <HI>becau&s;e gifted men are not under a standing Obligation to preach only, may do it occa&s;ionally.</HI></P>
<P>So then the &s;en&s;e is this, gifted men may Preach, &amp; &s;hall not need, except they li&s;t; they may preach, &amp; they may let it alone; but <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers,</HI> they mu&s;t do it.</P>
<P><HI>That they may let it aelone,</HI> I mo&s;t freely grant: But that they may <HI>either do it,</HI> or <HI>let it alone,</HI> 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 purpo&s;e) a&s;&s;ert their Liberty, but enjoyn it as their duty. See 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10. He that hath received <HI>the gift is commanded to Minister;</HI> he that hath the gift of <HI>Prophecy</HI> mu&s;t Prophecy. Our Brethren, &s;ay they, preach by <HI>Divine appointment,</HI> pag. 209. Now tho&s;e that are <HI>appointed</HI> to Preach, are not at their liberty, whether they will Preach or no. This pretence is therefore ex|ceeding vain: be&s;ides, it gives the gifted man a &s;uperi|ority over the <HI>Officer:</HI> for <HI>Greater is he that &s;itteth at
<PB N="104" REF="72"> the Table,</HI> and may choo&s;e whether he will &s;erve, or no, <HI>than he who &s;erveth,</HI> and mu&s;t &s;erve.</P>
<P>For our Brethrens other in&s;tance, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>Bayliffs in a Corporation may be u&s;efull, though the Common Coun|cell may act with them,</HI> it concerns not the pre&s;ent ca&s;e; it may have &s;omething in it to prove, that although the Members of the Church have a joynt power with the Officers of the Church, as to the executing &s;ome act of cen&s;ure; yet there is a need of them as to <HI>other acts</HI> (and that is all it will do too in that Ca&s;e) but here it &s;igni|fies nothing, becau&s;e Preaching is an act which may be done by a &s;ingle per&s;on, and we argue that there is no need of a <HI>special order of &s;ingle per&s;ons,</HI> to be in Com|mi&s;&s;ion for a work for which <HI>all were commi&s;sioned,</HI> and in which others may act.</P>
<P N="3">3. It is true that our Brethren &s;ay, we do allow &s;uch an Office as we &s;ay, hath no <HI>act peculiar to it,</HI> viz. that of <HI>Ruling Elders,</HI> their work is <HI>rule,</HI> and in that work they are joynt Commi&s;&s;ioners with the <HI>Teaching El|ders:</HI> But the que&s;tion is, whether we allow &s;uch <HI>as are not Officers</HI> to <HI>act in it.</HI> We &s;ay the office of ruling is a <HI>partible Office,</HI> divided betwixt the <HI>Teaching</HI> and <HI>Rule|ing</HI> Elder; who (as to that work) make but one <HI>office,</HI> to the execution of which a double <HI>Species</HI> of Officers is (ordinarily) nece&s;&s;ary. The&s;e two (as heretofore the King, Lords, and Commons of <HI>England</HI> made up the three E&s;tates, all nece&s;&s;ary to enact a Law) do make up the two <HI>States</HI> as it were in the Church, without whom an act of Rule cannot be put forth, in ordinary ca&s;es. But the ca&s;e is quite another, as to the work of Preach|ing, which may be performed by a <HI>&s;ingle per&s;on.</HI> If in|deed we had &s;aid, that the <HI>Ruling Elder</HI> might alone <HI>without the Teaching Elder,</HI> have (in ordinary ca&s;es) exerci&s;ed acts of Rule, Our Brethren had &s;aid &s;ome|thing, and we &s;hould have thought the Pa&s;tors Com|mi&s;&s;ion, as to <HI>ruling needle&s;s,</HI> and &s;o &egrave; <HI>contra</HI> we &s;hould
<PB N="105" REF="72"> have thought the <HI>ruling Elder needle&s;s,</HI> and &s;hould &s;o judge it, if we could &s;ee that the Pa&s;tor (in ordinary ca&s;e) without them might rule, which is the thing our Brethren plead for, the Preaching of Gifted men.</P>
<P>Fourthly, Our Brethren &s;ay they <HI>do not &s;ay all may preach, only tho&s;e who are gifted.</HI> But our Brethren dare not &s;ay, who &s;hall judge that (as I noted before) there|fore it is <HI>all that will.</HI></P>
<P>Fifthly, Our Brethren &s;ay true, our rea&s;on mu&s;t vail to the will of God revealed in Scripture. But when the que&s;tion is, <HI>whether there be any ground in Scripture for this liberty or no,</HI> and our Brethren have no plain Scri|pture to prove it, no particular Precept, no Pre&s;idents but of per&s;ons qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t, that ever ordinarily preached, We hope our Friends will judge, that it is no light Argu|ment to prove our Brethren mi&s;taken in the Scriptures they pretend, becau&s;e their &s;en&s;e of them being grant|ed, a <HI>&s;tanding</HI> Sacred Office of the Go&s;pel, plainly con|firmed by many Scriptures, would be made fru&s;traneous, and of no u&s;e.</P>
<P>Sixthly, But La&s;tly (&s;ay our Brethren) we do grant that <HI>Apostles</HI> and <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> might <HI>Preach, yet was not the Office of Pa&s;tors and Teachers needle&s;s.</HI> I An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. This is no con&s;equence; for <HI>Apo&s;tles and Evan|gelists were Officers.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. They were virtually <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers,</HI> they differed in nothing from them but the extent of their power.</P>
<P N="3">3. There was a plain need of <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the&s;e extraordinary Officers: for 1. <HI>They were to endure but for a time.</HI> 2. <HI>They were not to be confined to a place;</HI> it had been &s;in for them to have always &s;taid in one place. So that notwith&s;tanding
<PB N="106" REF="73"> them, there was an apparent u&s;e of Pa&s;tors &amp; Teachers.</P>
<P N="4">4. We &s;ay as to &s;uch times as they were re&s;ident in this or that particular Church, there was no need of any <HI>Pa&s;tors</HI> or <HI>Teachers,</HI> becau&s;e they could do all their acts: But we hope our Brethren will not &s;ay &s;o for their gifted men.</P>
<P>And thus much may &s;erve to have an&s;wered all they &s;ay again&s;t my third Argument.</P>
<P>My fourth Argument, I laid thus,</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vindiciae Mini&s;terii,</HI> pag. 38, 39.</NOTE></P>
<Q><P>What things (by Scripture-warrant) are in publick A&s;&s;emblies to be communicated unto others by faith|full men, who &s;hall be able to teach others, and to whom &s;uch things &s;hall fir&s;t be committed by Gods <HI>Timothies, tho&s;e things private per&s;ons,</HI> to whom they are not &s;o committed,may not &s;o communicate.</P>
<P>"But of this nature are Go&s;pel-Truths, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P>I granted our Brethren that the Greek word, tran|&s;lated <HI>Commit,</HI> did &s;ometimes &s;ignifie to <HI>propound a thing to others:</HI> But mo&s;t properly &s;uch a <HI>committing</HI> as is of <HI>a thing which is committed in tru&s;t to one, not to another,</HI> as Luk. 12.48. Luk. 23.46. Act 13.43. Act. 20.32. 1 Tim. 1.18. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.19. I told them it could not be under&s;tood in the former &s;en&s;e here; for &s;o <HI>Timothy</HI> was to preach to <HI>unfaithfull men,</HI> as well as <HI>faithfull;</HI> but he is commanded only to commit the&s;e <HI>things to faithfull men;</HI> and it was not enough that the&s;e men were <GAP DESC="foreign"> faithful, but notwith&s;tanding that they mu&s;t have the&s;e things committed to them, before they taught others.</P></Q>
<P> Now let us hear our Brethren.</P>
<P N="1">1. They grant that none but <HI>&s;uch as are faithfull</HI> and <HI>able may teach others;</HI> and <HI>&s;uch as</HI> are <HI>learned in Gospel my&s;teries:</HI> This will go a great way; for I hope our Bre|thren will not judge him able to <HI>interpret the Gospel;</HI> that <HI>is not able to interpret the Gospel</HI> out of the Original into his own Tongue. I wonder how he &s;hall di&s;tingui&s;h be|twixt
