THe principall Question is this:

Whether Gifted persons may preach ordinarily without Ordination.

THeir first Argument is this:

Election must go before Ordination: But a person must preach, yea preach frequently and ordinarily, before Election, for without this the people cannot discern his gifts, &c. Ergo Persons not Ordained may ordinarily preach.

Ans. 1. They know their major is not beyond exception, but I let that passe, because afterwards we shall handle it more fully.

2. For their minor, if it be true, then preaching frequently and ordinarily in that case is necessary, i. e. for the trial of their gifts, and that we dispute not about, but whether out of a case of necessity one may preach ordinarily without Ordination.

But this first Argument I suppose they intended only for Velitation: Their second Argument is the Achilles, which I must now come to grapple with. There are two pillars of their cause, Scripture precept, and Scripture example alledged; and indeed either of these shall serve turn: But we must not take them upon their bare word, but weigh what they have said in the ballance of the Sanctuary. It is Scripture precept which is here discussed.

Their second Argument then is this:

Such as are commanded to preach may preach: But some men not Ordained are commanded to preach; Ergo. The minor they prove thus; All that are apt to teach, are commanded to teach: This they attempt to prove from 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. but by their favour let us adde v. 9. to it, for our Brethren represent the place imagint luscâ, with an half face. The whole 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is this, v. 9. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. V. 10. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. V. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth. Where any indifferent Reader will observe the words mainly insisted upon, to be like a little Isthmus of land between two seas, to either of which it may be related: Or like a tree standing in the confines of two Counties, it being hard to determine to which County it belongs. It may look backward and relate to hospitality; It may look forward and relate to speaking and ministring; and the words will bear either sense, but both senses it cannot bear, that being an undoubted truth, that Sensus unius loci literalis non est nisi unicus; and to demonstrate that it must relate to this, and cannot relate to the other, will be found very difficult, if not impossible: And yet upon this doubtfull place our Brethren hang the weight of their Cause.

I find a threefold sense given of these words: Some referre it to the gift of speaking by any, &c. Others, to the Office of speakers. Others, to the giving of Alms: Of these I shall speak in order, premising onely one thing, (which is well suggested by Dr Collings) i. e. that whatever the sense of the place is if it be a command to preach, yet this Epistle being written to strangers, and in a scattered estate of the Church; that might be lawfull to them in that case of necessity, which otherwise is unlawfull: But I will not presse that too far.

First then, Their sense is this; That whatsoever gift a man hath he is required to exercise it; if he hath a gift to preach, and that publickly, he must preach, &c. And to prove this sense, I observe they use three Arguments, which I shall propound and consider.

1. It is a gift indefinitely, and therefore it may extend to all gifts. p. 32.

Ans. 1. And suppose it do extend to all gifts, it is a truth granted by us, that whatsoever gift a man hath, he ought to exercise it, but still, as he is called to it, and in his own sphear.

2. Nothing more usual then for an expression indefinite in words, to be definite in sense, and to be limited pro subjectâ materiâ, according to the matter in hand. It would be vanity to multiply instances in a case so known. If our Brethren were discoursing with an Arminian, about the extent of Christs death, who should urge the word world, and mankind, and infer as they do, that the word being indefinite, it is to be taken of all mankind, they would quickly find an answer, that such indefinite expressions are to be compared with, and explained by other places, where they are restrained; and the same Answer may stop the mouth of this Argument: So that to argue from the indefinitenesse of the phrase is but loose reasoning.

2. They say, This general expression must be interpreted and limited by that which follows, If any man speak, &c. pag. 33.

Ans. 1. It may every whit as well be limited and interpreted by the foregoing words, and if so, then all that our Brethren say from these words fals to the ground.

2. If it must be limited by the following words, so it may, without any prejudice to our cause, in this manner, v. 10. he laies this down in the general, that every man that hath a gift must use it; then in the 11th verse, he instanceth in two sorts of men that have received gifts, to wit, Ministers and Deacons, who must be carefull to use their gifts, and therefore in like manner all others are obliged to use the gifts that God hath given them: Or if they will not allow these to be Officers, it may be limited, according to their own apprehensions, that as every man in general is to use his gifts, so in particular every man that hath preaching gifts is to use them; but how? i. e. as far as God doth call him forth to the use of them, but no further; and to us there appears no ordinary way now of Gods calling forth men to this work, but by Ordination.

3. They argue from the particle As; As he hath received, i. e. according to the nature of his gift, he that hath private gifts, must use them privately; he that hath publick gifts, i. e. gifts fit for publick use, must use them publickly, p. 33.

Ans. 1. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well be understood causally, because he hath received it.

2. And if it be meant thus (which we say is a truth) that God expects an use of talents, proportionable to what he gives, yet every one must act in his order, and in his place and sphear, and as God cals him forth, as we shall see more fully by and by.

3. But what if this proportion be meant of Almes-giving? then all that they say fals to the ground.

Thus we have seen how our Brethren sense this place, and what are the reasons that prevail with them so to do, which whether they be of that consequence as to justifie them in the holding of an opinion so offensive to thousands of sincere Christians, and so introductory of all confusion, I leave to sober Readers to judge. And yet their own sense doth draw after it such grosse and manifest absurdities, that they dare not abide by it absolutely, but qualifie it with an exception sufficient to invalidate all their Argument.

They say, By this text all gifted persons are commanded to preach, unlesse there can be shewn some Scripture-prohibition to forbid their preaching. p. 35.

To which I reply two things; 1. Hereby the plea is removed to another Court, and the Question lies here, Whether elsewhere there be any prohibition? which must be judged afterwards, by comparing our Arguments and their Answers.

2. It lies not upon us to shew a prohibition to restrain them from preaching, but upon them to shew a warrant for preaching (seeing for instituted worship we must have a positive warrant) which this place we see affords not, and whether any other place affords, we shall see hereafter. But we must not yet part with our Brethrens Argument from this place. There are three or four difficulties with which it is gravel'd.

The first is that urged by Dr Collins, Here is not only a liberty granted, but a duty enjoined, so that by this Text, gifted persons not only may, but must preach, and that without election or calling, for the Churches neglect of their duty, must not make him neglect his.

The full vindication of this, I shall leave to that reverend Author, but I cannot wholly let it go untouched: I shall form the Argument thus, They who are by vertue of a divine precept to preach the Gospel, are to do it necessarily, Necessity is laid upon me, yea, wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel, they are to do it in season and out of season, they are to give themselves wholly to these things, they are not to leave the Word of God to serve tables: But all that have preaching gifts are not under such obligations, our Brethren being Judges. Ergo, they are not obliged to preach the Gospel.

The major I prove, Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. The Scripture takes no notice of two sorts of preachers, whereof the one may preach seldomer or oftner as they please, and as the Church desires; and the other must preach frequently, constantly; and even those upon whom the lest obligation lies in our Brethrens opinion, are commanded. It is true no preachers are in Scripture obliged to preach in such or such a place, nor to preach so often (the determination of these and other like circumstances, is left to the rules of prudence, and general direction of the word) yet all are obliged to be instant and diligent in the work: And as the service of the Church is unspeakably to be preferred before the best merchandize, and Gods glory before their own wordly interest; so when a man hath received gifts for the service of preaching, if these commands oblige him to preach, they oblige him to throw off all the impediments of that noble work, and to give himself wholly to these things: And the rather, because of our Brethrens own Argument; A man must exercise his gift as he hath received it. Now if a man have ability to preach ordinarily and constantly every Lords day, if he would use sufficient diligence, such a man dischargeth not his trust in preaching sparingly and occasionally only.

Obj. But they say, that the case of a Minister and a gifted brother are alike in this, A Minister sins not, if he be put out of employment, and cast into a place where his gifts are not desired, &c. And so it is with gifted men, &c.

Ans. Will our Brethren then say, that others not desiring a man to exercise his gifts, will justifie him in the not exercising of it? Can any man dispence with anothers wrapping his Talent in a napkin? What if Paul had come to a place where he was not desired to preach, (which often was his case) was he then free from his necessity of preching? Or what if a Church grow weary of hearing and preaching, so that they desire not their Pastour to preach among them, Will this excuse him, if he throw off preaching? For my part I must professe, were I in that case, though I might think it more advantageous to the Church to dispose of my self in some other place. yet should I by no means look at it as a dispensation from the work of preaching, though no man should desire me, (were there but any that would hear me.) Nay more, where the Apostles were not only, not desired, but forbidden to preach, yet they accounted it their duty to continue in that work. Whether that hold in ordinary Ministers, I shall not now dispute; this only I shall say, (and that is fully sufficient for our purpose) that if a Minister be put out of employment, or be in a place where he is not desired to preach, yet if he may be permitted to preach, and the affairs of the Church require it, he ought to do it, or to employ himself in some other way, which may be equivalent for the Churches service.

I shall adde but one Argument to our Brethren, taken from their own words; Whatsoever duty a man may lawfully do, that he is bound to do: But one that is really gifted for preaching (for ought we know) may lawfully preach without approbation from a Church, or from others, say they; Therefore, one that is really gifted is bound to preach, although neither the Church nor others do approve it, much lesse desire it. The major is most clear, and it were a contradiction to say, that such a thing is a duty, which may in such a case be lawfully done, and yet that it is not his duty, or that he is not bound to it: The minor is their own words. And this is the first inconvenience their sense of this place runs upon.

A second is this, That hereby it will follow that women may, nay must preach.

A third is, That by the same rule, every one who hath a gift to be a General, Magistrate, &c. may undertake those places: To these our Brethren say something by way of Answer; but the Reply I must leave to him who is more concerned in them: they are so fully and largely discussed by divers already, that it is needlesse to say any thing more of them, and we may have occasion to speak of them hereafter.

But the fourth and principall thing is this: It is true, every one is to exercise his gift, but in his own sphear, publick persons publickly, private persons privately; and so did Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18. and those women, Phil. 4. 3.

And because here the shoe pincheth, our Brethren make a strong attempt against this assertion, and endeavour to batter it down by divers Considerations.

For the examples of Aquila and Priscilla, they say, 1. It appears not whether they were apt to preach publickly or no. p. 42.

