Answer.

To the former, I answer: First, that that man­ner of Argumentation by may-bees, proveth nothing, [Page 75] though the ground were true; for it may be doth not prove so much as probably, which is the least proof, so that though it might be so, yet must the matter be inferred that it is, before any thing bee pro­ved.

Secondly, That in this case and kind it may not be so expounded, it being here adjected to an uni­versal, an abstract, an adjunct, and a state.

1 To an universal, both in gifts, which is the general to prophesie, and an office, i. e. to personall or membral, and to ministerial gifts; and also in an office, which is the general to five exprest kinds of offices, as most hold, and at least to two, as all hold; and therefore the substantive kinds, or uni­versal parts thereof must differ more than in num­ber, and so much more than in degree and re­spect.

2. To an abstract both in gifts and offices, and therefore if there be but four or five men in a church gifted with prophesie, or with one language, or made Deacons, it cannot be said that Church hath divers gifts, tongues, and offices in it in the abstract, but only divers gifted persons, and divers officers in the concrete.

3. To an adjunct to Christians, members, or Officers, viz. to the Powers or Offices of such, and not to the particular persons themselves, and there­fore the same consequence in respect of the adjunct and subject, here followeth, which before did in re­spect of the abstract and concrete altering only the one two words for the other two.

4. To a State in respect of Offices, which is our case, so that it cannot be said, that there are divers Ministerial States in a Church, City, or Nation, [Page 76] that hath but one sort of Officers, though many particulars of that sort, and so many Officers, who may also be different, divers, distinct, and severall in degree and manifold respects; but if they differ more then in particular, concrete, subject, or person, as in our case they do, then must they differ also much more then in degree, or in inabling, arbitra­ry, or other accidentall respects, and so they cannot be said therefore to be divers, but for some higher reason, yea higher then that wherein they have their being, i. e. the existent particulars, concretes, subjects, and persons, since accidentis esse, est in esse, i. e. the being of an accident is to be in, viz. as such; and since existentia sola agunt, patiuntur & subijciuntur, i. e. Existents, (viz. particulars, which only are pro­perly and simply in act) only do, suffer, and are sub­ject, viz. to accidents. These four particulars yeeld four Arguments against the former Objection, and fully answer it, and might plentifully be exem­plified and illustrated if further need and occasion required.

A third or sixt answer is from the predicate an­nexed in the same clause, to divers, viz. according to that grace given unto us, which also is itterated in the same verse; in, according to that measure of that faith, both referring us to v. 3. and so inferring the parti­culars following upon the preceeding generals, and both being answered, 1 Cor. 12.11. Eph. 4.7. with 8. to 11. & 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. wherein also are three sorts or heaps of Arguments couched, which I must but touch: The first is in the words themselves; first, laying the cause of that distinctness in Gods graci­ous and free Will, not in mans discretion, or will, for reasons within himself, in the former Clause. [Page 77] And secondly; In the proportion of faith, which is here set as the formall Reason, or soul of our Church-e­state, whether membral, proper, and immediate, faith being the respect or cause why we have right to be Members of that State, and why all other gifts are given unto us, Mark 16.16, 17, 18. Acts 10.44. to 48. & 20.8.32. and so why we are capable of the Offices of the Church, according to which measure, whether of Membership, Gifts or State, we are to actuate that we have received distinctly, not confusedly, i. e. of each according to his own Rules and Order, not of any of the other two, as of the State or Offices, by the Rules thereof, not of gifts properly and immediately, though the Of­fice was given to us in respect of fit gifts therefore; yet now the predominant and denominant, the con­stituter and distinguisher, and the proper subject of order, is the office or state it self, and that only, though they be also both Members and gifted, which have also their proper Rules, which we are also to observe in their respect, as such; other ARGUMENTS there are also to be drawn from these words, viz. from given & measured, shewing us, that the Rule of our exercising the Of­fices, is to be taken from the respect, as they are from God, and not as inherent in us properly, though secondarily, both gifts and graces are to be respected and exercised therein, as is expressed, v. 8. with simplicity, with diligence, with cheerfulnes; and fourthly, from, to us, v. 6. to every one, v. 3. with the reference of v. 6. thereto, shewing the same, and the specialness and singularity of the respect; but we neither need nor may prosecute every thing to the utmost.

The second sort of Arguments is from ὁ demon­stratively used four times, thereby referring us in this point to the matters past in the generals, which yeeld ten Arguments as is shewn, all strongly, though more obscurely, proving the same distinct­ness which is here exprest.

The third sort is from the inference of distinct executing of those distinct gifts and Offices, upon the former proved, and present expressed distinct­ness of them, connecting thereby the generalls and particulars, the Root, Body and Branches; the Soul, Body and Members, and the preceding and subse­quent matter of this place incorporatingly toge­ther, and so communicating membrally the force of each Argument to the other; the number & weight of the following Arguments are well to be consider­ed and applyed hereto, after I have also answered the second Objection from the instance in the extraordinary Offices, which now succee­deth.