<PB N="107" REF="73"> the <HI>Jus Divinum</HI> of the <HI>Doway Bible,</HI> tran&s;lated into <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> and the <HI>Bible of our Engli&s;h tran&s;lation;</HI> as much may be &s;aid for the Old Te&s;tament; So that the knowledge of <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Hebrew,</HI> will be nece&s;&s;ary to under&s;tand <HI>Gospel-My&s;teries,</HI> &s;o far as to communicate them to others, viz. <HI>Revealing the whole Coun&s;el</HI> of God to them (indeed in ca&s;es of ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity, where enough &s;uch men cannot be found) &s;omething may be abated, not becau&s;e they are able, but becau&s;e none are to be found more able: For other Learning, as much might be &s;aid, but this is not directly to our pre&s;ent pur|po&s;e; our que&s;tion &s;uppo&s;eth them able, yet we &s;ay they are not Commi&s;&s;ionated.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our Brethren tell us, that the word tran&s;lated <HI>Com|mit,</HI> is to be taken here for a <HI>propounding of tho&s;e things doctrinally.</HI> <Q><HI>1.</HI> Becau&s;e the end is to make them able. <HI>2.</HI> Becau&s;e it doth not appear from any other Scripture, that any other committing of Gospel-Truths (<HI>viz.</HI> &s;uch as I speak of) is required unto a Call, <HI>no not to Office.</HI></Q></P>
<P N="1">1. But <HI>our Brethren</HI> have nothing in the Text to prove <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">hat the <HI>end of the Committing</HI> of tho&s;e things to them was to make them able, it &s;ays no &s;uch thing.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our <HI>Brethren</HI> know the <HI>Enallage</HI> of <HI>Ten&s;es</HI> is very ordinary in Scripture; the future u&s;ed for the pre&s;ent, and the pre&s;ent <HI>for the future ten&s;e.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. If <HI>Timothy</HI> were to commit tho&s;e things only to them that <HI>&s;hould be able</HI> to teach others, his <HI>Rule was ve|ry incertain;</HI> for how could he know who they &s;hould be?</P>
<P N="4">4. That there is an <HI>ordination</HI> nece&s;&s;ary, was el&s;ewhere proved by me, and more &s;ufficiently by the <HI>London Brethren.</HI></P>
<P><Q><HI>I told our Brethren,</HI> That <HI>Timothy</HI> is commanded to commit the&s;e to faithfull men only, and &s;uch as &s;hould be able to teach others; therefore it could not be meerly doctrinally, for &s;o they &s;hould be committed to all.</Q></P>
<PB N="108" REF="74">
<P><Q>To this I can finde no an&s;wer, only our Brethren &s;ay, that <HI>this is to &s;hew unconverted men are not to be Preachers.</HI>2. <HI>Nor all that are converted, but &s;uch as are able:</HI> </Q> But how this an&s;wers my Argument, I cannot gue&s;s; for if as our Brethren a&s;&s;ert, <HI>the committing</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ere but <HI>doctrinal</HI> that is here meant, it is &s;ure enough, they were thus to be communicated to the uncon|verted.</P>
<P>Again, whereas our Brethren &s;ay, that it is the com|mitting the&s;e <HI>things to them makes them able.</HI> We grant it in the &s;en&s;e of that known Maxime,
<Q>Id tantum po&s;&s;umus quod jure po&s;&s;umus.</Q> We &s;ay the Moral <HI>ability</HI> of the Preacher is created by his <HI>being authorized to the work,</HI> by a &s;olemn &s;eparation to the performance of it, without which, though ma|ny be <HI>naturally able,</HI> yet none is morally able, as it is the Judges Commi&s;&s;ion that makes him able to <HI>relieve the fatherle&s;s</HI> and oppre&s;&s;ed <HI>Widow</HI> in Judgement.</P>
<P>Our Brethren therefore (as their &s;afe&s;t refuge) flie to the old <GAP DESC="foreign">, that <HI>this was a Precept concerning Preachers by Office.</HI> The Text &s;aith no &s;uch thing, however, we own no others: whereas they &s;ay we <HI>mu&s;t re&s;train it to publick Preaching:</HI> We &s;ay there is rea&s;on for it; for the Apo&s;tles bu&s;ine&s;s is to direct <HI>Timothy</HI> in the &s;etling of Go&s;pel Churches, as to publick Officers and Admini&s;trations. And be&s;ides Rea&s;on will tell us, that tho&s;e need not to have <HI>Timothy</HI> commit the Scri|ptures to them, who exhort from the obligation of <HI>Na|tural</HI> and <HI>Oeconomical</HI> duty. But we &s;ay, that all &s;uch <HI>publick Teachers</HI> of others are here meant, as Preach with <HI>authority,</HI> obliging the Publick A&s;&s;emblies of the Church to hear them, &amp; all &s;uch as admini&s;ter that glo|rious publick Ordinance of God, which we call <HI>Preach|ing,</HI> and is the <HI>ordinary means</HI> of &s;aving &s;ouls.</P>
<P>And this is enough for the vindication of this Argu|ment. My fifth Argument was this.</P>
<Q><PB N="109" REF="74">
<P>Who&s;oever may lawfully Preach, may lawfully require a maintenance of the Church, to which they preach, <HI>1 Tim. 5.18&punc; Mat. 10.10. Gal. 6.6.</HI></P>
<P>But all the Gifted Members of a Church cannot re|quire a Maintenance of the Church, wherein they are&mdash;<HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>Our Brethren deny the Major, and &s;ay, <HI>The Scri|ptures alledged speak of a con&s;tant preaching:</HI> they &s;ay it, but they do not prove it; neither doth <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.10. nor <HI>Gal.</HI> 6.6. hint the lea&s;t of &s;uch a thing; the Scri|pture &s;aith, <HI>he that laboureth, he that teacheth;</HI> our Brethren add <HI>constantly,</HI> by what authority I cannot tell.</P>
<P>But our Brethren have much fault to finde with my <HI>Minor,</HI> it is <HI>neither true in matter nor form:</HI> A little matter will make it true in both. It is true (by a &s;lip of my Pen) in&s;tead of <HI>the Church to which they Preach,</HI> I put in the Church <HI>in which they are:</HI> but it is the &s;ame thing; for admit that they may prophe&s;ie, I proved be|fore from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.23. that they had <HI>no warrant to go out of their Church to do it.</HI> If unbelieves come in thi|ther, well and good, but they have no rule to go out to them.</P>
<P>Our Brethren here &s;pend many words not to prove, but to &s;peak the &s;ame thing over again, <HI>viz.</HI> That for <HI>occa&s;ional Preaching,</HI> wages, or <HI>maintenance</HI> can|not be required. But where nothing is proved, no|thing need be an&s;wered; and all that our Brethren preach upon this &s;ubject, is both be&s;ide the Texts quo|ted by me, and without a <HI>Text</HI> produced by them.</P>
<P>My &s;ixth Argument was from <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.15. This they &s;ay, they an&s;wered before, indeed their whole Se|venth chapter was &s;pent in an endeavour to that pur|po&s;e. It is too large to de&s;cribe; for it reacheth from <HI>pag.</HI> 116. to <HI>pag.</HI> 138. of their Book: I will therefore only lay before my Reader, <HI>the Sum of my Argument,</HI>
<PB N="110" REF="75"> and then give a &s;ummary of <HI>what they an&s;wer.</HI> I ar|gued thus,</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vindiciae Mini&s;terii,</HI> Pag. 43, 44.</NOTE><Q>What none may ordinarily do, but tho&s;e that are &s;ent, that per&s;ons meerly gifted may not do.</Q></P>
<P><HI>But none may (ordinarily) Preach, but tho&s;e who are &s;ent,</HI> Rom. 10.15.&mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>I proved the Major thus,</P>
<Q><P>What none may do, but tho&s;e who are &s;ent, that none may do who are not &s;ent.</P>
<P><HI>"But per&s;ons meerly gifted are not &s;ent</HI>&mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>The proof of the <HI>Minor,</HI> brought me to examine, what it was to be &s;ent.</P>
<P>Rea&s;on told me, Sending was the Act of <HI>another,</HI> or <HI>others,</HI> none can &s;end him&s;elf.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e who &s;end, are either <HI>God, Angels,</HI> or <HI>Men;</HI> to the &s;econd none pretends; of the fir&s;t, the Text mu&s;t be under&s;tood.</P>
<P>Gods &s;ends either <HI>immediatly,</HI> or <HI>mediately: im|mediately by a voice from heaven;</HI> of this the Text can|not be meant; for then <HI>farewell preaching,</HI> yea, and <HI>believing</HI> too, according to the force of that Text.</P>
<P>God &s;ends mediatly <HI>by his Church,</HI> either by his Church <HI>electing,</HI> or <HI>ordaining:</HI> Let it be which way it will, meer gifts will not &s;erve the turn. This was the &s;ub&s;tance of what I &s;aid.</P></Q>
<P>Now let us hear what our Brethren &s;ay.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>They grant Mi&s;&s;ion is of ordinary Teachers,</HI> pag. 118.</P>