Ans. 1. It appears that they were excellently gifted, in such a measure that Paul cals them his co-workers, or fellow labourers (for so much the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports) in the work of the Gospel, Rom. 16. 3. Nor is it in the least intimated that they were not gifted to speak in publick; and therefore seeing the excellency of their gifts is mentioned, without any note of restraint or diminution, it is most ingenuous and reasonable, to conclude they were apt to speak publickly.

2. They instructed Apollo privately, for that was most expedient. p. 42.

Ans. It is true it was most fit to do it privately, yet not so, as that it was inconvenient to advise Apollo to be a diligent hearer publickly: They might have taught Apollo (with others) publickly, without any reflection upon him: Seeing therefore we reade of their doing it privately, not a word of their doing it publickly; it is a certain truth which we assert, that they instructed privately, and but a meer supposition that they did, or might do it publickly.

2. As to the main Objection they say many things: To take notice of all they say will be needlesse: The strength of what they have, lies in these things:

1. Private men may do the same work with preaching, i. e. they may open and apply Scriptures, exhort, rebuke, &c. p. 44.

And because they know we grant this, and say they may do the same work, but not in the same manner, not publickly, they adde

2. That every Church-member is obliged to teach and admonish every fellow member, as occasion requires, p 46.

Ans. If they mean that every member is bound to do this publickly (else it is nothing to the purpose, for to do it privately we allow) then not only gifted brethren, but all the brethren, yea and sisters to, not only may, but must turn publick preachers.

3. A publick gift cannot be fully improved, if it be not used publickly, but privately only, p. 47.

Ans. 1. If therefore any really have publick gifts, and desire to use them publickly, let them with the houshold of Stephanas, addict themselves wholly to the work of the Ministry, and not interlope betwixt two Callings.

2. I would know of our Brethren, whether this general rule (upon which their Argument hangs) be true or false, to wit, That the bare having of a gift fit for publick use, is of it self a sufficient ground for that publick use of it, without any other call. If they say that it is not true in the general, but only true in this particular case, then they discover to all the world, that it is but an hypothesis of their own, meerly taken up for the defence of a prae-conceived opinion: If they say it is true in the general, then, what if a woman is gifted to teach? or a man gifted to rule? The Argument is every whit as strong. I will return their own Argument upon them thus. Every man ought fully to improve the gift he hath, and if he have a publick gift, he ought to improve it publickly: But many private men have the gift of Ruling, Judging, Leading an Army, &c. and this gift cannot be fully improved, but by the publick exercise of it: Therefore such private men ought publickly to exercise such gifts. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, but by saying that besides these gifts a call is required, which till a man hath, he is not obliged to exercise his gifts publickly. And the same Answer (if our Brethren will be candid) may satisfie them, That besides preaching gifts, there is a call required (whatever that call be) and till a man hath that call he is not to exercise his preaching gifts publickly, nor do his gifts oblige him or warrant him thereunto.

4. They say, Publicknesse in acting is not so material a thing, it doth not make an act to be an act of Office, the publickness of the act doth not make it preaching; private men spake publickly, Acts 15. 12. Any private men may give Almes publickly in the Assembly, which is the Deacons Office. p. 49.

Ans. 1. Though bare publicknesse of speaking makes it not preaching, yet that is one main ingredient of that preaching which is now in Question, and (as we judge) a property of Authoritative preaching: And so material is the difference between publick and private teaching or preaching (call it what you will, for I hate logomachies) that although this latter is allowed to women, and was performed by Priscilla, yet publick teaching, or teaching in the Church-Assembly is forbidden to women upon this account, because it is an authoritative act, as is most evident from 1 Cor. 14. 34. & 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. where the very reason given why they must not teach in publick, is because they must not usurp authority; concluding beyond contradiction, that to preach publickly is an act of authority, and inconsistent with a state of subjection, and therefore not to be performed by any who are in a state of subjection, and under obedience to Officers, whether men or women. Yea further, whereas some of our Brethren contend, that although preaching constantly in publick be unlawfull to gifted men, yet preaching occasionally may be lawfull. I offer it to their consideration, that it is not only preaching constantly, which is here forbidden to women, but also preaching occasionally, though but once in publick, seeing even such preaching is accounted an act of authority: And therefore by a parity of reason gifted men are forbidden to preach, not only constantly, but also occasionally (further then necessity requires, &c)

2. For Acts 15. we allow private men, though not to preach, yet to speak publickly in divers cases, as at Vestries, Synods, &c. sometimes propounding questions, desiring to be further satisfied, &c.

3. For the last clause it is a meer fallacy; for though in that case a private man give his alms publickly, yet indeed he doth not give the Publick Alms (which is the Deacons office) but only his own private alms he gives in a publick way.

5. They say, It is usuall for a man being requested, to do the work of another mans calling; one that is no Schoolmaster may tend a School occasionally for a few daies, and yet he doth not go out of his sphear. p. 50.

Ans. The parallel no way holds, for, though for other reasons the gift of some Schoolmasters places is limited, yet indeed in it self, neither the Office nor Work of a Schoolmaster is restrained, either by Divine or Humane Law; any man that is fit, may manage it, and we see ordinarily persons uncalled set up Schools without any authority, and yet without any blame. If they would have a fit parallel, take that of a Magistrate; What if a Justice of the peace request another man to sit for him upon the bench? may he do it? I trow not.

6 They say, A man may chuse it as his calling to preach, and fit himself for it, &c. (though he do not own Ordination as that which gives him a call) now in this case, he doth not go out of his calling to preach. Men who have other callings, may leave them and become teachers, Heb. 5. 12. Nor doth the 1 Cor. 7. 20. forbid a change of callings, but only command a man in his calling to abide with God, v. 24. p. 51.

Ans. I. Designation of a mans self to a calling, is one thing, and a solemn inauguration into that calling is another thing: Suppose a man design himself for the service of a state, &c. untill he be by authority installed into some Office of State, he is but a private person (notwithstanding all his intentions and preparations for that work) and if he should undertake to do the acts of an Officer of State, before he receive a civil Ordination (as I may call it) he should go out of his sphear. In like manner, whosoever designes himself for the Ministry, and intends that calling, yet, if he undertake to do the acts of the Office before he be called to it, he goes out of his place.

II. For Heb. 5. 12. I must needs declare that I am sorry to see good men take such liberty to wrest the Scripture to serve their conceits: O how great is the power of prejudice! But I Answer,

1. Do our Brethren indeed believe that it was the duty (duty I say, for Paul speaks not what they may do, but what they ought to do) of all the Hebrews, men and women (for to both he writes promiscuously) to be publick teachers?

2. Say that all must endeavour to be teachers, what then? must they needs be publick teachers? A genere ad speciem non valet illatio affirmativa. They ought to be able to teach their families, to teach Heathens, to teach babes in Christ, and this will run smoothly and take in all. It is the duty of all men and women to grow in knowledge, and to be able to teach others, according as their place and opportunity inables them.

Obj. But he speaks of such teaching as babes in Christ do not attain to, and such as is attained by long time, and such as belongs to grown Christians, v. 12, 13, 14. whereas all believers and babes in Christ are teachers in that private brotherly way, and therefore this cannot be meant of private, but of publick teaching, p. 52.

Ans. It follows not: The teaching here spoken of, though private, yet was not attained unto by the Hebrews, by babes in Christ, they were (according to the Apostl's description) unable to teach their families, or to instruct an Heathen privately, if he had desired information from them, for he tels us, they had need that one should teach them again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God. Our Brethren perplex themselves by confounding two things much differing, to wit, the duty and the ability: For babes in Christ it is their duty to teach, i. e. privately, yet they may want ability to teach.

3. Teachers are here taken for such as are apt to teach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not that the Apostle injoyns it upon all the Hebrews, as their duty actually to turn publick teachers (If the whole body were the eye, where were the hearing?) but only to be fit to teach, id est, in the sense explained: As Gal. 2. 11. he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id est, word for word, condemned, blamed, that is, he was to be blamed. So Tully, Quis te damnatior? that is, who is more to be blamed than thou.

III. For 1 Cor. 7. 20. Although I conceive not that every man is so obliged to continue in his calling, that he may not upon weighty reasons change it for another; yet surely that text forbids a rash and groundlesse removing from one calling to another: As it is true, whether a man keeps his old calling or enters upon a new one, he ought to do it with God (which is all that can be collected from the 24th verse) yet v. 20. servants, and so others a pari, are plainly commanded not to change their callings, i. e. rashly and causelesly.

7. They cite a command, Heb. 10. 25. But exhorting one another, i. e. in those Church-Assemblies, to which the opposition clearly referres it: Not only Officers, but all Christians are to do it, p. 54. And whereas they know it will and may justly be replied, that by this rule all Christians are commanded to exhort publickly, they endeavour to take that off by saying, only those that were able to do it are intended, as if a father bid all his children go to work, he doth not include the child in the cradle: But here is a manifest halt; for all the grown Christians were able to teach, though not all alike, (as of the grown children some could work better, some worse, yet by their supposition all that can work quovis modo, are commanded to work.) Some had better, some had meaner gifts, but the very meanest could provoke to good works, and might say something to admonish, to counsel and comfort others, to perswade them to persevere, &c. nay to that purpose a sincere hearted man, though of very mean abilities, might speak more effectually then some able Teachers: So that if this place prove any thing to our Brethrens purpose, it will prove that it was the duty of every one, gifted or not gifted, to preach in the publick Assembly, which is not only false, but contrary to their own opinion.

But I Answer further; Their assembling together is not the modification of the exhortation (as if they were to do it in the publick Assembly) but the matter of the exhortation, they were (every one according to his place privately or publickly) to exhort one another, to what? even to this, that they would not forsake the assembling of themselves together, i. e. that they would not apostatize from the Christian Religion, and Christian Worship, and Christian Assemblies, nor relapse to Judaism, but that they would persevere to the end, that they would hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering, v. 23. And this concerns the first sense put upon the place, as if it obliged all gifted men to preach.

In the second place the Assembly take notice, that by gift, may be understood the Office, he that speaketh, i. e. the publick Office-preacher, let him do it, &c. and he that ministreth, i. e. the Deacon: And thus also others unconcerned in this quarrell, understand the words. But against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions.

1. They say, Neither the context nor subsequent verses referre to Officers, but to Christians in general, therefore this doth not, p. 57.

Ans. Nothing is more common in Scriputre, than for general and special exhortations to be joyned together, and for the Apostles to make a transition from a general to a special exhortation, and from a special to a general, as almost every interpreter of Scripture observeth.