To that second Objection; I first answer, that as those Offices are more hard to know in all the bounds, rules, and appurtenances, and less concern us then the ordinary, and also yeeld us no present light from their practise as these do, so are they less distinctly known then these, and cannot be perfectly paralelled, to make the rules of these to square with those, and therefore no good Argument a notio­ri can be brought from them against our point: Se­condly, that the rule of the extraordinary Offices, was principally according to the being immediate­ly inabled and directed by God, and not by the set State and Office, as the proper subject of their gifts, works and end; since whosoever was indued with A­postolicall, [Page 79] Propheticall, and Evangelicall gifts, did presently proceed to the execution of those Of­fices, without expectation of a farther Ordination, and as being thereby called thereunto; but so is it not with the now permanent Offices: Thirdly, those were under the respect of Instituters, Platformers, and Law, Rule and Worship-makers, though me­diate, and not as instituted after the pattern seen in the Mount of the Word, and so are not to be measu­red thereby, as our instituted Offices are. Fourthly, That Order which is to be observed in them, is ra­ther by reflex from the Church, to which they most properly are given, 1 Cor. 3.22. 1 Cor. 28. 1 Tim. 3.15. viz. in their Consultations, Acts 1.15.21, 22. and in Ordination, Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. & 4.5. then by any set Rule in them­selves, which yet is so sparsim and sparingly observed that it cannot be said to be the Rule of extraordina­ry Offices.

Fifthly, They had divers properly distinct functi­ons, works and duties, according to their inspired abilities, which were specially and singularly distinct in severall persons, 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10, with v. 28, 29. especially v. 11. [...] distributing to every one privately (personally, pe­culiarly, or severally) as he will; and their Offices which came therewith, and thereupon were alike, distinct, properly and in kinde.

Sixtly, For authoritative Offices, which required not only ability, but also a sending or calling unto the Functions, immediate or mediate, about which is the greatest question; they had also and especial­ly their distinct Functions, Works and Duties alot­ted to them, either immediately as Apostles, Mat. [Page 80] 28.18, 19, 20. Acts 1.26.9. with 26.14, to 18. or mediately, deputedly, and inferiorly, as Evange­lists, 1 Tim. 1.3.18. & 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6.4.1, 2. Tit. 1.5. to 13. Divers hard questions do here arise, as, whether Barnabas were properly an Apostle or no? Whether Philip had the same authority with Ti­mothy and Titus? Whether Timothy and Titus had that Authority by Pauls deputation, or by their Evange­licall gifts or office? &c. but for these I refer thee at this present to my four first Answers, and proceed to the seventh.

Seventhly, Neither all, nor any of the extraordi­nary Offices, were common in all works, nor so only divers in kinde, nor in number, as differing only in gifts, and their exercising, which the two opposite o­pinions hold, that the three overseeing ordinary of­fices are: but divers also in office, both in name and nature, and therefore the instance from them is for neither of them: opposite I say they are, both a­gainst themselves in terms, affection and course; and in the two former clauses of the predicate in kinde, in number, and also against the scope of this wri­ting; and I think of Rom. 12.1. to 9. the subject there­of in matter, affection, and course; and in the two latter clauses of the predicate, in gifts, in their ex­ercising, though in the latter part of that predicate they be one, and thereby destroy the unity and or­der of Gods Worship, giving, yea making way, yea as Beza Annot. on Rom. 12. very Divine-like, and ju­diciously, and it is likely experimentally observed, causing that great Babylonish confusion in the same, past and present, & is to be feared, as he there saith, to continue and increase, if the cause be not taken away; so great a matter is it in the judgement of our [Page 81] greatest Divines, howsoever custom and practise prevail against great and small.

Eightly: It doth not appear that any one Office did, or might do the works of all other offices, either extraordinary or ordinary; but the contrary in the former, Acts 21.10. to 14.20.25. with 2 Tim. 4.20. Trophimus I left at Miletum sick, which must needs be at his coming again to the same place after his release from his first imprisonment at Rome, mentioned in the Acts, to which also the ancient Histories, and Fathers agree in the fact, and is so generally recei­ved, though not in the matter of Trophimus; so that Paul himself neither did nor could do, nor therefore might indeavour to foretell any thing prophetical­ly, and as of himself, or of his office or gift, neither can it be proved that any other Apostle might, much less any other but the Prophets themselves: and the latter, Acts 6.2. where we are to presume, that the 12. Apostles would have prevented the murmuring, & supplyed that need both, at least so well as any o­ther seven, if they had done the work of Church-di­stributing, and therefore that they did it not; and also if it had been within their charge and office, and that therefore it was not; for that there was need of the work, and also of preventing the mur­muring of a great part of the Church, for the not due performance thereof, is exprest both in terms, v. 2, 3. [...], i. e. in this need, or necessary work, and also in the whole matter; so that it appeareth not that the Apostles themselves did, yea, that they neither did, nor ought to admini­ster the Church-alms, & so had not all Church-Offi­ces included in, nor annexed unto their office, much less any other extraordinary officers, and yet much [Page 82] less any ordinary, but yet less the exhorter than the ruler, in so much as he is less authoritative, as they must hold, that put the distinctness of the offices in the degree of their execution, and hold their deno­mination and proper being from that more princi­pal degree and emphasis of their function; nay, in that he is not at all ruling, if any of these argu­ments or chief particulars of these lines be true; yea, yet a fift degree less hath the Exhorter, com­monly called the Pastor, the Rulers office included in, but least of all subordinate under his office, as those hold and practise, that are the occasion of my present writing, whose Arguments (whereof one, if not the principal, is from this very place, of Act. 6.) shall anon be answered, after I have confirmed the contrary by the other four remaining Arguments from the branches, and also by five compound Ar­guments of the other fifteen; yea last, and least of all is the Ruler subordinate to the Exhorter, by this place, since the very Deacons are not.