<P N="2">2 <HI>That it continues in all Ages, but deny it e&s;&s;ential to the con&s;titution of a Mini&s;ter by that Text; but &s;ay it is nece&s;&s;ary to the Act of preaching,</HI> p. 119.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>They deny the major of my fir&s;t Syllogi&s;m, and the minor of my &s;econd, and &s;ay, gifted per&s;ons are &s;ent.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>They &s;ay the &s;ending there is not an act, con&s;titu|ting an Officer:</HI> 1. <HI>Becau&s;e &s;ome who were Officers before had Mi&s;&s;ion afterwards,</HI> Matth. 28.19. 2. <HI>Becau&s;e it
<PB N="111" REF="75"> may be repeated without lo&s;ing the office,</HI> Matth. 10.5, 6.7. Chap. 28. <HI>v</HI> 19. 3. <HI>Becau&s;e &s;ome had Mi&s;&s;ion, who were no officers,</HI> Luk. 10.1. <HI>Becau&s;e all that are in&s;trumen|tal to Conver&s;ion would then be judged Officers,</HI> Rom. 10.14.</P>
<P N="5">5. They &s;ay <HI>Mi&s;&s;ion is not ordination.</HI> 1. <HI>Becau&s;e no Scripture &s;aith it.</HI> 2. <HI>Becau&s;e then Deacons are &s;ent,</HI> Acts 6.6. 3. <HI>Becau&s;e Mi&s;&s;ion may be iterated, but not ordination;</HI> Matth. 10.5.28.19. 4. <HI>Becau&s;e a Church may Ordain its own Mini&s;ter, but cannot &s;end to it &s;elf.</HI></P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>They grant, bare gifting, is not &s;ending,</HI> Matth. 10.1.56.7. <HI>Sending doth not make, but &s;uppo&s;e them Preachers.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. <HI>Sending</HI> (they &s;ay) <HI>is Chri&s;ts commanding by his word, or a&s;&s;igning Preachers to go and publi&s;h the Go&s;pel.</HI> 2. <HI>Or a providential di&s;po&s;ing them to this or that people:</HI> Upon this they Comment largely; that this is &s;ending, they prove, <HI>p.</HI> 129. by <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 6.8, 9. <HI>Jer.</HI> 14.14, 15, 23, 21. <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.5.</P>
<P N="8">8. They judge the &s;en&s;e of the Text to be a provi|dential &s;ending, <HI>p.</HI> 136. <HI>except they be ordered by Provi|dence to go to &s;uch a people.</HI></P>
<P>I never love to throw a needle into a bottle of Hay, it is &s;o hard to find it again; in the&s;e 22. <HI>pages,</HI> our little Argument is almo&s;t lo&s;t; in &s;hort, the Que&s;tion is this, whether <HI>gifted men, as gifted,</HI> be <HI>&s;ent, or no;</HI> if they be not they cannot actually (at lea&s;t) Preach. Let it be <HI>naturally</HI> or <HI>Morally,</HI> impo&s;&s;ible. They cannot preach, except &s;ent: Our Brethren mu&s;t &s;ay they are &s;ent, and &s;o deny the <HI>Minor</HI> of my &s;econd Syllogi&s;m: I proceed.</P>
<Q><P>If they be &s;ent it mu&s;t either be by Chri&s;t or by Anti|chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But we &s;ay they are not &s;ent by Chri&s;t; I hope our Bre|thren will &s;ay they are not &s;ent by Antichri&s;t.&mdash;</P></Q>
<PB N="112" REF="76">
<P><HI>Ergo,</HI> not at all. We prove the <HI>Minor,</HI>
<Q><P>If they be &s;ent by Chri&s;t it is either immediately or me|diately.</P>
<P>But neither immediately nor mediatly &mdash; Ergo, <HI>not at all.</HI></P></Q></P>
<P>Our Brethren mu&s;t deny the <HI>Minor,</HI> and &s;ay they are <HI>&s;ent immediately,</HI> for if they be &s;ent mediately, it mu&s;t be by his <HI>Church, commanding, electing,</HI> or <HI>ordaining;</HI> which &s;oever of the&s;e it is, it is more than <HI>gifted:</HI> The la&s;t our Brethren deny; the &s;econd is non-&s;en&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> to &s;ay the Church <HI>&s;ends by electing, choo&s;ing, and &s;ending,</HI> are two things; as to the fir&s;t, our Brethren judge it not nece&s;&s;ary, though convenient.</P>
<P>If their Mi&s;&s;ion be immediate, We always thought it mu&s;t have been by <HI>Chri&s;ts own voice,</HI> as he &s;ent the 70. and the 12. or by a &s;ign from heaven of his will as in the ca&s;e of <HI>Matthias,</HI> or by <HI>extraordinary gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t</HI> inabling them, to which was added a <HI>power of miracles,</HI> to confirm their Mi&s;&s;ion, and give them credit in the world: But our Brethren have found out two other ways.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>By his revealed will in his word.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>By his Providence.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P N="1">1. As to the fir&s;t, our Bre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">hren have not proved it by one Text; for all their Texts quoted concerning &s;uch Mi&s;&s;ions as were made, or &s;hould have been made by <HI>an extraordinary voice,</HI> either from God in heaven, in a Prophetical vi&s;ion, <HI>I&s;aiah</HI> 6.8, 9. <HI>Jer.</HI> 14.14, 15. <HI>Jer.</HI> 23.21. <HI>Or from God incarnate on the earth,</HI> Mat. 10.5, 6. But that Gods revealed will in <HI>his word,</HI> is <HI>called &s;ending</HI> (as his word is now written) is not proved, nor can be proved. God commands men in his written word, to <HI>believe, repent, to do good to all,</HI> and to <HI>di&s;tribute;</HI> but we no where find that this is called &s;ending; and we &s;hould think this &s;trange language to &s;ay, <HI>God &s;ends men t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> relieve the poor:</HI> But be it &s;o at pre&s;ent, <HI>We &s;ay the
<PB N="113" REF="76"> written word, commands none to Preach, but &s;uch as are ordained.</HI> Our Brethren only &s;ay, gifted men are <HI>allowed,</HI> and <HI>they may do it occa&s;ionally;</HI> no more there|fore &s;ay they, <HI>they are not to be maintained.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Be&s;ides, <HI>&s;ending makes</HI> them Officers, who ever I <HI>&s;end is my Officer,</HI> the Kings Amba&s;&s;ador is his <HI>Officer;</HI> and &s;o by this Rule they are all <HI>Gods Officers:</HI> no man can &s;end another, but he is in office, as to that where|about he is &s;ent, nor will any thing our Brethren &s;ay evince the contrary: If a man be an Officer before, another Mi&s;&s;ion makes him &s;till an Officer; tho&s;e &s;ent, <HI>Luke</HI> 10.1. were <HI>Officers</HI> by their Mi&s;&s;ion; though <HI>Mi&s;&s;ion</HI> may be repealed, and yet the Office not lo&s;t, yet Mi&s;&s;ion makes an <HI>Officer:</HI> My &s;ending of my &s;ervant to a place about my bu&s;ine&s;s makes him my Officer, as to that bu&s;ine&s;s, and if I &s;end him a &s;econd time, my &s;e|cond &s;ending makes him my Officer too: I &s;ee no con|tradiction in that, when the work is enlarged, as in tho&s;e in&s;tances, <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.5, 6, 7. <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19. Nor will it follow, that then any that are in&s;trumental to conver&s;ion are Officers, becau&s;e it is &s;aid, <HI>How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard; or how can they hear without a Preacher,</HI> &amp;c. Becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks of ordinary ca&s;es; el&s;e a man may believe with|out hearing: <HI>&s;uppo&s;e a man be deaf,</HI> and hear without a <HI>Preacher too, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Our Brethren therefore mu&s;t flee to their <HI>Provi|dential &s;ending,</HI> and make this the &s;en&s;e of the Text. <HI>How &s;hall they preach, if God doth not by his providence direct, or permit them to Preach, if God doth not give them legs to &s;tand, and a tongue to speak.</HI> Hence it follows,</P>
<P>"That it is not a Moral but a natural po&s;&s;ibility is de|nied, as if a man &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>How can a man &s;ee if his eyes be out?</HI></P>
<P>And this our Brethren own, <HI>pag.</HI> 137. for they &s;ay <HI>all
<PB N="114" REF="77"> the other interrogations deny a natural po&s;&s;ibility.</HI> Chri|&s;tian Reader, doe&s;t not thou think this had been a great Go&s;pel-My&s;terie (worthy of Saint <HI>Paul</HI> to have told the <HI>Romans) none could preach if they had no tongue to &s;peak,</HI> or Gods Providence would not permit them to come in place where. But to evince this to be a va|nity.</P>