2. They say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are far more usually taken for gifts, than for an Office, p. 59.

Ans. 1. It sufficeth that sometimes it is taken for an Office, and therefore so it may be taken here.

2. And if it be granted that gift is taken in their sense in this place, it availeth them not, for the 10 verse may be a general rule, wherein every man is commanded to exercise whatsoever gifts he hath received, and to exercise them in a right manner; and in the 11 verse he comes to instance in two particulars; the Publick teacher, saith he, as he hath received gifts for teaching, and the gift of the Office, so let him speak, &c. and so the Deacon, &c. And this shall suffice to speak of the second sense.

A word now of the third, which is this, That this gift is meant of estates, &c. which a man is to use for Gods glory and the good of others, for so the dependance upon the foregoing words carries it; Use hospitality, &c. and then he addes a reason, because they have received it, and so may and ought to lay it out; or (if you will) as a rule to guide persons in the management of it, that they should lay out according to what they receive in. To this there are but two things objected:

1. They are here called stewards, not of this worlds goods, but of the grace of God, and not of one grace only, to wit, charity, but of the manifold grace of God, p. 35.

Ans. The grace of God which properly signifies an attribute of God, is commonly in Scripture taken for the gracious effects and actings of that grace towards men. And whereas these effects and actings of grace are of two sorts, some concerning this life, and some concerning the other life, either of these, or any effects of grace may be called the grace of God Metonymically, and in respect of such temporal effects (as well as spiritual.) God is frequently said to be gracious, Exod. 22.—It is his raiment —and when he crieth unto me, then I will hear, for I am gracious: So also Amos 5. 15. 1 Sam. 12. 22. 2 Kings 13. 23.

And indeed, although this may possibly seem strange to him that is praepossessed with the common use and acception of the word Grace in the English tongue; yet can it not seem improbable to him who knows the use of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and that is the language which the holy Ghost used) which is indeed nothing else but a favour or blessing, so that, all that we are here exhorted unto, is to be good stewards of the manifold favour of God, or of the manifold blessings which come from the grace and favour of God. And thus far our Brethren agree with us, that by the grace of God we are to understand the effects thereof towards us; only here lies the difference between us, that they will needs expound it of the spiritual and internal acts of this grace (because that seems to favour their cause most) when, as we say, it may be understood of the external and temporal effects of that grace, for of such things he spake in the foregoing verse: And in that sense the word grace is taken in relation to men, viz. for the temporal effects of their grace or favour towards others, 2 Cor. 8. 19. Who was chosen to travel with us, with this grace which is administred unto us, i. e. with this charitable contribution, as all Interpreters agree. So that no man can justly stumble at that sense of the word here. And for the addition of the word, the manifold grace of God, who knows not that Gods temporal favours (of all which we are to be good stewards) are manifold? There is as great multiplicity and variety in temporall as in spirituall blessings.

2. They say, This will destroy the connexion of this verse with the rest.

Ans. 1. What more common then for exhortations of divers sorts, in Pauls Epistles, to be joyned together without any coherence.

2. This doth not dissolve the connexion, but only varies the connexion, for whereas they annex it to the following verse, this sense joynes it to the foregoing verse.

And this may fully serve for the Vindication of this place of Scripture; wherein, though I have not taken notice of every word said by our Brethren, yet any ingenuous Reader that compares theirs and mine together, will discern that I have not omitted any thing which is either considerable or plausible, and for other things I have not so much spare time as to throw it away upon them.

And thus much for their second Argument.

THe third Argument will not call for much labour.

They argue from a Gospel promise, Mat. 25. 29. Unto every one that hath shall be given: Whatsoever gifts a man hath, if he improve them, God will increase his gifts.

Ans. It is true, every one is to exercise his gifts, but every one suo modo, and debito ordine, as hath been frequently said, according to his capacity and place, and after a right order. What if a man be prudent and very fit to manage the Deacons work, and to distribute the Church-alms? must he undertake it (upon pretence of exercising his gifts) before he be called to it? No surely; 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let them first be proved, then let them use the Office of a Deacon. Or if a man hath gifts to rule a State, must he take upon him that work, before he be called to it? Surely no: And therefore a Preacher also, however gifted, yet must not publickly exercise his gifts till he have a call, some call I say or other, for I meddle not now with particulars, what that call is; only I say, besides gifts a call is required, without which he sins not, in the not exercising of his gifts in such a way (although exercise them he may divers waies.) And if our Brethren allow this in the Office of the Ruling Elder and Deacon, that how well soever they are gifted for those works, yet without a call, a call (I say) distinct from that which may be pretended by vertue of their gifts, they may not exercise those gifts, why should they not allow it in the Preaching Ministry? Why should not only the Offices, but also the works of these inferiour Offices be inclosed, and that higher and much more difficult work of the Ministry lie in common? And this shall suffice for their second Argument, wherein though divers things are said, yet nothing of strength is added, which hath not been considered and enervated under the foregoing Argument.

Their third Argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples: They instance in two, 1. In Apollo. 2. In the scattered Saints, Acts 18. 24.

1. In Apollo, and the marrow and strength of what they say of him is this; He preached publickly, &c. and yet was not ordained, for he knew only the Baptism of John (not the Baptism of Christ) to which the institution of Ordination was subsequent; he had but an imperfect knowledge of the doctrine of Christ.

Unto this instance divers things are said, which our Brethren take notice of, and attempt to confute.

1. Whereas some Answer, That Apollo was an extraordinary Officer, that he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. that he is called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3. 5.

To this they Answer, 1. Let him prove it that will assert it: All that the text saith of him is, that he was eloquent and fervent, &c. which a man may be without those extraordinary gifts, p. 71.

Reply If this place doth not, yet others do imply that he was an extraordinary Officer, 1 Cor. 1. 12.

Exc. But that was afterward, when he went to Corinth; He might be a gifted man first, and yet afterwards an Officer &c. p. 73.

Ans. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts is very probable from that 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with persons so qualified, but when he received them, the Scripture is silent: The Scripture intimates that he had them at Corinth, but that he received them not before, ne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quidem. The distance of time is not so great between his being at Ephesus, that is Acts 18. 24. and in Achaia, that is v. 27. of the same Chapter: And therefore it is most probable he had those extraordinary gifts when he was at Ephesus.

If it be objected against this, that he was ignorant in many truths, instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, p. 71. The Answer may be this, that this is not inconsistent with his being a Prophet: God revealed not all his mind at once to all his Prophets. Those Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others, as well as to speak themselves. The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived, though not in such a plentifull and glorious manner as afterwards, and yet were ignorant of those great and glorious truths of Christs death and resurrection, &c.

Inst. But after his departure the people of Ephesus were ignorant of those gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 19. 1, 2.

Ans. That might be, neither they nor Apollo might know distinctly what these gifts of the Holy Ghost were, and yet Apollo might have them; his face might shine and he not know it: As a man may be converted and yet not know that he is converted, nay possibly he may not clearly understand what the work of conversion is.

2. Whereas it is further said, that Apollo's might have a Commission from John to preach. They say, Let them prove it that can, the Gospel is silent as to that, p. 71.

Reply 1. Our Brethren must remember the proof lies upon them to make good that he was not ordained, not upon us to prove that he was ordained: For if we lay down this position, That meerly gifted men ought not to preach, &c. if they offer any instances to the contrary, they must make this good, that such were only gifted men, and not ordained: They are not so unacquainted with the laws of disputation, as not to know that the proof lies on the opponents part, which they manage in this place.

2. The Gospel is silent as to the Mission and Ordination of divers others: We reade nothing of the Ordination of Titus, of Epaphroditus, of the Pastors of the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2, & 3. Shall we therefore conclude they were not ordained?

3. Whereas it is said he preached only where there was no Church: They say, Let them prove that it is more unwarrantable to preach where a Church is, than where no Church is.

Reply This will easily be proved by that ingens telum necessitas: I hope there is a far greater necessity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not, than in a Church where they are.

4. To these I may adde, that we do not find Apollo's preaching in a Christian Church, but disputing in a Jewish Assembly, a liberty which we as readily allow to gifted men, as to write in defence of the truth.

5. Say that Apollo's were not ordained (which is all our Brethren can extort or desire) yet this gives them no help at all, for the extraordinarinesse of his gifts might well supply the defect of an Ordination, and that is no president for such whose gifts are but ordinary.

And thus much for their first example.

The second is that locus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that famous instance of the scattered Saints, Acts 8. about which I shall not ingage my self, nor detain the Reader with repeating those various Answers that are given to it by the Provincial Assembly, which might easily be vindicated from their exceptions. I shall not stand upon this; That the persons scattered were, if not solely, yet mainly the Officers of the Church, who might therefore preach, &c. But that which wholly invalidates this place as to their purpose, is that which is commonly said, that this was an extraordinary case, a case of necessity. And mark the weight of our Brethrens deduction from this place: Because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church, in a time when all Church-order was broke, preached and taught Jesus Christ to Heathens and unbelieving Jews, occasionally (it may be in private, or with Paul in the market places &c. or in their Synagogues disputing with them) therefore now unordained persons may preach publickly and solemnly to a Christian Church settled and constituted, wherein are plenty of able and godly Pastors, and where as their preaching is not necessary, so to many fearing God it is highly scandalous. This is the true state of the Argument, and if our Brethren be not sick of this consequence, I shall say they have good stomacks.

But this must not passe so, and therefore they make an assault upon it, and there are three or four things which they say (lest they should say nothing) which stand in the room of Answers, with which I must professe I wonder how sober ingenious and conscientious men (such as I hope our Brethren are) can satisfie themselves. But such as they are we shall give them a fair hearing.

1. They say, Persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach, p. 85.

Ans. Yes, it laid a necessity upon them, i. e. in order to Gods glory, and the salvation of souls, which could not be had without preaching, Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way; upon this supposition, that in those times God would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, it was necessary that they should preach, for as much as there can be no salvation without preaching, Rom. 10.

2. They say, It is questionable whether necessity can make that lawfull, which is in it self unlawfull, as to forswear a mans self, p. 86.