The twelfth is, from the express, distinct parti­cularizing of the Offices themselves, v. 7, 8. the Teacher, the Exhorter, the Distributer, the Ruler, the Pittier; the former Arguments sheweth that the Word saith that the Offices are distinct; this, that it maketh them so, and exactly particularizeth them into five several existents in kind, and not only in number, accidentary respects or degrees; this spe­cial distinctness in name, and nature, in state and subsistence, and what not, that is properly and evi­dently to our point, is of its self sufficient to the most solid and judicious, if ingenuous and willing to see what they in truth do see; yet if any will be [Page 83] wiser then Solomon, Eccles. 7. in walking rather in the soul, i. e. on tiptoes, or above his pace, power, or means, as the opposition, v. 1 [...]. sheweth; and in emulating comparative accurateness, as v. 16. ex­plaineth; yea wiser than he ought, yea than the discreet distribution and measuredness which the Holy Ghost hath in this Rom. 12. viz. v. 3. said, is set and ordained in these things by God, and to be modestly and discreetly observed by us, He shall be set on his he [...]s as a man with the King of Babylon, Dan. 7.4. By the accurateness in three particulars follow­ing, the former arguments not forgotten; for whereas it might be said, that we are not presently to be swayed by the seeming litteralness of any place, without many considerations; nor by the seeming kind like diversity of the Church-offices in this place; without proofs of their intended discree­tiveness, and distinctness from each other of their constitutedness, and kindlike existency, and of their functional propriety, and peculiar definedness; all which is here convinced; All this is well gain-say­ed in the three particles, [...] & [...], annexed to each of the five offices, [...] to the general, i. e. Of­fices, for its distinctness from personal gifts, and to the two first and principal particulars, which seem most inseperable, and so evidently to be supplyed in the other three, ὁ and [...], expresly to them all.

From [...] (which is the thirteenth Argument) I thus argue: What Offices are so essentially, pro­perly, and expresly distinguished, (as any are from each other) as Prophesie is from an office, and as distinctive terms can do; those are so distinct, as I [Page 84] have said, or intimated; but the five Church-Offices are so essentially, &c. therefore this addeth so ex­press, and clear proper distinctness, as the two for­mer, and they with this, as need to be; for that these are so distinct as any civill offices, and as pro­phesie, or other personal gifts are from Church-offices, is not to be denyed, nor that any terms are more distinctive than [...], until they be named, or rather created, mean while I proceed.

To me yet the fourteenth Argument from the denotative article [...] is more than all the rest; for though it pass ordinarily under the account of a slight, or redundant particle, as the VVord-worship as such, doth among all but the truly-religious, or as above an ordinary Harould when it is emphatical­ly used, as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth among the Papists, and Lutherans, being yet by them bereaved of the soul of a Sacrament, as this is of its specifical denotation; yet is it in its proper nature constitutive, and denotative, of the proper specifical existence of all things, and here of the Church-Of­fices: Now, so far as to constitute, is more pri­mary in it self, and proper to the form of every thing, than to distinguish, appropriate, actuate, or any thing but to constitute; so far is ὁ above all o­ther particles, where it is used in its proper na­ture of denotating that constitution, as here; for before I took it as Iames doth works, Iam. 2. declara­tively, not properly, when I said it was constitutive, and so far as a right line doth better shew which is a right line, and which a crooked, than any crooked whatsoever doth either, except that which is just alike, and then it, but as like; so far also doth the denotative article [...] exceed all other in the case of [Page 85] constitution, or distinction, and much more of ap­propriation, actuation, passion, relation, or any ad­junct whatsoever, which either instituteth, or deno­tateth as instituted the office, and not only the acti­on of shewing mercy, and so maketh it a divers of­fice in nature, the like followeth in the rest, as before which is expresly proved in [...], in the Masculine Gender: Yet lest any thing, espe­cially what is so much respected, and in this case ex­pected, the propriety of all the offices, and that onely and always, should be wanting in this high and useful matter; these things are added in the third particle [...], which is the fifteenth and last ar­gment from Rom. 12. Now that it may the bet­ter be perceived, three things are to bee point­ed at.