<P N="1">1. If this notion of &s;ending be true, then <HI>none can run before they are &s;ent;</HI> for all motions are under the providence of God. But the Scripture plainly blames <HI>&s;ome that run before they were &s;ent.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Then the <HI>Creep-hou&s;es</HI> mentioned, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.6. <HI>were &s;ent,</HI> for they could never <HI>creep into hou&s;es,</HI> but by divine providence.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But &s;ay our Brethren, <HI>Gods command in his word mu&s;t concur with his providence.</HI></P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>What command is that?</HI> 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 4.10. (&s;ay our Brethren) <HI>As every one hath received the gift let him mini&s;ter.</HI> But &s;ay the&s;e men, <HI>we have received the gift;</HI> therefore we are &s;ent; who &s;hall judge now? <HI>Not the Presbyterie (&s;ay our Brethren)</HI> nor is it <HI>nece&s;&s;ary the Church &s;hould</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>Ergo,</HI> tis enough they &s;ay they have, and you ought to believe them, and look upon them as &s;ent, till the great day comes, which alone mu&s;t try whether they be or no. And is this the order (can any one think?) which Je&s;us Chri&s;t hath ta|ken for his Church?</P>
<P>But I need not multiply words here, our Brethren will not own <HI>a bare providential &s;ending,</HI> unle&s;s the Per&s;on <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">o ordered by providence be fir&s;t commanded by the word; and they can &s;hew no command conclu&s;ive in the ca&s;e; but for &s;uch as are <HI>otherwi&s;e</HI> &s;ent, then meer|ly gifted, and providentially di&s;po&s;ed: Only I mu&s;t exa|mine their rea&s;ons, why they &s;o peremptorily conclude <HI>Ordination cannot be the Mi&s;&s;ion intended,</HI> though we on|ly contend it to be the <HI>ordinary Mi&s;&s;ion,</HI> and that alone
<PB N="115" REF="77"> which concerns us when <HI>extraordinary calls</HI> and <HI>gifts</HI> are cea&s;ed, as our Brethren ea&s;ily will grant they be. They &s;ay:</P>
<P N="1">1. "<HI>They no where finde Ordination called Mi&s;&s;ion.</HI> But this falls as heavily on our Brethren, for they cannot finde us any Text, where the Command of God in his written word is called <HI>&s;ending.</HI> 2. We find, <HI>Acts</HI> 13.3. Upon the Ordination of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas. They fa&s;t|ed and prayed, and laid their hands on th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">m, and &s;ent them away;</HI> if the la&s;t words be not <HI>exegetical</HI> of the former, our Brethren mu&s;t tell us what further act they put forth, in <HI>&s;ending</HI> them, that is called by that name.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> our Brethren finde <HI>Deacons were ordained;</HI> but they do not finde they <HI>were &s;ent.</HI> It doth not fol|low, that becau&s;e the Ordination of Officers, by a Church to it &s;elf cannot &s;trictly be called <HI>&s;ending</HI> (on the Churches part) therefore no <HI>Ordination</HI> is, or may, where the per&s;ons are <HI>ordained</HI> Officers to more then tho&s;e that are in the <HI>Church</HI> which Ordaineth them.</P>
<P N="3">3. "<HI>Becau&s;e Mi&s;&s;ion may be repealed,</HI> but <HI>not Ordi|nation:</HI> According to our Brethrens principles, Ordi|nation al&s;o may. But our Brethren mu&s;t con&s;ider the Mi&s;&s;ion mentioned, <HI>Matth.</HI> 10.5, 6, 7. and <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. was <HI>extraordinary Mi&s;&s;ion,</HI> we do not &s;ay <HI>Ordination</HI> is &s;o. There was a new work to do, but we know no new work one ordained &s;hall have to do, which &s;hall need require a new ordination.</P>
<P N="4">4. Our Brethren &s;ay, <Q>None can &s;end to them&s;elves, But a Church which hath a Presbyterie, may Ordain its own Officers.</Q> 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 Chur|ches have (excepting onely Ca&s;es of nece&s;&s;ity)
<PB N="117" REF="78"> but although a Church cannot &s;end to its &s;elf, yet it may &s;end one to the whole Catholick Church of which it is but a Member: a Citizen of <HI>Norwich</HI> may proper|ly enough &s;end a Me&s;&s;age to the Corporation, though him&s;elf be a Member of that Corporation, and the per|&s;on thus &s;ent is at di&s;tance enough too from &s;ome part of the Catholick Church, to all which he is &s;ent. And thus I have an&s;wered every material thing brought by our Brethren, to infringe my Argument from <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.15.</P>
<P>My la&s;t Argument was acknowledged by me but a <HI>to|pick. From the contrary practi&s;e and avowed Judgement of all Primitive Churches, and all Reformed Churches.</HI> Our Brethren make light of this: But in ca&s;es where the Scripture &s;peaks (at be&s;t) but &s;o darkly on our Bre|threns &s;ide, and the rational ab&s;urdities are &s;o many and weighty, we think it very much, if we can &s;ay with the Apo&s;tle,</P>
<P><HI>If any li&s;t to be contentious, we have no &s;uch cu&s;tom, neither we, nor the Churches of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>And in ca&s;es which are dark, we follow the guidance of Chri&s;t, <HI>while we walk by the foot&s;teps of the flock, and feed our kidds by the &s;hepherds tents,</HI> Cant. 1.8.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="116" REF="78">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. VI.</HI> Containing a review of &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in our Brethrens Book, and in my an&s;wer, where is examined, whether the Bapti&s;m of Chri&s;t and <HI>John,</HI> are (according to our Brethrens &s;en&s;e) to be di&s;tingui&s;hed. Our Brethrens three Texts for Election, by a particular Church, ar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> found to conclude nothing; and the ability of every par|ticular Church to judge of Mini&s;ters abilities, is confuted.</HEAD>
<P>THe remainder of our Brethrens Book, concerning our <HI>Reverend Brethren</HI> of the <HI>Province of</HI> London, I take not my &s;elf concerned to give a &s;trict an&s;wer to it, I will only &s;pend this Chapter in reviewing a pa&s;&s;age which I before &s;lipped, and an&s;wering &s;ome things I finde in their eleventh Chapter, which may &s;eem to take of my an&s;wer, to their greate&s;t proofs, for <HI>popular Elections.</HI></P>
<P>The pa&s;&s;age which I &s;lipped, is that which my <HI>Rea|der</HI> &s;hall finde in our Brethrens Book, <HI>pag.</HI> 68, 69, 70. where (to prove <HI>Apollo</HI> was at that time no Officer) they fight us with a weapon drawn out of the <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> and <HI>So|cinian</HI> Armory; and tell us, that <HI>Apollo, could at that time be no Officer, becau&s;e he knew only the Bapti&s;m of John,</HI> Acts 18.25. and <HI>p.</HI> 69. they tell us, <HI>that the Bap|ti&s;m of</HI> John, <HI>and the Bapti&s;m of Chri&s;t, are di&s;tingui&s;h|ed each from other.</HI> This Argument (as to the matter of it) is purely <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> and fal&s;e, as to the form of it, and its u&s;age in this ca&s;e is primarily <HI>Socinian,</HI> as to both fal&s;e, and no way conclu&s;ive.</P>
<P><HI>Bellarmine</HI> indeed, and other <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bellarm.</HI> de Bapt. l. 1. c. 20. 21. Council. Trid. S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;. 8. Can. 1.</NOTE> that the <HI>Bapti&s;m of Chri&s;t and</HI> John <HI>were di&s;tingui&s;hed,</HI> &amp; different <HI>kinds of Bapti&s;m:</HI> &s;o &s;aith the Council of <HI>Trent,</HI>
<PB N="118" REF="79"> But I cannot tell that any <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;aid &s;o, before our Brethren. If our Brethren had con&s;ulted their Friend Dr. <HI>Ames,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ame&s;. Bell. Ener</HI> t. 3 l. 2. cap. 5.</NOTE> he would have told them another thing, &s;o would Dr. <HI>Willet</HI> in his <HI>Synop&s;is,</HI> pag. 583. in his an&s;wer to the &s;eventh Qu. of the 12. general controver&s;ie, or Dr. <HI>Whitaker</HI> in his <HI>praelect. de Sacram.</HI> cap. 5. which is whol|ly &s;pent to prove the contrary: Of the &s;ame minde are <HI>Calvin, Bucer, Mu&s;culus, Bullinger, Chemnitius Sa|deel, Rivet, Scharpius, Chamier.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Chamier.</HI> p. 4. l. 5. cap. 12. 13.</NOTE> Let our Brethren weigh their Arguments.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. <HI>All wa&s;hing of water for repentance and remi&s;&s;i|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">n of &s;ins, appointed by Chri&s;t was the Bapti&s;m of Chri&s;t: But &s;uch was</HI> Johns <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> Matth. 3. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1. <HI>who &s;ent me to Baptize.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. Our <HI>Bapti&s;m and Chri&s;ts</HI> are the &s;ame: <HI>But Chri&s;t was Baptized with</HI> Johns <HI>Bapti&s;m.</HI> It is the &s;weet|e&s;t comfort of a Chri&s;tian, &s;aith Dr. <HI>Ames,</HI> that he was baptized with the &s;ame Bapti&s;m Chri&s;t was baptized with; <HI>Chamier. Willet, Ames, Whitaker,</HI> &amp;c. all in&s;i&s;t upon this Argument.</P>