Ans. There are two kinds of evil and unlawfulnesses, Some things are simply and absolutely evil, and prohibita quia mala, forbidden because they are intrinsecally evil; as to forswear, to blaspheam God, &c. and these no necessity can excuse: But there are other things which are in themselves indifferent, and only mala quia prohibita, are therefore only evil because they are prohibited, and because they are against positive precepts. Now those things which are only evil this latter way (and such is preaching without Ordination) they may, though not ordinarily, yet in cases of necessity do. Thus in a case of necessity, David might eat the Shew-bread, the rest of the Sabbath might be violated, Periculum mortis pellit Sabbathum: And of this kind is order in a State or Church, which is a duty to be observed ordinarily, and yet in case of evident necessity may be violated. And, as in a State, in such a case, every man is a Constable, so in the Church, in such a case, every man may be a Preacher.

3. They say, It is an extraordinary case when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way, i. e. when Election doth not go before it, p. 86.

Ans. 1. That Election must necessarily and continually go before Ordination, is but one of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and suppositions to be confuted hereafter.

2. And if ordinarily Election must go before Ordination, yet, as we say of preaching, when Ordination cannot be had, it may be done without it; so it is true of Election when it cannot be had, Ordination must be taken without it; and when Ordination cannot be had exactly in Gods way, as to all the particulars, it must be had, as it may. The Shew-bread was ordinarily according to Gods way, to be eaten by the Priests alone, but in cases of necessity it might be eaten out of Gods way, it might be eaten by others.

3. It is not every extraordinary case that carries it, it must be a case of necessity, such as this is not; for what if neither Election nor Ordination can be had by them in Gods way? There is no necessity of their preaching in a Church which is constituted. And thus we see how firmly this Answer stands against all their exceptions, and that all their assaults are but like the beating of a storm against the wall. So that there is one flaw in their Argument which will for ever condemn it of insufficiency.

But that is not all: Mark how the Argument is laid by our Brethren; Those who were scattered abroad they preached: But many unordained men were scattered abroad; Therefore many unordained men preached, p. 74.

Ans. 1. You shall see what an hopefull Argument this is: I will make use of their own Argument against them, and I desire no other Umpire.

They who were scattered abroad they preached: But many ungifted persons were scattered abroad; Therefore such preached: And because this example they bring as a president for us, therefore ungifted persons may now preach publickly; which because it is not only false, but contrary to their own sense, therefore (that we may not be put to deny the Conclusion) we must find fault with one of the premises, and that can only be done our way, i. e. by saying that, not all that were scattered preached, but only some of them preached: Only here is the difference, these some that preached, say we, were Officers; say they, they were gifted men, which yet they cannot prove, and if they could, it reacheth not our case, nor our times, for it was a case of necessity, as hath been argued.

If they like not this, I will put it in another dresse: They who were scattered, preached: But women as well as men were scattered, so they say, the scattering was subsequent to Pauls haling men and women, &c. and that the All that were scattered, were not all the Officers, but all the Church. So that by this Argument here is a warrant for women-preachers, if this example be a president: Nor let them fly to their usual refuge, that women are elsewhere forbidden, for although they were ordinarily prohibited, yet in cases of necessity (such as this was) they might do it, as that woman did who preached to the Iberians, and converted them.

To this I may adde, that all that can be extorted from this place is this, that they preached; which we may grant without any prejudice to our cause, for there are divers kinds of preaching or teaching, they might do it divers waies. It might be true of all, that they preached and taught Jesus, but not all alike, nor all in the same capacity; the Officers might teach publickly, the rest privately; the Officers constantly, the others occasionally; the Officers might preach officially in a Christian Church, the rest might discourse to a company of Heathens, or dispute with them; and all these may be called teaching or preaching. So that our Brethrens Argument is a genere ad speciem affirmativè, which will not hold water.

For what they say, that It is indefinitely said that they that were scattered, preached.

Ans. They know that indefinite propositions, in materiâ contingenti, in a contingent matter (such as this unquestionably is) are not equivalent to an universal: Supposing that Officers and people were scattered, I say, that if the Officers alone had preached, that had been sufficient ground to say of the whole they preached, as oftentimes that is said to be done by all Israel, which was done by the Officers of the Congregation.

And thus we have seen those two great topicks of our Brethren, from Scripture precept, and Scripture president overthrown. And so much for the third Argument.

Their fourth Argument is that principall place and pillar of their opinion, which if I shall satisfactorily Answer, there will be little ground left for our Brethrens confidence in this cause. 1 Cor. 14. 29, 31. whence they draw this Argument,

All that are Prophets may publickly preach: But some men who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; Therefore some men who are not ordained Officers, may publickly preach.

Which Argument may be cut off in a word, for their Conclusion may be granted without any detriment to our Cause; and our Brethren might have known, and ought to have considered, that we grant, that persons unordained may preach, in a double case; 1. In the case of necessity. 2. In case of extraordinary gifts, and an immediate Commission from God, which we take to be the case of these Prophets, of which more hereafter. In the mean time let us follow them: For their major it is granted on all hands: For their minor, it is this, That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets; where there is a double defect and insufficiency to the proof of what they intend. For 1. The Prophets might be Officers, though not ordained; so were the Apostles, neither of man nor by man. 2. If the Prophets were not Officers at all, yet the extraordinarinesse of their gifts was a sufficient warrant for the publick exercise thereof: But neither of these are to be found in the case of those unordained preachers we plead against, but they differ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from them, for neither are they Officers at all, ordained or not ordained, nor are their gifts extraordinary; so that the minor might be granted, and yet the truth not wronged. But let us see how they proceed: I fear it will prove ominous to them, thus to stumble in the threshold: They argue thus, to prove their minor, All that have the gift of prophesie are Prophets: But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie; Ergo, Some men, who are not ordained Officers are Prophets. For the major, though we grant it, yet, according to our Brethrens principles, it might be denied; for, if it were as they say, that those prophesiers here spoken of had the gift, but no Office, I should deny such to be Prophets, because the name of Prophet, both in vulgar acception, and in Scripture use, connotes an Office; Caiaphas did prophesie, Ioh. 11.— and yet I beleeve our Brethren are not so hardy, as to say that Caiaphas was a Prophet. The minor will lead us to the main point, which is this, Some men not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie; which they attempt to prove by three steps:

They say, this prophesie 1. is a gift, not an Office. 2. That it is a gift still continuing. 3. And which some unordained persons have, p. 90. And if these things be proved, they say something to the purpose; but let it be considered, if there be a flaw in any one of them, their whole Argument fals, and how much more, when every one of them will be taken tardy. The last Proposition they place first, and use three Arguments to prove it, whereof the last is that which the other propositions treat of, the two former are these which follow.

1. (Say they) Some not ordained have this gift of prophesie, because we find no Scripture warrant for the ordaining of Prophets.

Ans. 1. What if there be no particular warrant, it is sufficient that there is a general rule for the ordaining of all Church-officers, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, &c. and (at least, if these be ordinary Officers, as our Brethren make them) a parity of reason (which is a sufficient Argument to sober minded men, such as I take our Brethren to be) will prove that they also are to be ordained.

2. But if they be extraordinary Officers (as the Provincial Assembly affirm) preferred before the Evangelists, and having this priviledge above the Evangelists (for ought we read) to be immediatly and infallibly indued, &c. then what wonder if in this they partake with the Apostles, who as they were not of men, so neither by men, and needed no Ordination, nor had it, unless in relation to some special work, as Acts 13. 1.

2. (Say they) They must be discerned to have the gift before they be ordained, and therefore some not ordained may have the gift of prophesie.

Ans. This Argument is built upon the former mistake, as if there were a necessity of such a Prophets Ordination; whereas, I say, Gods indowment of him with extraordinary gifts, is a kind of Ordination, and supplies the defect of an Ordination by men. But (complying thus far with our Brethren, to own these Prophets to be unordained persons, and their gifts but ordinary) I further Answer, that this is wholly impertinent (as was intimated before) for in the case of a Pastor, the question is not, Whether one not ordained may have Pastoral gifts, which we assert he may have, nay he must have, and must be known to have them before he be ordained; but the question is, Whether a man not ordained may commonly and ordinarily exercise those Pastoral gifts, which is quite another thing: It is one thing to have gifts, another thing to exercise gifts. A man may lawfully have divers gifts, (v. g. of ruling an Army or a State, &c.) which yet he may not lawfully exercise.

But let us now come to their next Proposition, which is more to the purpose, viz. That this prophecying is not an Office but a gift. If this be proved, it amounts to something, but I doubt the premises will fall a mile short of the conclusion. I passe by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they run into, which Dr. Collins takes notice of, and shall rather consider how they attempt to prove it; which they do by two Arguments.

1. All who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets: But all that have the gift are not Officers.

Ans. If these Prophets were ordinary persons, I deny the major, for then besides the gift, they must be ordained (as in other ordinary cases:) But if these Prophets were extraordinary persons, I deny the minor, for the very having of such a gift extraordinarily inspired, is an immediate call, and makes them extraordinary Officers, as it was in the Prophets of the old Testament.

Arg. 2. That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth, was not an Office but a gift: For 1. God no where promised to make every one an Officer there. 2. This was impossible, for then all the body had been the eye; and if these were extraordinary Officers, much lesse might they covet to be such: But now this prophesying they ought and might covet in faith. v. 1. 39.

Ans. 1. The major is denied: 1. An Office might be coveted as well as a gift, 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man (Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if any man) desire the Office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work. Yea an extraordinary Office might be coveted, as is evident from the desires and endeavours of the sons of the Prophets in the old Testament.

2. Let our Brethren shew where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts, and I will shew them where God promised to every one of them to be Officers.

3. If extraordinary gifts might be desired, (as our Brethren say) why not an extraordinary Office? If an extraordinary Office might not be desired, this is either because this is an Office, or because it is extraordinary; not because it is an Office, that hinders not but it may be coveted, as we have shewn; nor, because it is extraordinary, for then extraordinary gifts might not be desired. That extraordinary gifts might be desired, appears from the very words cited by our Brethren, 1 Cor. 14. 1. Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesie; whence it is most evident, that not only prophesying, but the other gifts mentioned there, i. e. of tongues, interpretation, &c. were to be desired: So that our Brethrens Argument is feeble to prove this to be an ordinary gift, because it was to be desired.