1 The simple use of [...], confining within, or un­to any thing.

2 The adaequatum, or proper object, or function, in, on, and unto which each office is confined, viz. the very actuation of that gift that maketh the mat­ter or officer in potentia, worthy and fit to be infor­med with the instituted office of Christ, answering to the name and nature of every office, viz. the Teacher, in teaching, in exhorting, in distributing, &c.

3 The secondary qualification of the Officers, which is more remote and a posteriori, than the for­mer, and also more qualitative, as the other is more quantitative, viz. the Teacher in, on, and with in­telligibleness; the Exhorter in, on and with perswa­siveness, the Dristributer in, on, and with simplicity, and so of the Rulers diligence, and Pittyers cheerful­ness; all these joyntly and severally evidently [Page 86] prove the point; yet for the eminent clearness and strength of these proofs, I will connect all the sorts of them, into which they may specially be divided into one Argument: And first, of the first five oroot.

What distinctness the worship, will, and word of God, and the fleeing the contraries, do require more peculiarly and specially in the Church-Offices, then are in the civill, that is properly distinct in kinde, and very religiously to be yeelded to God; but all these require more peculiar distinctness in Ecclesia­stical, then is in civil Offices, therfore that is proper­ly & in kind distinct, & very religiously to be observe

Secondly: Of the second five, or body, thus: What distinctness in the Church Offices is revealed in the Word, to be as the distinctness of the Orga­nicall Members of the body, in opposition to the oneness of the body in kinde, and of the Members in mutuall use, and in respect of their divers exist­ence, Functions, and essence, that is most proper in kinde, and mutually exclusive; such distinctness is revealed to be in Ecclesiastical Offices: Ergo.

Thirdly: Of the third fl [...]e, and Branches, thus: What Offices are said expresly, Rom. 12. to be di­stinct and divers from each other by the distinct gift of God; yea, and are there so distinguished into their several sorts, & that both disjunctively, denotative­ly, & apportionedly, or confinedly: those are most pro­perly in nature, & highly in degree, distinct in kind from each other: but the 5 ecclesiastical offices are so said & distinguished, therfore they are most properly in nature & highly in degree, distinct in kind from each other: Any of these 3 connections are alone suf­ficient, yea the 3 last Clauses of the 3 d, do compleatly conclude the point, so if any of these nineteen Argu­ments [Page 87] bee good, the Ecclesiasticall Offices are distinct in kind, properly & perfectly; yea if the consequence of none of these simple or compound Arguments would hold, yet the combination of them all would, which shall be the twentieth Argument, and the conclusion of the positive proofs of the Point, from Rom. 12. I will now come to the opposite part from the Scriptures, referring the proofs from reason, both positive and opposite till after them, and reserving the other proofs from other places of Scripture, for the better clearing all Objections, supposing the proofs from Rom. 12. sufficient to establish the Point positively.

The first opposite Argument is from Acts 6.2, 3. thus: The Apostles had all offices included in theirs, and did on occasion execute them, and in particular the Deacons office, Acts 6.2, 3. therefore the Pastors now so have, and may do. For answer whereto, first, See what is said before, both against the antecedent and its consequence, and then I think there wil be so little appearance of likelyhood, and less of cer­tainty in the antecedent, (which is enough) and yet less, yea none at all, of either in the consequence, that none wil require farther disproof of that, for which it is brought against me, and farther wil I not med­dle therewith here, though it be for me.

The second is from 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. thus: If ruling and teaching be jointly requisite to the office of a Bishop, 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. then are they not the distinct functions of two severall Church-offices; but ru­ling and teaching are joyntly requisite to [...]he office of a Bishop, 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. therefore they are not the distinct functions of the Teacher and Ruler, as they have two severall Church-offices: this is the [Page 88] principal, and almost the only argument from the Scripture of all 3. sorts of my Opposites, who are as much against each other as me, and each will hold with me, rather then with each other; yet must I not take notice of their enmity against each other, nor me, nor of their frendship, but plainly answer them all.

Of the two grosser, the former under the name of Bishop, holding only one in number and nature; the latter holding the three overseeing Offices, one in kind, & divers only in number, and the more refi­ned acknowledging them divers in kinde and num­ber, yet differing only in degree and emphasis: a wonderfull refined distinction, in appearance nearer to me, and yet in truth farther from me then the grosser in appearance; I cannot readily say how much, but I can see and think it very much, and make some use thereof.