<P>Arg. 3. <HI>If the Doctrine, off<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">r of grace,</HI> and <HI>Rites w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">re the &s;ame, in the one, and the other Bapti&s;m,</HI> then the <HI>Bap|ti&s;ms</HI> were the &s;ame. But the Doctrine, Rites, and of|fer of grace was the &s;ame (&s;aith Dr. <HI>Whitaker.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Whitakerus,</HI> prael. de Sac. cap. 5.</NOTE></P>
<P>Arg. 4. <HI>If the &s;ame pre&s;ence of the Spirit was in</HI> Johns <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> which is in ours, <HI>though in a different manner, then the Bapti&s;m is the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. p 324.</NOTE><HI>But there was the &s;ame pre&s;ence</HI>&mdash;Ergo.</P>
<P>Arg. 5. El&s;e there is no <HI>In&s;titution of Chri&s;ts Bap|ti&s;m upon Record; for the Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t, Baptized before Chri&s;ts Re&s;urrection.</HI></P>
<P>Arg. 6. <HI>It doth not appear, that either the Apo&s;tles or</HI> Apollo <HI>had any other Bapti&s;m. But &s;urely they were baptized with Chri&s;ts Bapti&s;m.</HI></P>
<P>That Text quoted by our Brethren, <HI>Acts</HI> 19.3, 4, 5. proves nothing to the purpo&s;e; for they were not <HI>bap|tized
<PB N="121" REF="79"> again</HI> (as <HI>&s;ome vainly gather</HI> from the fifth ver&s;e) which is only a continuation of <HI>Pauls</HI> Narration of <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;m, <HI>when they</HI> [i. e. tho&s;e who heard <HI>John</HI> Preach] <HI>heard</HI> what he &s;aid, <HI>they were Baptized [viz.</HI> of him in <HI>Jordan] in the name of the Lord Je&s;us:</HI> And thus Dr. <HI>Willet</HI> an&s;wereth <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> u&s;ing the &s;ame wea|pon to the &s;ame end.</P>
<P>Our <HI>Brethren</HI> will ea&s;ily judge, that their foundati|on being thus de&s;troyed, their Argument built upon this <HI>hay and &s;tubble</HI> mu&s;t fall. But that our brethren may be a&s;hamed ever to bring this Argument into the field again, I mu&s;t tell them, that as the <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> laid the foun|dation; &s;o the bla&s;phemous <HI>Socinian</HI> was the fir&s;t I ever met with, who built upon it.</P>
<P><HI>Valentinus Smalcius,</HI> an&s;wering <HI>Franzius,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Smalcius</HI> di&s;p. 4. contra The|&s;es <HI>Franzii.</HI></NOTE> who thought <HI>Apollo,</HI> no ordinarily <HI>gifted Brother,</HI> &s;ays thus. <HI>Firmum enim manet, quod tantum &s;civerit Bapti&s;ma Johannis,</HI> &amp;c. It is &s;trongly proved (&s;aith he) <HI>For he had only the Bapti&s;m of</HI> John, <HI>and in that</HI> Aquila <HI>and</HI> Pri&s;cilla <HI>in&s;tructed him more perfectly,</HI> &amp;c. I hope we &s;hall hear no more of this Argument, to prove <HI>Apollo</HI> was no Officer. It is no great matter to our ca&s;e if he were not; for (as I have &s;aid) he was certainly a <HI>proba|tioner</HI> to office, and in that notion might preach, e&s;pe|cially in a <HI>Jewi&s;h Synagogue,</HI> and <HI>in that &s;tate of the Church.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd thing (with which I &s;hall conclude this Chapter, and my whole Di&s;cour&s;e, relateth to what our Brethren have brought to prove <HI>election nece&s;&s;ary, up|on expre&s;s Scripture grounds,</HI> to the <HI>con&s;titution of a Mini&s;ter.</HI> To which purpo&s;e they produce three Texts; The fir&s;t, <HI>Acts</HI> 1.23, 24, 25. The &s;econd is, <HI>Acts</HI> 6.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. the third, <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. I have &s;aid &s;omething before, to &s;hew the invalidity of each of the&s;e. Our Brethren, <HI>chap.</HI> 11. pretend to take off &s;omething which I &s;aid: Let me examine with what &s;ucce&s;s.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="122" REF="80">1. As to the <HI>first instance,</HI> Acts 1. they mu&s;t argue thus. <HI>If they may, and ought to choo&s;e the greater Offi|cer, then they ought to choo&s;e the le&s;s.</HI> As to the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, we grant the con&s;equence, though it will not fol|low, becau&s;e here is a different <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of Officers. Be|cau&s;e all the people of a County may choo&s;e <HI>Parlia|ment men</HI> by the Law, it will not follow that they may choo&s;e <HI>Ju&s;tices of the Peace:</HI> Their power of choice re&s;ulting not <HI>from nature,</HI> but from the <HI>Law of God,</HI> the con&s;equence in &s;trictne&s;s is naught, for Gods Law may will the fir&s;t, and not the &s;econd. Therefore this Ar|gument cannot be conclu&s;ive: but, I &s;ay, at pre&s;ent we allow it.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>How will it appear,</HI> that the <GAP DESC="foreign"> [the mul|titude] cho&s;e <HI>Matthias.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. The Text &s;aith only <GAP DESC="foreign">, which may be tran&s;lated, <HI>And two stood:</HI> &s;o it is <HI>Rev.</HI> 11.11. So again, <HI>Acts</HI> 18.14.&mdash;<HI>stood afar off,</HI> Luk. 17.12. the two Lepers&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;tood afar off;</HI> &s;o <HI>Luk.</HI> 7.14. <HI>stood still;</HI> &s;o in many more Texts, and why not here? When <HI>Peter</HI> had done &s;peaking, <HI>two stood up</HI> (po&s;&s;ibly by an extraordinary motion of the holy Spirit (as they at lea&s;t might think) offering them&s;elves to the &s;ervice, and then what becomes of the peoples Election from this Text? Our Brethren &s;ee from hence, nothing can be concluded.</P>
<P N="2">2. But allow there were a <HI>choice,</HI> and that &s;ome did <HI>&s;et the&s;e two</HI> before the re&s;t; <HI>it is not &s;aid the multitude did it.</HI></P>
<P>Object. <HI>But</HI> (&s;ay our Brethren) <HI>the exhortation was by</HI> Peter <HI>directed to the hundred and twenty.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That the exhortation was given in the pre|&s;ence of the hundred and twenty, the Text &s;aith, <HI>v.</HI> 15. But that it was given to them as their concernment, it &s;ays not. It &s;aith, <HI>Peter stood up in the mid&s;t of the Di&s;|ciples,</HI> and it &s;ays <GAP DESC="foreign"> (properly) the <HI>crowd</HI>
<PB N="123" REF="80"> of names pre&s;ent was an hundred and twenty, the word &s;ignifies a <HI>company of per&s;ons,</HI> a <HI>multitude,</HI> Mat. 4.25. <HI>Matth.</HI> 5.1.7.28. By <HI>Di&s;ciples, ver.</HI> 15. I conceive only the Apo&s;tles are meant, who are very often in Scripture, di&s;tingui&s;hed by this name from the <GAP DESC="foreign"> multitude, as <HI>Matth.</HI> 13.34. <HI>Matth.</HI> 9.36, 37. and in many other Texts. <HI>Peter</HI> &s;tood up in the mid&s;t of the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and &s;aid to them in the hearing of the mul|titude. I know the term <HI>di&s;ciple,</HI> is &s;ometimes taken in a larger notion; but it &s;eems to be here di&s;tingui&s;hed from <GAP DESC="foreign">; &s;ure I am our Brethren can give no &s;uffi|cient rea&s;on, to &s;hew that it &s;ignifies otherwi&s;e here than the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> (not exclu&s;ively to others, but <HI>empha|tically</HI> and more eminently than others) called <HI>Di&s;|ciples</HI> (as in many other Texts) and if this &s;en&s;e be al|lowed, they were the Apo&s;tles only that did appoint the two, ver&s;e 25. <HI>according to our Brethrens own Ar|gument.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. But la&s;tly, It is a plain ca&s;e, <HI>God here cho&s;e;</HI> for two <HI>&s;tood forth,</HI> or were <HI>&s;et forth;</HI> when this was done all the Church could not tell which &s;hould be the Apo&s;tle, till God made the choice. Hence it is plain, that from this Text nothing can be concluded.</P>