4 For every member in the Church of Corinth to be an Officer was not impossible: True, it was impossible for all to be Officers there in that Church, but not to be Officers in other places: And this I would desire our Brethren to ruminate upon, whether, supposing, that all the members of the Church of Corinth might in faith desire, and so obtain gifts fitting them for Office (which our Brethren grant) & supposing that the exigencies of the Church required their Office-relation, which might well have been in those times, and that their being in other callings ought not to hinder it (as our Brethren sufficiently intimate, pag. 53.) I say, whether, supposing these things, it were either impossible or unlawfull for every member of the Church of Corinth to desire to be an Officer, where he might be serviceable to the Church: That in this case it is unlawfull or impossible, I suppose our Brethren will not readily say; and if they say it, nothing more easie then to disprove it: And if they grant it to be possible and lawfull, then all their Argument fals to the ground, then every member ought in duty, and might in faith, covet, as to have gifts necessary for an Office, so (in due order and fit time) to be Officers, though not in that Church, yet in some Church, which is enough to our purpose. Adde to this that if this prophesie be an Office, this is no more then that wish of Moses so much insisted upon, at least according to their sense of it, I would that all the Lords people were Prophets.

And thus I have shewn the insufficiency of their proofs alleadged for the defence of their first and most considerable Position, That the prophesying here spoken of, is a gift, not an Office: This Position they uphold only by two Arguments, which I hope any ingenuous Reader will discern to be so farre answered, that they have no great reason to be confident upon these grounds: And yet I must intreat the Reader to consider, that here lies the great stresse of the cause; for if it be not a bare gift, (which you have seen our Brethren cannot prove) but an Office, then the preaching of these Prophets is no warrant nor example for the preaching of any that are not Officers: Now although I might acquiesce here, for as much, as, if any assert that these were barely gifted men, it lies upon them to prove it; yet, ex abundanti, there is a reason given, whereby it doth more then probably appear, that these Prophets were Officers. In the mean time, let this be remembred, that if we could not prove that these preachers, 1 Cor. 14. were Officers (no more then they can prove that they were only gifted persons) yet our cause stands unshaken, and all that would follow in that case would be this, that this place must be laid aside, both by our Brethren, and by us, as not demonstrative to the point in hand.

This being premised, I come to our Argument, which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers, and (which is most considerable) placed before the Evangelists. I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath.

They say, Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words; seeing oft-times the worse is placed before the better, as Priscilla before Aquila, the woman before the man, p. 93.

And thus far it is true, that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity; and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first, sometimes last, so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded, and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted, especially when it is punctually observed, that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned, they are placed next after the Apostles, and that this is done so solemnly, and with such emphaticall words, 1 Cor. 12. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, &c. And as it may fairly be collected, that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers, because generally they are placed first, and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them, because generally they are placed last, so also it is considerable (and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it, were it for their cause, as much as it is against it) that Prophets are generally placed in the second order.

For what they adde, If Prophets be Officers, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets, who did foretell of future events, as Acts 11. yet this hinders not, but this prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift, &c.

Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets, (that I may accommodate my discourse to our Brethrens conceptions) to foretell future events; for Iudas and Silas as Prophets, did exhort, Acts 15. 32.

2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets, the one by Office, the other by gift, as it is but a begging of the question, so it will by wise and indifferent Readers, be lookt upon but as subterfuge, and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles, two sorts of Evangelists, &c. the one by Office, the other by gift? It had been somewhat tollerable, if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesie, but not called Prophets (seeing, as our Brethren say, the doing of some Acts occasionally, as v. g. ones teaching occasionally, doth not denominate a man a teacher) but seeing they are also called Prophets; impartiall men will easily gather, that they are the same which are known by that name in other places. Thus much for the first Proposition; which being dispatched, I now come to the second, and shall try whether that succeed better in our Brethrens hands; and that is, That Prophesying is an ordinary gift, and still continuing in the Church. This they undertake to prove as followes:

Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use, and no Gospel Rule can be shewed for the repeal or ceasing of it, p. 96.

Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two waies. 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it: or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it. Who knows not that the gift of Tongues, praediction, and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased? and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus, because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them.

Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary, Ergo still continuing.

Ans. The proposition is altogether needlesse, for if it be ordinary that is sufficient, and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provinciall Assemby (that this Prophesying is extraordinary) And therefore let us hear what they have to say, or what they alledge to prove it ordinary.

For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to, p. 97. I shall only say this, Wise men before they had made such a bold charge (especially making use of the dreadfull Name of the Lord) would have understood the grounds of it, which indeed are none at all: for the Authours of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici, were only three or four reverend City Ministers, whereof one or two are since gone out of the City; and, not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth: And being different persons, though agreeing in the main of this controversie; it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance: however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose, i. e. that the gift was extraordinary. Besides, I suppose, our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction, for these two may very well consist together, to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift, and yet the ordinary Pastours of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation: And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church, it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastours of that Church quoad exercitium muneris: And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin. regim▪ affirm, and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts, i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastours of that Church and yet both grant, that for their gifts they were extraordinary; and that is the thing now in question: So that in stead of a contradiction feigned, here is a real agreement found out; all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose: and all asserting, 1. That these Prophets were Officers. 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts: To which their special relation to Corinth, and residence there, and doing the acts of Pastours is no more a prejudice, than it was to the Apostles, who though they were extraordinary Officers, yet some of them at some times were as Pastours to some Churches, &c. which occasioned that apprehension that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, &c.

That this Prophesying was ordinary, our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove.

Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary, p. 100.

Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers. Extraordinary Officers, 1. Must act orderly. 2. Must speak in a known language, 3. Must speak to edification. 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers, yea people also, as the Provincial Assembly fully proves; of which our Brethren take no notice: Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine.

Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary, i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation, and comfort.

Ans. 1. This also was the work of Apostles. 2. The work indeed was ordinary, but the manner of doing it was extraordinary, in as much as these did it infallibly, and by immediate revelation.

Arg. 3. But here is no mention of extraordinary work, of a gift of praediction, which is required to all extraordinary Prophets, but the contrary is intimated, and this prophesying is here said to be, not a sign for them that believe not (which praediction of events is) but for them that believe.

Ans. 1. Date non concesso, that these Prophets had not the gift of prediction, that no way hinders but they might be extraordinary Officers, for besides this they had another extraordinary gift, to wit, a gift of infallible teaching by immediate revelation. Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of praediction, that we read of, and yet I hope our Brethren will give them their passe for extraordinary Officers.

2. For my part I am prone to conceive (and let our Brethren disprove it) that the praediction of future events was rather a priviledge indulged to some New Testament Prophets, than common to all Prophets: The gift of miracles was a gift bestowed upon Prophets, and yet some wanted it; for Iohn (though a Prophet) yet did no miracle, Ioh. 10. 41. However, the great and principal work of these New Testament Prophets (and the old also) was preaching, &c. and therefore (although these Prophets, 1 Cor. 14 had the gift of praediction) yet it is no wonder that the title of prophesying should be appropriated to the most common principal,Analogum per se positum sum •• ur pro famosiore analogata. and famous part of the work, which is preaching.

3. And how poor an evidence is this to prove, that these Prophets could not foretell future events, because it is not mentioned in this Chapter? the rather because he here speaks of the Prophets, not in relation to unbeleevers (for whose-sake the gift of prediction was given) but in relation to beleevers, and to the Church, and concerning the ordering of the work of prophesying or preaching in and to the Church-assembly.

4. We readily grant all which can be proved from this place, which is only this, that the preaching of these Prophets (for it is that act of the Prophets which is here called prophesying) is not for them that believe not, but for them that beleeve: It is not said, that these Prophets were given not for a sign to them that beleeve not, &c. (which had been more to the purpose) but that, that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe, &c.

5. If they had not that particular extraordinary gift of praediction, yet had they divers other extraordinary gifts, as that of Tongues, and the interpretation of them, &c. and that was sufficient to make the persons extraordinary, though they wanted some other extraordinary gift.

Arg. Publick Prophesying extraordinary was allowed to women, Luke 2. 36, 38. But this publick Prophesying was not allowed to women, v. 34. let your women keep silence; Therefore this publick Prophesying was ordinary p. 102.

Ans. That extraordinary Prophesying was allowed to women in publick, either in the old or new Testament, hath been often said and supposed; but never yet could I see it proved; nor can one instance be given of it, that I know of, to wit, that any woman did preach in a publick Assembly; and there lies the stresse: Anna might speak to all, i. e. severally, as they came by turnes to the Temple, and so might Priscilla occasionally speak privately, as she had opportunity: And indeed we read that when she preached, she chose to do it privately, Act. 18. But neither of them in a publick Assembly.

But that Argument is so fully handled by others, that I shall not need to dilate upon it here.

And thus we have seen how infirm our Brethrens Arguments are, which are brought to prove that this Prophesying was ordinary.

In the next place I should come to lay down Arguments to prove that it was extraordinary: I shall not insist upon all the Arguments used to prove it: Some were proposed by Dr. Collings, and are by him vindicated in his last piece; others I dare venture to stand upon their own legs, and refer the comparing of them and the Answers here given to any indifferent Reader: And besides, Dr. Collings hath eased me of that burden.

This only I take notice of, that this Prophesying was by revelation, v. 26. Every one (i. e. of you Prophets) hath a Psalme, a Doctrine, a Tongue, a revelation, an interpretation. And v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

To which our Brethren answer two things.

1. They say, All these enumerated were not extraordinary: A Doctrine is ordinary; the ordinary Elders have a Doctrine, p. 103.

Reply. It is true of ordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine; it is true also of extraordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine, but not both in the same way; in the one it was extraordinary, in the other ordinary, so that from the bare mention of a Doctrine, it can neither be collected that that Doctrine was ordinary, nor that it was extraordinary, but that must be gathered from the circumstances of the place; and for this place, whereas the Office here spoken of is extraordinary (as we have proved) and the word Doctrine is at least ambiguous: It is more probable that this Doctrine is meant of an extraordinary kind (as the rest are which are there enumerated) than that it is meant of an ordinary Doctrine, when nothing else here spoken of s ordinary.