But first: For a ioint answer to them all, I say that, that place intendeth, first, no distinguishing of Offices, but a furnishing, qualifying and ma­king worthy of the Churches Offices, the persons, Officers, and Executors of those Offices▪ Secondly, No instituting, nor denotating, as instituted, any Church-office: nor, thirdly, any appropriating, confi­ning, nor adaequating any Offices and theit Functi­ons, as the handled place of Rom. 12. doth in all three points; so that neither of the two Opinions can challenge either matter or words to be framed and expounded by the scope and course of any di­stinctness, as Rom. 12. doth: Neither, fourthly, is there any such strong inducement from the generall body, or speciall, or from any particularizing in the place, as in Rom. 12. that we are to expect any of [Page 89] them, either expresly, or by any strong intimation: Fifthly, and more particularly; the subject of all the adjuncts is set in a generall term, common to three Offices, and therefore no distinguishing, con­stituting, nor appropriating is here intended, for a Bishop or Overseer indifferently extendeth it self unto the oversight of the understanding, heart and actions in its etymologie, ordinary, yea only use and in the correspondencies with this place; in all but the last clause there is no doubt: By the correspon­dencies I intend three places, viz. 1 Tim. 3.8. to 13. Secondly, cap. 5.1. to v. 18. Thirdly, Tit. 1.5. to 10. In the last, Bishop and Elder being promiscuously used, as in this place; and in the two first, Deacons being also alike extended, as a Generall to the Di­stributer and Pittyer, promiscuously, and equivo­lently with helpers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Neither is that word any where used more for the Distributer then the Pittyer, yet once on the contrary, Rom. 16.1. for though 1 Tim. 3.12. it be said that a Deacon must be the Husband of one Wife, which in word cannot agree with the Widow, yet in the scope and general reason, which is the soul and form of the place, it answereth so well to her, as to the Distributer, i.e. a [...] it is a testimony of Continencie, which is more re­quired in her than in him, and is so expressed, 1 Tim. 5.9.2. which is the Expositer or supplement of that place, most indeed in the serving Offices, there be­ing most left to be understood in them; but in one or two speciall particulars also, in the Overseeing Offices, v. 17, 18. least the distinctness so much re­spected, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. and also their main­tenance should seem to have been befor neglected, yea least in the point of distinctness: 1 Tim. 3. should [Page 90] seem to oppose those places, for it confirmeth that point so much, as in so many words any man can de­vise, and as needeth to the making an express di­stinctness in terms, in, [...] & [...] and matter, in op­posing, ruling and, preaching in their Offices, and making two sorts of Elders, and the one the more worthy.

Secondly: For answer to the two most gross and opposite Objections from this place, I first appeal to what is said in and from Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 1 [...]. Eph. 4. and especially to the twenty late Arguments: Se­condly, to the five last general answers, which prin­cipally, and most strongly confute all Arguments from this place; for the oneness in kinde. Thirdly, I deny the consequence of the major, since the office of a Bishop, 1. Tim. 3.1. is taken generally, and indifi­nitely by an usuall metonimy of the particular, and definite for the generall and indefinite, Bishop being a generall, indefinite, and common Name to the three Overseeing Offices, as a Deacon is to the ser­ving, and an Office or Ministry to them both; and also as a Philosopher, Mathematician, Lawyer, Trades­man, especially as an Officer of the State, Law, Courtt, Army, City, or of a Ship, are to their pro­per particulars, yet is there one division of all those Offices, necessary to make the exemplification clear and exact, for all those Offices are either oversee­ing, or serving, i. e. Episcopall, or Diaconall in the originall Terms, which sheweth the full reason of that certain Proposition, whosoever desireth the office (or Ministry) of a Bishop, desireth a worthy work: If yet a farelier reason of the Particulars of the quali­fication of these two sorts of Offices, severally, and of each of their particulars joyntly, be expected, [Page 91] it is to be understood, that as in God there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, from which all existents & designments have their life, moving and being, so there are in man natural, especially spiritual, three subjective and overseeable faculties, as existent from and by God, viz. his wil; wit, affections, or working power; and as many me­diate and overseeing designable Powers and design­ing Offices, or designments (as before oft and at large) all which require both a joynt and severall qualifying, according to their joyntness in the gene­rall, as overseeing, and severallness, in speciall, as severally overseeing, which is also an­swered in the particular qualifyings objected, and in what is hereunto to be supplyed, from Tit. 1. for their help, if their ground be good, or for the compleat­ing my project, if it be good; since therefore Bishop is a common Name to three Offices; all the proper­ties of these three are common to it with any com­monness thereupon, following between any of the three Offices, or their Functions, if they be else­where distinguished and peculiarized.

Fourthly: So far as it is intended and insisted on, that the Office of a Bishop is a particular, and proper­ly existent office; so far I deny the minor, and re­quire good proof thereof.