<P N="1">1. It &s;peaks nothing of the choice of a <HI>Pa&s;tor.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. It doth not &s;ay any cho&s;e them: But, <HI>they &s;tood.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. If any did choo&s;e, probably they were only the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> called <HI>Di&s;ciples</HI> by way of emphatical di|&s;tinction.</P>
<P N="4">4. The truth is, it was God who made choice.</P>
<P>If therefore our Brethren could prove, that the Bre|thren &s;et the&s;e two before the Apo&s;tles, and (as they &s;ay) in doing that, did as much <HI>as could be done</HI> in the choice of <HI>an extraordinary</HI> Officer; yet this was <HI>ju&s;t nothing;</HI> for nothing was needfull from them in that Ca&s;e.</P>
<P>Their &s;econd Scripture is that, <HI>Act.</HI> 6. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
<PB N="124" REF="81"> where it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, <HI>that the twelve called the mul|titude of the Di&s;ciples, and &s;aid, Look ye out amongst you &s;even men of honest report,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>In the former Argument, our Brethren argued thus. <HI>If the Brethren ought to choo&s;e the greater Officer, then they ought to choo&s;e the le&s;s.</HI> Here now they argue quite contrary. <HI>If they ought to choo&s;e the le&s;s, then they ought to choo&s;e the greater;</HI> Surely both the&s;e Arguments can|not hold, being both made <HI>affirmatively.</HI> But as to the pre&s;ent Argument &s;tated thus.</P>
<Q><P>If the Church mentioned, <HI>Act. 6. v. 3, 4. &amp;c.</HI> ought to choo&s;e Deacons then, a particular Church now ought to choo&s;e her Pastors.</P>
<P>But the Church, <HI>Acts 6.</HI> cho&s;e her Deacons. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P N="1">1. We deny the <HI>con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. We deny the <HI>A&s;&s;umption.</HI></P>
<P>I will offer Rea&s;ons for both: 1. For the denial of the Con&s;equence.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is plain, that Church, <HI>Acts</HI> 6. was the <HI>univer|&s;al Church,</HI> as well as a <HI>particular Church;</HI> as <HI>Adam</HI> though a particular man, yet was at that time all man|kinde: nor is this <HI>non&s;en&s;e;</HI> for by <HI>univer&s;al Church,</HI> I mean no more than the whole body of the Go&s;pel-Church then in the earth, in which were Catholick Of|ficers, it was furni&s;hed with twelve Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P N="2">2. It is plain that the per&s;ons choo&s;ing, were &s;uch as to the mo&s;t of which the Holy Gho&s;t was fallen, and they had <HI>di&s;cerning Spirits, Act.</HI> 2. <HI>Act.</HI> 4.31. No par|ticular Church now can pretend to any &s;uch thing.</P>
<P N="3">3. In mo&s;t ca&s;es an Argument will not hold in the affirmative, from the le&s;&s;er to the greater, particularly it will not hold in this Ca&s;e.</P>
<P>That in mo&s;t ca&s;es it will not hold, is evident: none can argue thus; if a man can carry a thou&s;and weight, much more an hundred thou&s;and. If my Friend will give me a nights lodging, he will much more give me
<PB N="125" REF="81"> his hou&s;e and land, or a lodging in his hou&s;e as long as I live.</P>
<P>On the other &s;ide, it is true in &s;ome ca&s;es it will hold. But not to run into a Logical di&s;pute; The pre&s;ent Que&s;tion is.</P>
<Q>How far it is lawfull to argue from the le&s;&s;er action to the greater as to things to which men have a moral power granted them from another.</Q>
<P>Our Brethren will grant, that the power they plead for on the behalf of the multitude as to the choice of <HI>Church-Officers,</HI> is <HI>moral</HI> not natural, <HI>viz.</HI> &s;uch a power as they <HI>have from the will of God:</HI> Now as to this I &s;ay,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Nothing can demon&s;tratively be concluded,</HI> becau&s;e the <HI>will of another</HI> being the fountain of the power act|eth freely, and may make it lawfull to choo&s;e the grea|ter, and yet unlawfull to choo&s;e the le&s;s; as the Law of this Land makes it lawfull for people to choo&s;e Parlia|ment men, and yet not Lawfull for them to choo&s;e whom they plea&s;e for Ju&s;tices of the Peace; and &s;o again to <HI>choo&s;e the le&s;s, and not the greater;</HI> as the Law makes it Lawfull for people to choo&s;e a Con&s;table of a Pari&s;h; and yet not lawfull for them to choo&s;e a <HI>Colo|nel</HI> of an Army, or a <HI>Ju&s;tice of the Peace;</HI> &s;o that no <HI>con&s;equence of this nature can prove a Law;</HI> but the <HI>Law of God must justifie the Con&s;equence;</HI> &s;o that our Brethren can bring no certain Argument from this Text; the heighth of Argument which our Brethren can pretend to from this Text is.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>It is probable that the Lord, who would not have &s;o much as a Deacon cho&s;en without the &s;uffrage of the multitude, would not have a Pastor cho&s;en without their &s;uffrage.</HI> Our Brethren mu&s;t &s;ay no more, than it is probable. And then we an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. That what &s;eemeth probable to &s;ome from Scri|pture, is not a certain Rule for us to walk by.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="126" REF="82">2. We &s;ay, it is not probable, becau&s;e <HI>a Church</HI> is more able to judge of the <HI>abilities of a Deacon, than of a Pastor.</HI> 2. <HI>Becau&s;e this Church was more able to judge <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">f both, than any Church is now.</HI></P>
<P>Our Brethren &s;ee what they are come to. 1. They <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">rgue from this <HI>particular-Vniver&s;al-Extraordinarily-Gifted-Apostolical Church,</HI> to other <HI>Churches,</HI> the lea&s;t members of the univer&s;al Church, not in the lea&s;t mea|&s;ure &s;o gifted, from a Church of 8000. to a Church of eight.</P>
<P N="2">2. When all is done, they argue it but probable, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">nd this probable hath a great improbability attending <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">t too.</P>
<P N="3">3. From a choice limited, as to the per&s;ons to be cho|&s;en&mdash;<HI>Such as &s;hould be full of the Holy Gho&s;t</HI> &mdash; of which they had plenty and ea&s;ily to be known for an unlimited choice of &s;uch as have no &s;uch mea&s;ure of the Holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<Q>So that admit the Major part of the Church did here choo&s;e, yet the Argument is a lamentable <HI>Non &s;e|quitur.</HI></Q>
<P>But to their <HI>Minor.</HI></P>
<P>Are our Brethren &s;ure, that either the <HI>whole</HI> or the <HI>major part</HI> of the Church here, made the choice? Our Brethren have to prove it, <HI>ver.</HI> 2. <HI>The twelve called the multitude,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <HI>ver.</HI> 5. The &s;aying <HI>plea&s;ed the whole multitude,</HI> in the Original, <HI>all the multitude,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, this is all. To which I an&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. Our Brethren know, that <GAP DESC="foreign">, doth not in Scripture always &s;ignifie either every individual per|&s;on or thing, under the genus or &s;pecies, &s;poken of, nor yet the Major part: How many times in Scripture, is Chri&s;t &s;aid to have died, <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign"> for all; yet Chri&s;t neither Died for every individual man, nor for the Major part of men, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.5, 6. It is &s;aid, <HI>That all the Region round about Jordan, went to
<PB N="127" REF="82"> hear John, and were Baptized of him, confe&s;&s;ing their &s;in,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual per&s;on in that Region, nor yet the major part, did either go to <HI>hear,</HI> or were <HI>bap|tized,</HI> or <HI>confe&s;&s;ed their &s;ins:</HI> Chri&s;t tells the Phari&s;ees, they tythed <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">very herb;</HI> yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Phari&s;ees, or any other Jews Gardens; &s;o that this word will not conclude, e&s;pecially con&s;idering what rea&s;on we have to believe the contra|ry, <HI>viz.</HI> that neither the <HI>whole,</HI> nor yet the <HI>major</HI> part of the Church were pre&s;ent at this Election.</P>