2. They say that the word revelation is somtimes taken for a revelation in an ordinary way, that is by the word, &c.

Ans. That is readily granted, and needed no proof, but it must be added that somtimes also it is taken in an extraordinary sense; so that now we are to enquire which way it is to be taken here, and which way the circumstances of the text restrain that common word: Now that it is meant of extraordinary revelation four things will procure belief with unbyassed Readers. 1. That the word is of the present tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if it be revealed, not if it have been revealed, as it should have been, for the revelation of the word was past. 2. The posture in which it is revealed, when he sitteth by. 3. The effect of such a revelation, that it gives a stop to the others discourse: 4. That this revelation was not common to all the Church, but peculiar to these Prophets, and not common to all the Prophets neither, but peculiar to one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some one that sitteth by, and therefore surely it cannot be the revelation by the Word, which is common to all the Prophets, yea, all the Church. Nor is there any weight in what is further objected by our Brethren, that if this revelation should command silence to a Prophet speaking by immediate revelation, then the same Spirit should clash with it self: For though these Prophets did speak by immediate revelation, yet not so as that they did not at all exercise their ordinary gifts, or that they never spake as ordinary men: For even the Prophets and Apostles themselves, sometimes spake their own private opinions: And why might not these Prophets after the delivery of their revelation amplifie it, and open it according to their private opinion, by the help of their excellent, though ordinary gifts? which (though they were much to be valued and respected) yet well might be corrected by some immediate revelation manifested to another.

But (say they) this requiring the first to hold his peace, doth not necessarily forbid his proceeding so far as he intended, or command a sudden silence, &c. but only commandeth so to contract a mans discourse, as there may be opportunity for others.

And I confesse nothing is more easie then to dictate; This is soon said, but if you ask our Brethren for a proof, I am afraid they will stick in the mire: In the mean time, they having offered no proof for it, must needs allow me to rely as much upon my affirmation, which yet is not mine, but the Apostles, as they upon their negation. It is plain from the words, that it was a thing that fell out beyond expectation, and therefore is brought in conditionally, If any thing be revealed, which condition was needlesse, if the revelation spoken of was ordinary and common. And this may be abundantly sufficient for the Vindication of this place, from which I may justly expect this fruit, that ingenuous men of a contrary mind to us, may abate some of their confidence, and see cause to make a further enquiry into this point then yet they have made.

And this may suffice for Answer to their Arguments, whereby they attempt to prove that gifted persons may preach. Let us now see, whether we have not more convincing Arguments to prove that they may not preach: Albeit this must needs be said, that in course of disputations, it is not incumbent upon us to prove the Negative, but upon them to prove the Affirmative, Asserenti incumbit probatio. So that I might here take take up, and having shewn the invalidity of their Arguments, I might supersede further trouble: And this memorandum I shall leave upon the file, that this Assertion of our Brethren, That unordained persons may preach ordinarily, is neither commanded by any Gospel precept, nor countenanced by any Gospel example (which hitherto hath been alleadged.) But because our Arguments, whereby we have proved our Assertion, are assaulted by our Brethren, it will be convenient to say something by way of Vindication.

ANd to this purpose they urge eight Arguments, which to me still seem very considerable, and my perswasion is, that if any judicious man of another minde, could but redeem himself from the prevailing power of prejudice, and duly ponder our Arguments and their Answers, he will find that all the assaults they make against them are vain and ineffectual: But it shall not be taken upon my word.

I will 1. propound our Arguments. 2. Take notice of their Answers; wherein I promise them not disingenuosly to conceal or neglect any thing wherein their strength lies. 3. I shall adde something (where it is needfull) for the vindication of those Arguments.

Arg. 1. That work, for the doing of which, God hath designed special Officers of his own, neither ought, nor may be done by any others; But God hath designed special Officers for this work of preaching.

The minor is granted; but all the doubt lies about the major, and that is the Proposition which our Brethren deny, and they give three instances to the contrary; Prayer is the special work of Ministers, Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves to prayer: And so is exhorting and reproving, &c. Tit 1. 5, &c. Distribution of worldly goods is the Deacons work, and yet others may Pray, Exhort and Rebuke, give Almes, &c.

Reply 1. For Prayer, it is true, it is the duty of all men, and of Ministers more than others, but that it was a work for which the Office of the Ministry was appointed, neither doth this text assert, nor did ever any man dream, and so that is wholly impertinent to the case in hand: One may as well say, that the Office of the Ministry was designed for the work of hospitality, because they especially must be given to hospitality, 1 Tim. 3. 2. as to say, that it was designed for the work of prayer, because they especially must give themselves to prayer.

2. For the Deacons work, that is not barely the distribution of worldly goods, but the distribution of the Churches goods (which our Brethren here do either subtilly or unwarily, which I rather think, confound) and this latter none but the Deacon may do, so that this may be retorted upon them, that as the appointment of the Deacon for that work of distributing the Churches almes, is a sufficient reason to prove that no private man ought to do it, so also is the appointment of a Minister, for the work of preaching, a sufficient intimation that other persons may not undertake that work.

3. For that work of reproving and exhorting, they may do it, but privatly, not publickly.

Against this our Brethren object two things.

1. If an Officer rebuketh a member in private, this he doth as an Officer, so that the publicknesse of an act is not necessary to make it an act of Office.

Reply. This depends upon a meer mistake. It is one thing to say the publicknesse of the act of exhorting, &c. makes it an act of Office, or that a publick act is an act of Office, that we affirm. It is another thing to say that no act but a publick act is an act of Office (as our Brethren mistake it) this we affirm not, nor is it for our purpose to assert it; nay, we assert that an Officers private rebuke is an act of Office.

2. They say, If it be the different way and manner of acting, that maketh an act to be an act of Office, then their Argument concerns not the work it self, but the manner of working, and so all which it proves is this, that none ought to do the Officers work in the same manner as he doth it, i. e. not officially, and this we readily grant.

Reply. Our Argument concerns the work, but then it must be the work in question, and that our Brethren well know was not exhorting in general, but publick exhorting: But of this more hereafter. It must now be remembred, that the Provincial Assembly confirmed the major by three Arguments.

The first was this, Because God hath severely punished such as have done those works, for which he hath appointed special Officers, as Saul, Uzzah.

To this our Brethren Answer two things.

1. That these were cases of necessity, and so if they prove any thing, they prove that gifted men may not preach, no, not in a case of necessity, which is allowed by your selves.

Reply. The case is not parallel, nor is the necessity alike, of Preaching and Sacrificing; Preaching (as our Brethren will grant) is absolutely necessary to salvation, so is not Sacrificing; nor was Sacrificing necessary in that case for Israels deliverance (if God had denied an opportunity of sacrificing) I conceive the paralell will lie right between their sacrifices and our Sacraments, neither of which are necessary to salvation, necessitate medii. And hereby the Argument will receive further light and strength, i. e. Because God hath appointed peculiar Officers for the administration of our Sacraments (as well as their Sacrifices) therefore they ought not to be administred by persons out of Office, no, not in any case of a pretended necessity (forasmuch as there is no absolute and real necessity of either Sacrifices or Sacraments to salvation.) And thus far our Brethren must consent with us, unlesse they will turn grosse separatists, and allow a liberty also for gifted men to administer the Sacraments, which I am confident they will not.

2. They say the case is not alike; for there was an express prohibition of these acts to any, except Officers, Num. 4. 15. & 16. 40. Numb. 1. 5. & Numb. 18. 22, 23. The preaching of gifted men is not thus forbidden: And besides not only the manner but the matter of these workes were forbidden to others.

Reply. A thing may be prohibited two waies, either in expresse terms, or by solid consequence: I suppose our Brethren are far from that dotage which divers Anabaptists and Socinians run into, that we are not to be satisfied with Scripture consequences, but to look for express Scripture, as if men must not beleeve what God saith, unlesse he speak it in their way: There are many things confessedly unlawful, which are not prohibited in express terms, but only by some general rules and Scripture consequences: What if I should keep to the instance of Uzzah? who was punished not principally, at least not solely, because he did touch the Ark with his hands, but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders; which the Levites were to do: Now (I say) as in this case, Gods command that the Ark should be carried upon the Levites shoulders, was a command that it should be carried so only, and it was a prohibition to the Levites or any other, to carry it any other way; so in our case, Gods appointment of Officers to preach, is a prohibition to others to invade that work. Again, let me make this supposition (which no ingenuous man can disallow of,) Suppose that Paul had not expresly prohibited women to preach, I desire our Brethren to answer me, whether, in that case, it had been lawfull for gifted women to preach publickly or no: If they say yea, then I argue thus against them, that Paul doth not establish a new Law, but revives and interprets an old Law, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence—for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as saith the Law. So that it was forbidden by the Law before that time, and had been unlawful, though Paul had never prohibited it. If they say, no, then I argue thus, that an expresse prohibition is not necessary, for such there had not been in the case supposed, nor had women been prohibited any other way but thus, Preaching was committed unto certain men in authority, commissionated for that work: Ergo, it was prohibited to persons under authority, and because all women are under authority, therefore are they universally excluded from this work: I add further, that it is a granted case in the businesse of the Sacraments, the administration whereof is prohibited to all un-officed persons (our brethren themselves being Judges) and how prohibited? There is no more an expresse prohibition to restrain men from administring the Sacraments, then from preaching, but only it is therefore judged prohibited, because God had appointed Officers for the doing of that work, and therefore implicitly prohibited the doing of it by others; and surely the prohibition doth equally concern both preaching and administring the Sacraments by others, forasmuch as both the manner of prohibition is the same in both, and the reason of the prohibition, to wit, because Officers were appointed by God for those works: And thus I have vindicated the first proof of the major, wherein I have been the larger, because it is a principal point, and because what our Brethren excepted had some colour of reason, although I am not without hope, that our Brethren themselves by this time may see, that it was a colour only, and no substance.

2. The major was proved thus, That otherwise the Officers God hath appointed are made void, or at least unnecessary and insufficient.

To this they say, This will prove as strongly that Officers are unnecessary, at least to the work of private exhortation, seeing private Christians may do it.

Reply. It is very true, and naturally follows, that because private Christians may reprove privatly, therefore there needed no peculiar Officers to be set apart for that work of private reproving, and if that were the whole work of a Minister, there would need no Officers for the work of the Ministry: But because there is another, and an higher work of the Ministry, which private Christians may not do, i. e. the work of publick preaching, therefore it is that there are Officers appointed for it.

3. Hereby the order instituted by God in the Church is confounded.

To this they say, It is not. As a Fathers teaching of his children doth not destroy the order of Schoolmasters, nor take away the distinction between Master and Schollar, &c.