Thirdly: For a particular answer to the refined Objectors from this place: I say, that though all the syllogism should be granted, yet they get nothing thence for their purpose distinct from the former o­pinions; and so indeed these three Opinions are all one, and so the last is nothing but a pile of witty words, forging a distinction without a difference, and so it vanisheth in the fire, like the stone, called [Page 92] a Thunder-Bolt, looking-like Silver ore, but is only of a sulfurious and icie mineral matter, yea though it should be condensated with some of the Clay of Antichrists Legs, Dan. 2. even by saying that the Bishop, Pastor, Elder, and Exhorter, are all one Office, called by divers names for divers respects, viz. Bishop, as Overseer of Overseers; Pastor, by an emphasis, as the chief feeder, and exhorter: El­der, in respect of his yeers, gravity, wisdom, and personal fitness to rule, as the proper reason where­fore he is all of the rest; and this surely is that strug­ling Esau not yet come to the birth in our Church, though it be at least that reviling Goliah of Gath, his younger brother, with whom I am neither occasion­ed, nor enabled to fight; but will only prosecute my present object occasioned; anwering more particularly,

First, That if it should be granted that the Ex­horter, or Teacher, or both, by a community of of­fices, through this community of actions objected, could do all that I have appropriated to the Ruler; yet by the same community of actions, the Ruler may do the like for them, and then though they should shuffle down Gods ministerial bounds, they would get nothing, except the Rulers wife be better than the others, which surely they will not say.

Secondly, if they will usurp the appropriation of the Bishoprick from the Ruler, or the Exhorter from them both (as reason and experience give us to suspect,) yea, and of all power in the Church, which now they grant them upon the eminent and empha­tical reasons mentioned; they build such forces for Hierarch [...]ans, and dig so fit Burroughs for Badgers, [Page 93] through magnifying their Office, that the epitome of the Hierarchy which they form within the church, will acknowledg kindred with its mother Iezebel, yea and by degrees with its Grand-father Ethbaal too, and so also open the door of communi­ty between us and them, by the same reason fur­ther prosecuted, and spirit further inflamed, as the opinion, book and course of Mr. Iohnson, and many with him, have lamentably experimented, even unto the eminent and imminent fear of the ruin of a special Church; if we should come to sift the differences, I doubt we should not finde them so great, as would give security of better success, out­ward, than hath that Church, or inward than the Hierarchy, though the goodness of the present or­der and matter would delay (it may be long) this infection from raging, at least till the iron of civil, single, double and treble crowned authority, id est, Classical, Synodical, and National Courts and Courses made Ecclesiastical, be added unto the for­mer clay, and both adde strength to the rotten legs of Antichrist; but I not daring to open my mouth freely in this bad aire, will reserve my breath for better use.

Thirdly, and specially, If that course which is obtruded on this place, should be alike observed in all places of the like reason, (as it must be,) we might prove strange matters, yea what not? I could prove, that Samuel prayed for, and brought out water of the Rock in the wilderness, at least that God spake there unto him out of the cloudie pillar, and punished his Idolatry, foure hundred yeers before he was born, out of Psal. 99.7, 8. and out of 1 Tim. 5.4. that Aunts are Parents, [Page 94] that all the Elders and Brethren of the Church of Ierusalem spake by the infallible and immediate in­spiration of the Holy Ghost, and by absolute and immediate authority from Christ, gave Laws, De­crees, and burdening, conscience binding, and ne­cessited Prohibitions to the Churches of Antiochia, Syria, and Silicia, and by consequence to all the Churches of the Gentiles: from Acts 15. with cap. 16.4. & 21.25. and other innumerable absurdi­ties and falsities, out of 1 Cor. chap. 1. v. 1. concer­ning Sosthenes, in 2 Cor. 1. chap. v. 1. and also Phil. and Col. ch. 1. v. 1. of Timotheus; in 1 Thess. ch. 1. v. 1. and 2 Thess. of Silvanus and Timotheus, and more almost in every Epistle; should I descend to parti­culars, I should be intollerably, because needlesly tedious, it being obvious to every one, that any thing might be proved out of any thing, if that course might be allowed; besides, it would pervert all the other places of Scriptures which begin with generalls and proceed to particularize them, which are innumerable, and indeed would destroy all ana­lysing of them, which is not exprest, and then it would be needless, yea there might then be proved out of one place thereof, consisting but of seven ver­ses, viz. Heb. 11.32. to 38. many sevens of false­hoods, absurdities, and what not, that should make men cease from necessiting this Exposition of 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Heb. 11.32. to 38. a whole heap of ly­ing wonders, viz. that Baruch subdued Kingdomes, and did a dozen great works at least more then he did, that Sampson did so, that Iephtha did so also, that Dnvid, Samuel, and all the Prophets did so also, and that much more clearly and strongly then any can out of 1 Tim. 3. that the Exhorter may excommu­nicate [Page 95] or do any proper ruling act by the same rea­son, yea expresly, it that reason be good, that all adjuncts that are annexed unto two, three, or more joint subjects, must be verified in every one of them, & therfore I leave it for bad, holding every adjunct to be sorted to its proper subject by the rules of Na­ture, & the word in other places that intend that pecu­liarizing & shew us the same by better means, referring these objected unto Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. for their distinctness: And again, Rom. 12. and 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. unto 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. and the like, for their compleating and full exemplification in matter of practise.

Fourthly, the word [...] wherein is the whole force of this Argument, is by all the holders of the third Opinion, applyed only to that Teach­ing in the ruler, which is necessary for the discharge of his Office and work of Ruling, which nothing proveth the undistinctness in question, nor more then I have oft granted in the case of the Exhort­ers Teaching, as necessarily subordinate to his of­fice, and also grant in this case with the provisoes there mentioned.