<P N="1">1. This Church mu&s;t con&s;i&s;t of above 8000. &s;ouls, 120. were in it, <HI>Acts</HI> 1.15. 3000. more were added, <HI>Acts</HI> 2.41. 5000. more added, <HI>Acts</HI> 4.4. here are eight thou&s;and one hundred and twenty &s;ouls. Now let any one in rea&s;on judge, 1. What one place in <HI>Ieru&s;alem could well contain them</HI> (except the Temple) and whe|ther it be probable, that either the <HI>Jews</HI> or the <HI>Romans</HI> would have endured &s;uch an ordinary conflux of above eight thou&s;and thither (enough to have made a good Army:) the major part of the&s;e mu&s;t be above four thou&s;and. 2. <HI>This Church was at this time in a faction too;</HI> for <HI>Acts</HI> 6.1. <HI>there</HI> was a murmuring <HI>about the poor,</HI> between the <HI>Grecians</HI> and the <HI>He<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">rews;</HI> we therefore think it more probable, that the Apo&s;tles &s;pake <HI>to &s;ome of this multitude</HI> to commend &s;ome fit per&s;ons to them, and if our Brethren talk till <HI>Dooms-day,</HI> they can prove no more from this Text.</P>
<P>And this is a full an&s;wer to all our Brethren &s;ay in re|ference to this Text, and enough to &s;hew it comes far &s;hort of a proof of what they undertake, <HI>viz.</HI> That the <HI>whole Church,</HI> or <HI>Major part of it,</HI> mu&s;t of divine right choo&s;e its own Officers. I come to their third Text.</P>
<P><HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. I will tran&s;cribe, <HI>ver.</HI> 21.22.</P>
<PB N="128" REF="83">
<P><HI>Ver.</HI> 21. <HI>And when they</HI> [that is, <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas] had preached the Gospel in that City, and had taught many, they returned again</HI> to <HI>Ly&s;tra,</HI> and to <HI>Iconium, and to Antioch.</HI></P>
<P>Ver. 22. <HI>Confirming the &s;ouls of the Di&s;ciples, and exhorting them to continue in the Faith, and that we mu&s;t through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God.</HI></P>
<P>Ver. 23. <HI>And having ordained</HI> [or cho&s;en, it is no matter which, as to our Brethrens purpo&s;e] <HI>them El|ders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had be|lieved.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. At pre&s;ent I will not di&s;pute the &s;en&s;e of the word, <GAP DESC="foreign"> (I have &s;aid &s;omething to it before) but I would fain know of any one that under&s;tands &s;en&s;e, whether tho&s;e that ordained, or cho&s;e, were not tho&s;e that <HI>confirmed</HI> and <HI>exhorted,</HI> v. 22. tho&s;e that <HI>prea|ched,</HI> and returned again to <HI>Ly&s;tra,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>ver.</HI> 20. If they were, it is &s;ure enough <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were the men.</P>
<P N="2">2. I would fain know of tho&s;e who under&s;tand Grammar, whether <GAP DESC="foreign"> be not joyned by <HI>ap|po&s;ition</HI> with <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">, or what other <HI>Syntax</HI> of the words, according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured.</P>
<P>Object. <HI>But the Di&s;ciples are twice mentioned,</HI> v. 22.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Tis very true, but not as the per&s;ons <HI>confir|ming and exhorting,</HI> but as the per&s;ons confirmed and exhorted, &s;o they are mentioned here [<GAP DESC="foreign">] but that is the dative ca&s;e, the other the nominative.</P>
<P>Our <HI>Brethren</HI> &s;ay, that Dr. <HI>Ames</HI> &s;aith, <HI>it may in|clude the Di&s;ciples too,</HI> or they <HI>might go before the Di&s;|ciples.</HI> I an&s;wer, what Dr. <HI>Ames</HI> &s;aith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us. 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove
<PB N="129" REF="83"> <HI>that the people ought to choo&s;e;</HI> not that <HI>it may be</HI> they may choo&s;e.</P>
<Q>But our Brethren think they can by &s;ound rea&s;on prove that the choo&s;ing, or ordaining here, was &s;uch as could not be performed onely by <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Bar|nabas.</HI></Q>
<P N="1">1. <HI>They &s;ay the word</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>is never u&s;ed in Scri|pture for laying on of hands.</HI> This will not conclude that it mu&s;t not be &s;o under&s;tood here: I hope our Bre|thren know there are <GAP DESC="foreign"> in Scripture: Our Brethren have no Text where it is u&s;ed in the active voice and governing an accu&s;ative Ca&s;e, where it &s;igni|fies the <HI>people choice.</HI> The word is (indeed) u&s;ed but twice more in the New Te&s;tament, once for choo&s;ing by &s;uffrages, once otherwi&s;e, for Gods de&s;tination and appointment, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.41. Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for <HI>ordaining in other Authors</HI> neither: If our Brethren mean for <HI>ordaining Mini&s;ters,</HI> I cannot tell how <HI>Aristotle</HI> or <HI>Demo&s;thenes,</HI> &amp;c. &s;hould &s;o u&s;e it. But if they mean that in Civil Authors <GAP DESC="foreign"> is not u&s;ed for the con&s;tituting of a per&s;on in Office, without the peoples &s;uffrage; if they look <HI>Stephen</HI> or <HI>He&s;ychius,</HI> or <HI>Budeus</HI> they will better inform them; <HI>He&s;ychius</HI> &s;aith, it &s;ignifies <GAP DESC="foreign">, and then <GAP DESC="foreign">: But this is nothing to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e; we &s;ay if it &s;ignifies choo&s;ing here, yet <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> cho&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our Brethren &s;ay, this could not be; for <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;ignifies to choo&s;e by &s;uffrages;</HI> now <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barna|bas could not make &s;uffrages.</HI></P>
<P>All this is a riddle to me; for if I under&s;tand <GAP DESC="foreign"> i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;ignifies the <HI>hand,</HI> not the tongue, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies to <HI>&s;tretch out,</HI> not to &s;peak; the word no otherwi&s;e &s;ig|nifies a choo&s;ing by <HI>&s;uffrage,</HI> than the lifting up of the hand did te&s;tifie the <HI>&s;uffrage.</HI> But why could not <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> make <HI>&s;uffrages?</HI> Surely they made <HI>two,</HI> and that is the plural number &s;ure. The truth is the
<PB N="130" REF="84"> primary &s;ignification of the word was to <HI>choo&s;e by lift|ing up of the hand, in token of their con&s;ent,</HI> to a per&s;on named for an office: now in regard this made vulgar Officers, the word was ordinarily u&s;ed afterward for the <HI>creating or putting one in office,</HI> whether there were an <HI>hand lifted up or no;</HI> thus it is u&s;ed in Scripture too, <HI>Acts</HI> 10.41. <HI>cho&s;en or appointed before of God;</HI> yet I hope our Brethren will not &s;ay, that Chri&s;t made the Apo&s;tles by <HI>&s;uffrage:</HI> and if two per&s;ons (according to our Brethrens Grammar) cannot make <HI>&s;uffrages;</HI> &s;urely <HI>one indivi&s;ible God,</HI> could not.</P>
<P N="3">3. But (&s;ay our Brethren) the thing intended by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>mu&s;t be di&s;tinct</HI> from <HI>prayer and fa&s;ting,</HI> Act. 14.23. and when they <HI>had ordained,</HI> or ordaining them <HI>Elders, and had prayed with fa&s;ting.</HI> That <HI>impo|&s;ition of hands in ordination is di&s;tinct from praying and fasting,</HI> we grant; But that praying and fa&s;ting is (without it) ordination we deny: the Greek is <GAP DESC="foreign">: All our Brethrens &s;trength lies in the Engli&s;h Tran&s;lation. In the Greek, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign"> are both the &s;ame ten&s;e, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> equally applicable to both. According to our Brethrens principle, the nomination of the per&s;on, and prayer, and fa&s;ting, and then executing by &s;uffrage are di&s;tinct acts, yet all make but that one act of con&s;tituting an Officer. Neither is it &s;aid, that the <HI>praying and fast|ing here,</HI> at all related to the con&s;titution of the El|ders, it might relate to their taking their leave of them, mentioned in the next words, and I am very apt to be|lieve it did; I am &s;ure our Brethren cannot prove the contrary; &s;o that it is but <HI>gratis dictum;</HI> a thing &s;aid, which our Brethren mu&s;t ask us leave to believe, that the <HI>prayer and fa&s;ting</HI> here &s;poken of, was any thing relating to <HI>Ordination.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. In the la&s;t place, our Brethren becau&s;e they can|not