Reply. It is true that a Father teaching privately, doth not destroy the relation of a Schoolmaster and Schollar, but if Fathers did, and might promiscuously teach in a publick way, this would destroy, or at least much prejudice that comely order. In like manner, that a Father or any Christian teach others privatly, is no way prejudicial to publick teaching, but eminently subservient to it, and we heartily wish it were more conscientiously and diligently practised; but if publick teaching were promiscuously allowed to all gifted men (whether Masters or Schollars) surely this would be repugnant to the order instituted by Christ, that one member of Christs body should usurp the acts of another. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of the first Argument used by the Provincial Assembly.

The second Argument was this, No religious service may be performed by any persons not appointed, nor warranted thereunto: But persons gifted are not appointed nor warranted thereunto.

Our Brethren deny the minor, they say, gifted persons are appointed to preach. Against this, was argued as followeth, If they are appointed to preach, then every gifted man that preacheth not is guilty of a sin of omission. To this they answer, he is not guilty, if he want an opportunity, a call from others to exercise his gifts.

Reply. I would gladly know whether the Apostles had been excused if they had refused to preach at all, for want of a call from men to preach; What if both Magistrates and people had not desired them to preach, whether did this give them a supersedeas or no? If they say it did, I suppose many are not of their mind, I am sure for one, that was Peter, when he was not only not call'd to preach, but forbidden to preach, yet he accounted it his duty to preach, Act. 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather than men. If they say it did not discharge them from preaching, then I demand why it did not; surely all the account which can fairly be given of it must be this, They were by God appointed and obliged to preach, and therefore no men can dis-oblige them: And upon the same ground; if gifted men were appointed by God for that work, the negligence of men not desiring them, (provided they would permit or hear them) would not dis-ob • ige them: Add to this, that whatever gifts a man hath, he is bound to exercise them wherever he can (where he is not restrained, and put under some kind of impossibility of doing it) whether he be desired or no: A Christian having received a gift of private instruction, he is obliged to instruct persons not only when they desire him, but when they do not, whenever he can have conveniency and opportunity so to do: And in like manner (if our Brethren say true, that all gifted men as such, are appointed by God to preach) if a man have a gift of publick instruction, he is obliged to use it whenever he can be permitted so to do, and not only when others call him to the exercise of his gift. And this is the more forcible against them, because they reduce those preaching gifts unto the talents spoken of Mat. 25. which talents whoever useth not, is under a most dreadfull curse and commination: Now, as it is in other talents, if a man have received riches, honour, parts, interest, &c. he must use and exercise them for Gods glory, whether he be desired or no; so in like manner according to their hypothesis, his preaching talent must be laid out, whether the people desire it or no.

Our third Argument was this, No man may do the Office of a Magistrate or Deacon, who is not called to it: Ergo none may do the Office of a Minister, who is not called thereunto.

To this Argument they Answer divers things.

1. If this Argument hold, then, as no man that is no Magistrate, may do one act of the Magistrates, so no man that is not ordained, may do one act of the Minister, he may not preach once, though as a probationer, which is against our Brethrens own principles.

Ans. There is a double flaw in this discourse; For,

1. There is not Par ratio; there is not equal necessity of mens trials in order to both works: It is necessary a Minister should do the work of a Minister, viz. Preach in order to his Trial and Ordination to that work. But it is not necessary a man should do the work of a Magistrate in order to his trial, for his abilities may be fully known other waies.

2. In cases of necessity private men may do the work of the Magistrate: It is proper to the Magistrate to take away a mans life, and yet in a case of necessity, as if a private man be assaulted by a Rogue upon the high-way, it is lawfull for him, if he can, to take away his life.

2. They Answer, Care may be taken otherwaies, there may be approbation without Ordination.

Reply. It is true, men may devise twenty waies of their own, as indeed there is a marvellous pronenesse in men to set up their own devises in Gods worship; and whenever they are convinced of the necessity of using any means in order to an end, rather to contrive means and waies of their own, than to use such as God hath already appointed, which, I fear, is our Brethrens miscarriage here: God hath appointed an Ordination, and an examination and approbation in order to Ordination, and of Ordination the Scripture speaks more clearly and frequently, than of any other approbation; nor do I remember that ever it speaks of the approbation of any Preachers, but in order to Ordination; our Brethren have forsaken this Institution of God, and introduced a new device, of approbation without Ordination. And because the occasion here leads me to it, I cannot but take notice of one thing, whereas I am informed some persons, through carelesnesse or oscitancy, or wilfulnesse, or ignorance, have taken up this conceit, that an Approbation from the Commissioners appointed for the tryall of Publick Preachers, is a kind of Ordination, and may serve in stead of it: I would have them here to take notice, that this is not only false in it self, but against the very words of that Act whereby they are constituted, wherein an expresse protestation is made (as elsewhere hath been observed) That they themselves do not intend that this shall be taken as an Ecclesiasticall call, but only a Civil dispensation of the Magistrates right to particular places.

And whereas it was urged, that The work of the Ministry being a work of greater consequence and difficulty, than the work of the Magistrate or the Deacon, it requires greater care.

They Answer, Men may perform some works of greater consequence, who yet may not perform works of lesse consequence. To beleeve is an act of higher consequence, than to do the work of a Deacon, yet every Christian may beleeve.

Reply. This is a meer fallacy, for though beleeving is a work of greater difficulty and consequence in relation to a mans self, yet not in relation to the Church and other men, and that is it we are treating of; so that the work of beleeving is altogether impertinent in this place, for we are speaking of such works as relate to others, and wherein there is a care required in relation to others, but beleeving is a work confined to a mans self.

Our fourth Argument was this, None may administer the Sacraments who is uncalled; Therefore none may preach who is uncalled, for these two are joyned together in that Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. and preaching is the greater work, 1 Cor. 1. 17.

Our Brethren make many exceptions against this Argument.

1. They say it makes against us, For you (say they) separate between preaching and baptizing, you allow men to preach probation-wise, not to administer the Sacraments probation-wise.

Reply. The reason of the difference is apparent, Preaching probation-wise is simply necessary in order to their Approbation and Ordination, for the trial of their gifts, and so this preaching is in a case of necessity, and therefore allowable; but there is no necessity at all of trying their gifts by administring the Sacraments, seeing there are none of their gifts exercised there, but such as are fully discovered by their trial in preaching, &c.

2. They say, Matth. 28. is no Commission authorizing them either to preach or baptize, (that Commission they had afore, Mark 10. & Joh. 4.) and therefore could not now be constituted afresh.

Reply. 1. Give me leave however to propound it as my private opinion, though I shall not be positive in it, and I know there are some difficulties in the way, that the Apostles were indeed Officers before, but not Officers of the same kind, and therefore might well require another commission: If a man be a Captain in an Army, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Collonel, he must have a new Commission: If a man be a Deacon in a Church, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Minister, he needs a new Commission: If a man had been made a Pastour and Teacher in the Apostles daies, this man had been an Officer; but, if he had afterwards been made an Apostle, he had needed a new Commission: And this I take to be well-nigh a parallel to our case: For the Apostles it is true, were Officers before this, but I humbly conceive they were not Apostles before this; which I think will be probable by these three Considerations. 1. That an Apostle strictly so called, was a new Testament Officer, and therefore such an Office was not in being before the new Testament began: But the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ (as all intelligent Divines grant) for that was it which rent the vail, and abolished the Jewish pedagogy. 2. They were not Apostles properly and formally, untill they had Apostollicall gifts: But these gifts they had not before the death of Christ. 3. They wanted universality of jurisdiction (which was the constant character of an Apostle) nay indeed, so far were they from having a jurisdiction over all Nations before that time, that they had not jurisdiction over all the Jews, nor (to speak strictly) over any of the Jews, for as much as they were, till Christ death, subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priests, that being not taken away but by the death of Christ: And surely it is something strange to fancy them to be Apostles without any jurisdictions. I conclude therefore, they were rather Prophets, or extraordinary Teachers, than Apostles, (and so Mr Firmin affirms of Paul before Act. 13. Mat. 10.) and had not their Commission as Apostles, till Matth. 28. 19, 20.

2. Put case that Mat. 28. is not a formal Commission, yet it must needs be granted, that it is a renewing and confirming, and enlarging of their former Commission, and therein their work is afresh proposed to them, and enjoyned upon them, and that is sufficient for our purpose; for this work is double, preaching and administring the Sacraments, which being equally imposed upon them, must by like reason be equally restrained to them, unlesse better grounds can be shewn to the contrary, than have yet been given.

3. They say, It is denied by some that preaching is a greater work than baptizing. The sealing of a Deed is a greater work than the writing of it; every Clerk may write it, but only the Conveyancer can seal it.

Ans. The Question is not, whether preaching or baptizing be greater in regard of the dignity of the work? but in regard of the difficulty of it: As in the instance proposed; The sealing of the Deed is a work of greater dignity, but the writing of the Deed is a work of more difficulty, and therefore belongs to him who is appointed for such works, and who hath more skill in the management of such works: So in this case, preaching which answers to the writing of the Deed, being a work of far greater difficulty, than the applying of the seal, it was requisite that greater or at least equal care should be taken in it, and that it should be managed by none but such as are both fitted for, and appointed to the work.

The fifth Argument was this, To usurp authority is a sin; But Preaching is an act of Authority, and therefore for persons not in Office to preach, is to usurp Authority, and so to sin, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 7. The losse is blessed of the greater: Women must not preach, because they must not usurp Authority, 1 Tim. 2. In Preaching the key of the kingdom of Heaven is used, which is an authoritative act.

Against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions, some whereof are impertinent, and some frivolous: All that hath any appearance of probability, I shall take notice of.

1. They say, Preaching is no act of Authority, for if a man preach to Heathens, where no Church is; How can he usurp authority over the Church?

Reply. True, he cannot usurp authority over the Church, but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth, when Paul preached to Heathens, it was an authoritative act, no lesse than when he preached to the Church: He preached as an Ambassadour to one as well as to the other: And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens, or such as are yet unreconciled, preacheth as in Christs stead, it can be no other than an act of authority.

2. They say, There may be other waies to give authority to men to preach, besides Ordination.

Reply. Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence: Ordination, we know, and there are clear Scriptures warranting that, and much more clear and undoubted for that, than for Election (as hath been often observed) but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorizing men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination, we know none, and if our Brethren know any, they should do well to inform us.