Fifthly: The question is not properly about this Teaching, simply or subordinately considered, but as Ecclesiasticall or Ministeriall, and such as carrieth with it, as an Appendex to the administration of the Sacraments, to signifie, seale, and convey the thing taught unto the persons, ministerially taught, but such teaching is also confessed by them, not here to be intended, nor within the Rulers Office.

Sixtly, [...] is apt, prone, and ready to Teach, signifying rather the goodness and grace of the heart, then the power and gift of Teaching, to [Page 96] be requisite in the Ruler, and no more can be infor­ced out of that word, on which the whole strength of all the three opposite Opinions doth consist; yet I will grant a Propheticall gift of teaching to be re­quisite in the Ruler, partly because it is a disparage­ment to his Office, and Exercise thereof, to be infe­rior to the Prophets therein, who have no Office at all, partly because it wil be a discouragement un­to the Prophets, to have their inferiors in gifts of Ecclesiasticall respect, to be advanced above them in Ecclesiasticall Office; and partly, because the Speakers to the Edification, Exhortation, and Comfort of the Church, do best of all the Members deserve to be honoured by the Church, & manifest their deserts, fitness, and worthiness of the same, yea in evident and eminent likelihood, and humane judgement; they are the most fit for any overseeing Office, which is all that the scope of the place, or any thing material therein doth inforce, yea inti­mate, in any of the many other particulars.

Seventhly, [...] v. 5. & all the other parti­culars, but one or two do evidently import only qualifications, with grace in the heart, requisite in the overseers of the Church, and not common gifts which only distinguish the Ministries and Funncti­ons of the Church, which proveth that this inten­deth not the constituting and distinguishing them, as Rom. 12. doth essentially, formally, and properly, as our case requireth; but onely the informing the Chusers, and Ordainers of such Officers, what qualities are requisite for their well being and the acceptableness, and efficacie of their Office in a speciall manner, above other, and making them fit above others for those Offices, such as are aptness [Page 97] and fitness to entertain strangers, courtesie, and having obedient and meek Children, &c. but to say that the want of any one of them, exclude the every other ways fit for those Offices, would ex­clude the fayer from the most; yea, almost all Ministerial Communion, and Christian accepta­bleness.

These three opposite Opinions are so neer each other in truth, (though in course and affection vehemently adverse) that I cannot cut down the one, but the other two wither also: so that all the Arguments seem alike against all, and I ac­knowledge a kind of confusion in them, as in the Opposites: and ergo in the following Arguments I will refer the sorting to the Reader, whether it be from one, two, or all three of the Objections. The first unsorted Argument is from 1 Tim. 3.8, 12. which prove, that the same may be said of the Deacons, which they say of Bishops or Elders, ei­ther as one in number, or as divers in number; and also in gifts or emphasis: but all three ac­knowledge the case otherwise in the Deacons: The first, in that the Distributer, and Pittier, or Widow, are as divers, as I hold the three Over­seers. The second, in that there were 7. of them, Act. 6. the 3. ergo much more than either. For, Ro. 16.1. doth as expresly call the Widow a Deacon, as any place calleth any one, two, or all of the other Of­fices, Bishops: And all the qualificat [...]ons, 1 Tim. 3. agree in their reason or soul, as well to the one, as the other; yea, all but one, literally also.

The second is, from Ver. 12. and Cap. 5.10. where the same qualifying cond [...]tion is required in the Deacon in generall, and in the W [...]dow in [Page 98] particular, which is in the Bishop; whereby he challengeth the power of Ruling, and so by the same Reason, they should also rule, if the scope of these places were to define the Offices, and de­sign the Functions: but that they all abhor to say.

The third is from 1 Tim. 5.17. First, because the Ruler is by express denotation, and place of state, distinguished from the Labourer in the Word; by the denotative Article [...] i. e. they truly that, but they that; for they are not here demonstratively taken, neither of their sub­jects having been mentioned long before; and if yet they be referred to Cap. 3. then they con­clude the matter expresly for me: nor yet much less redundantly, they being set oppositely, rela­tively, or mutually respectively: Secondly, be­cause the Opposition is between those Offices themselves, and not onely between the well-dis­charging the Offices; for neither of both are worthy either double or speciall honour or main­tainance, except they do their duties well and dili­gently. Thirdly, [...], especially adding an em­phatical difference between the two offices, & ex­clud [...]ng both Particles [...] from the same, at least from their only emphatical use, which is the only evasion & pretending shift from this place in that distinctnes I plead for; espec [...]ally from the latter of them, which is most insisted on, if not only: Much may be said from this place to my purpose; but I hast, though the length of the matter hold me long in it.