<PB N="131" REF="84"> prove, fairly <HI>beg</HI> the que&s;tion, <HI>p.</HI> 233. Becau&s;e the <HI>power of Election is no where given to Officers, but to the people:</HI> I think this Text &s;hould have proved this thing, <HI>that it is given to the people.</HI> On the contrary, we &s;ay, our Brethren <HI>neither have proved, nor can prove, that the Scripture hath given the power of choo&s;ing Pa&s;tors to the people:</HI> The Texts produced (as we have heard) will prove no more than a <HI>may be,</HI> hardly &s;o much: And this Text it &s;eems mu&s;t have tho&s;e to help it, or it will not prove. Thus <HI>Reader,</HI> thou &s;ee&s;t how ea&s;ie it is to a&s;&s;ert what is found hard to prove: Read and judge, <HI>whether from Scripture it can be po&s;itively concluded,</HI> that it is Gods will that every particular Church &s;hould choo&s;e all its own Officers, and this choice be all tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> is <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> by Gods word to make them Officers. See if either in the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> or <HI>Titus</HI> (which of all other Scriptures, are mo&s;t to be eyed as our Rule about Church Government) becau&s;e there are given directions for the &s;etling of ordinary Churches in a per|manent &s;tate) &s;ee if there be one word in them for the <HI>peoples choice,</HI> though <HI>Titus</HI> was left on purpo&s;e in <HI>Crete</HI> to <HI>ordain Officers, Tit.</HI> 1.5. and &s;everal Rules be given in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles for the &s;etling of Go&s;pel Churches. In the mean time we grant to our Brethren,</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That there is nothing in Scripture, forbidding their election.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. That in many ca&s;es, yea in all, <HI>it is very conveni|ent,</HI> and by no means to be neglected, if they will choo&s;e &s;uch a one as is fit for a Pa&s;tor.</P>
<P>But that it is nece&s;&s;ary to the making of a Mini&s;ter in Office, by any rule of Scripture; or that in no ca&s;e the <HI>election of a Pa&s;tor</HI> (in the &s;tricte&s;t notion) by a par|ticular Church may be denied, or over-ruled, this we deny; becau&s;e we &s;ay, every particular Church is not able to <HI>judge of the abilities</HI> of a <HI>Mini&s;ter,</HI> and often doth make apparent errours in Judgement.</P>
<PB N="132" REF="85">
<P>Our Brethren, <HI>p.</HI> 236. <Q><HI>A&s;&s;ert the</HI> abilities of a par|ticular Church, to judge of the abilities required in a Mini&s;ter; <HI>they &s;ay they are able to judge<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> if he be blamele&s;s, the husband of one wife, vigilant, &s;ober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality.</Q> We grant this (in &s;ome mea&s;ure) but there are &s;ome other qualifica|tions too. He mu&s;t be one, 1. <HI>That holds fa&s;t</HI> the <HI>faithfull word.</HI> 2. <HI>Able by &s;ound</HI> Doctrine <HI>to exhort.</HI> 3. <HI>Able to convince gain-&s;ayers, Titus</HI> 1.9. 4. <HI>Apt to Teach.</HI> Now we deny that every <HI>particular Church,</HI> even of our Brethren, is able to judge of the&s;e things.</P>
<P>According to our Brethrens principles, any &s;even vi|&s;ible Saints may make a Church; we &s;ay &s;even <HI>real Saints may not be able to judge of the&s;e things;</HI> How can they judge if a Mini&s;ter be able to convince a gain-&s;aying <HI>Socinian,</HI> or <HI>Arminian,</HI> or <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> who know not what any of them hold? And how many hundred private Chri&s;tians are there who are ignorant of the&s;e things? I dare a&s;&s;ume that <HI>in no Church,</HI> our Brethren have in this County, there are &s;even men know what the <HI>Socinians</HI> hold, much le&s;s do the <HI>major</HI> part know (yet they are doubtle&s;s able to judge whether a Mini|&s;ter be able to <HI>convince them</HI>) Is any one &s;o &s;en&s;le&s;s, as to think any &s;even private Chri&s;tians is able to judge whether a Mini&s;ter <HI>holds the faithfull word?</HI> Our Bre|thren know two &s;evens of their Brethren, have judged that the <HI>Quakers</HI> and <HI>Anabapti&s;ts hold the faithfull word:</HI> which I &s;peak not to create an <HI>odium</HI> upon them, for &s;ome of ours have done &s;o too. It doth not follow, that becau&s;e a good Chri&s;tian mu&s;t be &s;ound in the Faith (in things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation) therefore he is able to judge of the abilities of a Mini&s;ter, who is to exhort by &s;ound Doctrine; for a Mini&s;ter is to preach more <HI>&s;ound Doctrine,</HI> than what is ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation.</P>
<PB N="133" REF="85">
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Oh! But (&s;ay our Brethren) <Q>The &s;heep of Chri&s;t know his voice, and they will not follow a &s;tran|ger, this importeth their having ability, and liberty to judge what Teachers they &s;hould elect.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Doth it &s;o?</P>
<Q><P>What belongs to Chri&s;t &s;heep as Chri&s;ts &s;heep, belongs to every &s;heep.</P>
<P>But this doth not belong to every &s;heep of Chri&s;t. <HI>Ergo.</HI></P></Q>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is undoubtedly true; the Text &s;aith, <HI>my &s;heep,</HI> not <HI>my fold;</HI> what is here made to belong to <HI>&s;heep,</HI> belongs to every <HI>&s;heep.</HI> I hope our Brethren will not &s;ay, this belongs to the Women, yet are they Chri&s;ts <HI>&s;heep</HI> too; nor will it &s;erve the turn, to &s;ay they mu&s;t not <HI>speak in the Church;</HI> for we are now &s;peak|ing of <HI>choo&s;ing and judging,</HI> lifting up of the hand is enough.</P>
<P>But &s;urely our Brethren will not &s;ay, that every <HI>man</HI> hath <HI>ability;</HI> if they do, and will give us leave, we will <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ick them out twenty out of every hundred they &s;hall bring us (if not four times twenty) who&s;e <HI>knowledge</HI> concerning &s;ound Doctrine, and ability to convince gain-&s;ayers, they &s;hall be a&s;hamed to own as &s;ufficient <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">o judge of the abilities of a Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>The truth is, <HI>every &s;heep of Chri&s;t</HI> [that is, &s;o truly and really, <HI>i. e.</HI> every Elect &s;oul] &s;o far <HI>refu&s;eth the v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ice of &s;trangers,</HI> as (though he may for a time fol|low them) yet he &s;hall fir&s;t, or la&s;t, reject them again. Our Brethren know, that &s;ome, both of their and our Brethren within the&s;e &s;even years la&s;t pa&s;t have followed Strangers, and &s;uch <HI>Strangers</HI> too, as the Chri&s;tian World never heard of before, yet we &s;hould be loth to &s;ay, they are none of Chri&s;ts &s;heep, becau&s;e they are gone a&s;tray. The Lord in mercy make them to return.</P>
<PB N="134" REF="86">
<P>If our Brethren &s;ay the Text is to be under&s;tood of Chri&s;ts &s;heep, as <HI>folded together</HI> in the Church. We grant what they &s;ay, but &s;ay it is meant of the <HI>one fold, ver.</HI> 16. con&s;i&s;ting of all the <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Gentiles</HI> to be converted; and that &s;ome of them <HI>are able &s;o to judge,</HI> or that all of them <HI>will not follow &s;trangers,</HI> we grant. But this is nothing to our Brethrens pur|po&s;e, to prove that every individual &s;heep, or every particular Church, hath this ability.</P>
<PB REF="86">
</DIV1>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