3. For Heb 7. They say, Indeed he that blesseth by an original, inherent power, as Christ doth, he is greater than he that is blessed, and of such a blessing the Text speaketh; but he that blesseth Ministerially, and instrumentally is not alwaies greater than he that is blessed.

Reply. This is very grosse, and contrary to the Text, which evidently speaks of Melchizedek, who blessed only Ministerially (and not by any original power) and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle alledgeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed, and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek, it were wholly impertinent to the present cause, which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.

4. They say, There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man, so the Text runs: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, 1 Tim. 2. 12.

Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture, wherein it is so familiar a thing, to use a conjunction disjunctive, or a word disjoyning one thing from another, when indeed the one explains the other: Shall any, who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, thence infer that these sorcerers, &c. are not the dogs there intended, because they are distinguished from them? This would be plainly childish. And (to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction) Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel, he saith, For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Iesus Christ; where the latter is not distinct from, but expositive of the former, for how could he receive it from man, any other way then by being taught it?

2. For their phrase in this place, the Apostle hath so hem'd it in on both sides with an exegesis, that no rational man can doubt of it: On the one side of it teaching is forbidden; on the other side silence is enjoyned: and nothing can be more evident, then that he speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching, and is opposed to silence. And for what they adde, That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man, i. e. her husband, not over the Church. Answer, This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush: For, the man here is not to be understood singularly, for her husband (there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense) but indefinitely, for any man: For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general, not husband and wife in particular: And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands (which I beleeve our Brethren will not deny) then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church, not over an husband. To which may be added, that the authority here spoken of, is not an Oeconomicall, but a Politicall, an Ecclesiasticall authority; not an authority in the Family, but in the Church; not an authority assumed in some Family administration, but in a Church affair. If it be further said (for I shall improve their Argument to the highest) that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women, allows it to the men; I Answer, It no way follows, no more then it follows, that the French Laws, when they prohibit women from usurping authority, or wielding the Scepter, do allow it to all men; or then it would follow, if a Law were made, that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation, that therefore every man ought to do it, which is so far from being true, that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also, but all others untill they were called to it.

3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrestings of the Text, a parallel place will put an end to 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence—it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, as saith the Law: Whence the inference is plain and undeniable, that to speak, i. e. in the Church, is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection: And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women, therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach, for my part, this is so clear, that he that shall resist such evidence, I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man.

I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things, which concern our present controversie.

1. That it is not only constant preaching, but even occasionall preaching which is here forbidden them: And so, by a parity of reason, gifted men unless in case of necessity, and with order to trial for Ordination, which also is necessary, as hath been argued, may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly, is as clearly, though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition, as to preach constantly.

2. That it is the work, and not the manner of working, which is here forbidden: The very work of publick preaching is here forbidden them: This I say, to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren, that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons, i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively, yet the work they may do: And why may not I have the same liberty, and apply it to the case of women, and say that they may do the work, although they cannot do it in the same manner, i. e. with authority: If I should say so, it would be easie to silence me, by saying, that the very act of preaching is spoken of, as an act of authority, and that may justly silence them too.

The sixth Argument was this, The Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching. Jer. 23. 21, 22. They are reproved not onely for preaching false doctrine, but for preaching without a call, for running without being sent.

To this our Brethren return this strange Answer; That these were Prophets rightly called by God; and they are blamed for this that being Prophets they did not prophesie right things pag. 128.

Reply. This is a little too grosse, to say, they are by God called to be Prophets, of whom God professeth, They ran but he sent them not: Whether shall we believe God or our Brethren? And this is the more considerable, because it was not with Prophets as it is with ordinary Gospel-Ministers (who besides the delivery of a message to them from God, must also have a solemn mission and authorization for the work) for the Prophets had no other call then this, or at lest, this was Gods usuall way of calling them, he immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message: And when God vouchsafed to send such a message, that was taken for an authorization of them, or a call to be a Prophet, as plainly appears in the case of Samuel, 1 Sam. 3. where after God had delivered a message to and by Samuel, it followes, v. 20. And all Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord: And therefore on the contrary seeing these Prophets were such as had not any message at all from God that we read of) thereby it is evident that they were not Prophets, and he that faith, they were such, as he asserts it gratis, so it is plaine, it is but an opinion taken up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to gratify their cause. And I am perswaded had not our Brethren been hurried into this fancy by the favourable aspect it hath to their doctrine, they would have rejected it as wholly ridiculous. Whereas they urge that saying, If they had stood in my counsell, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, but the Lord would not have entailed his blessing upon the labours of false Prophets. I answer. 1. As the words are here rendred, they no way oppose our doctrine, for, The standing in Gods Counsell, and speaking Gods Words, implies a call, as hath been shewed; as if he had said If they had waited till I had sent them, and delivered my message to them, then they might have expected a blessing. 2. It must be observed that there is another reading proposed by some learned men, which as it is very conformable to the Hebrew Text, so it is more probable in it self, and more consonant to the context, to read it thus, If they had stood in my counsel, i. e. if they had stood till I had sent them, &c. they would have profited this people and they would have turned them from their evil way; whereas now they did encourage them in it; so that he brings in this as an evidence, that they were false Prophets.

The seventh Argument used by the Provinciall Assembly was this: The Ministers of Christ have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine, Cal. 1. Joh. 3. 27, 28. Luk. 20. 2.

To this they say: 1. If it prove a call, yet it proves not that this call is ordination.

Ans. That is not the businesse, to speak of this or that particular call, (that is proved in another proposition) but onely in the generall to shew, that over and besides gifts, some other call, mission, or designation from God, either immediate, or mediate, is required; and this is sufficient against our Brethren, who assert, that any man having gifts, is eo nomine, called by God to preach, and his gifts alone sufficiently warrant him, though he have no other call.

2. They say, The reason why Paul proves his mission, was but for his doctrines sake, and although it was necessary for Paul to prove his immediate call; and to prove the divinenesse of the doctrines of the Gospel, yet there is no such reason to make it necessary to prove a mediate call.

Reply. 1. I do not understand that the proof of Pauls extraordinary mission was necessary to prove the divineness of his doctrine, for then, those ordinary officers that preached in that time could not have proved the divinenesse of their doctrine. Besides, there are, and were diverse other excellent and sufficient mediums to prove his doctrine by, he proved it out of the Law and the Prophets, by miracles, by ocular witnesses of Christs resurrection, &c.

It is true he proves his mission for his doctrines sake, and that makes not against us at all, but for us, seeing if Paul had preached without a call, he had given just occasion to suspect his doctrine and to doubt of the certainty of it, (because they that reject Gods warrant to the office, have no reason to promise to themselves Gods blesin the work) And therefore it followes strongly, that much more ought Ministers, who have far lesse gifts then Paul had, to prove their mission and call, or else they must give men leave to doubt of the certainty of their doctrine. It is true (what our Brethren say) that, the proofe of an ordinary call is no sufficient argument to prove the truth of the doctrine, seeing ordinary lawfull Ministers may erre: But yet when a man cannot prove his call, that may render his doctrine doubtfull, and the reason is, because, Bonum oritur ex integris, malum ex quolibet defectu.

To make a mans preaching regular many things must concurre, he must be called, he must preach agreeable to the Word, &c. But the want of any one of these will make it irregular.

Other things they say, but because they are triviall, I wave them, as not having such store of time as to throw it away to no purpose.

The eighth and last Argument was this. That work may not be performed which cannot be performed in faith: But preaching by a gifted Brother, not called, &c. cannot be done in faith; for, 1. Such have no precept to preach. 2. There is no precept for people to hear them or maintaine them. 3. They have no promise of assistance, of protection, of successe, &c.

To which our Brethren say something: But because they adde nothing of any weight, except that which hath been said by themselves before, and by us answered; to avoid Tautologies, I shall ease my self, and Reader, of the trouble of following them: There is one thing onely which is very observable, that they say nothing as to that which is most considerable in the argument, which is the matter of maintenance; which I must desire them seriously, and conscientiously to peruse, and let them take it in this form, and give me leave to improve it.

All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance: But all gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers.

The Major is the maine thing liable to doubt, and therefore I shall prove it. Either all Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance, or onely such Preachers as are in office-relation to those to whom they preach, and of whom they challenge maintenance: But not onely such Preachers may challenge maintenance as are in office-relation to them; Therefore all Scripture-Preachers may challenge this maintenance.

The Minor (for that onely is liable to exception) I prove thus: The Apostles (say our Brethren) were onely in office-relation to the Church, and other Teachers are onely in office-relation to their particular Churches (as they assert) But these might challenge maintenance from others.

The disciples Luke 10. had no office-relation to them to whom they preached; they were no officers in the Jewish Church, and the Christian Church was not then erected, and yet for their very work they may require maintenance. v. 7. And in the same house remaine eating and drinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his hire.

And Paul, where ever he sowes spirituals (though it be among heathens) he may require carnals, 1 Cor. 9. And generally in Scripture, the maintenance is rather thrown upon the work then upon the office. The double honour, 1 Tim. 5. 17. and the high estimation, 1 Thes. 5. 13. is for their works sake. And the oxe that treadeth out the corn (though it may be he treadeth not out his own Masters but another mans corn) ought not to be muzled: I would desire our brethren to answer me this question: Suppose a man will go into Wales to preach the Gospel, Whether in that case, they do not believe the people are obliged to give him carnalls for his spiritualls? If they affirme it (as I believe they have too much ingenuity to deny it, and the foregoing places fully evince it) then we have gained thus much, that the maintenance is not due onely to such as are office-wise related to those to whom they preach, but to all Scripture-Preachers, which was the thing to be proved, and so we have secured the Major.

For the Minor, it is needless to spend time about it, for our brethren grant it, and besides it speakes for it self: For if all gifted men be bound to preach (as our brethren assert) and if in Churches, many men are, and all ought to covet to be so gifted (which also they assert) then the maintenance of such would be both absurd and impossible.

And thus much shal suffice for the vindication of the Provinciall Assemblies Arguments, to prove that none ought to Preach without Ordination: And so I have done with the principall Question: Onely that the Reader may be able more judiciously to compare things together I shall present him with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or enumeration of the Arguments on both sides.