The third opposite Argument, is from Act. 20. vers. 28. in that they are all called Bishops, or [Page 99] Overseers, and Pastours, or Feeders: I may as well say, they are all called Elders, Presbyters, or Ancients, ver. 17. & then it flatly overthroweth the first and third Opinion, that make a d [...]fference between the Bishop, as the first will have it; or the Pastour, as the third will be called; and the Presbyter or Priest, as the Hyerarchians of Rome and England term them; or Elders, or Ruling-Elders, as some new Hierarchians call them; one­ly the third may say, this proveth that the Pa­stors may rule, because they are Bishops and El­ders: it maketh indeed for Mr. Smith, but neither of the rest love to hear of that place, but in hope that men will oversee that Ruler is by it made as good a Bishop and Pastour, as those that engross those Titles to themselves; and I wonder, that the late named Bishop durst bring it as his chief Engine against us, that evidently battereth down all Bishops over more Churches then one; and also bringeth in more Bishops then one, into one Congregation; and also, that Mr. Robinson will al­leadge it, to prove, that the Pastor or Exhorter may more do the works of the Ruler, then the Ruler his, it so plainly proving, the flat contrary. I, but he alleadgeth it, to prove, that the Pastour may rule: I, but that will not serve his turn, ex­cept he turn of Mr. Sm [...]th's side; but that I doubt not, but Rom. 12. will keep him from, and there­fore for the present rest, acknowledging, that this place maketh neither for nor against him.

The last Objection is from Reason, which see­meth to cross that distinctness we stand for; part­ly, through the uncapableness of the matter; and partly, through the mischiefs which ensue the [Page 100] same. The former part of this Objection see­meth colourable, because Teaching, without Ex­hortation to what is taught, worketh no grace in the heart, but onely the Theory thereof in the head. Exhortation, without Teaching, worketh no true Christian grace, but blind, superstitious, and Antichristian Devotion; either, and both, are externally fruitless, without Ruling; and Ruling without both is internally barren: so that the 2d. end of Gods Worship, i. e. our Holiness, is defeated thereby. For this, we are first to consi­der this case in the right and compleat Establish­ment of Gods Worship; and then in the growing estate thereof; in the mans and adult estate thereof, wherein all things are grown to a ripe­ness, it may well be cleared; for when all the Offices are constituted in their Purity, and ex­ercised in sincerity, we are to suppose the Rule of 1 Cor. 14.40. to be observed; which requireth, that all Gods Ordinances be done comelyly, and in order. Now, if in the exercise of each Ordi­nance, Purity be observed, both in comelyness, as respecting it self, not excluding the Order of combination with others: and in order with the rest, yet preserving decorum in it self; and also Sincerity in all sanctified peculiar and sociall re­spects, according to the Light of Nature, and the Word: then ought the Labourers in the Word, so to associate their Conversation and Studies in the Week-days, and Ministries on the Lords day, that the Exhorter is to know (at least) the Do­ctrines that the Teacher will gather out of the part of the Word to be handled, whether by their own disposing, or publike Order: and that he [Page 101] therefore will build upon the Foundation▪ there­by laid for him, by the Teachers Grammaticall, Rhetorical, and Logical Exposition and Extracti­on of Divine Doctrines, bo [...]h positive and oppo­site with their Proofs and Illustrations, Marks and Means; yea, all things pre-requisite to Exhorta­tion: Then also ought the whole Company of overseeing Officers to be acquainted with the oc­casions of exercising the Ruling-Office, that the Teacher may the better be provided with matter of Information and Confutation, and the Exhor­ter of Exhortation and Dehortation▪ and the Ru­ler may the better dispose of his manner of orde­ring and censuring; and each again with the sum of the others purposes, that each may fur­ther and suit with the others courses; for in each of these three Offices especially, there are two essential properties which have both a peculiar and a social respect: the one extensive, quantita­tive, material, and institutive, viz. the apportio­ning and adequating the Offices and their Fun­ctions, as the Teacher, and his Teaching, &c. The other intensive, qualitative, formal, and constitu­tive, viz. the adaptating or suiting the Officers and their Offices, as the Teacher, and his knowledge and ability to reach, the Exhorter, &c. as before in the Table at large, and it's Epitome: In the former, is the purity of the Offices, and God's Worship, to be discerned: In the latter, is the sincerity of the Officers and Worshippers to be tryed. Also, in the peculiar respects of both, the godlyness, or fixt link of Peter's golden Chain of Election and Salvation, 2 Pet. 1.7. is required to be exercised: and in the sociall or mutuall re­spects, [Page 102] the brotherly kindness or 7th. link is called for. Now, all the services of God being obser­ved and exercised in their purity compleatly, and all his servants therein practising all sincerity, there is no dissonancie, much lesse impossibility in this distinctness of the Church-Offices: But if there be a failing in this purity, compleatness, and sincerity, or in either of them, then there must be much of the matter of the Objection granted, and will be more appearing, which is the second consideration of the former part of the Objecti­on. To which I answer: First, that I intend not at all to pacifie the fury of Hierarchians, by pal­liating this matter in any respect toward them, among whom all the Order of God's Worship, is devised by Antichrist, and so made in appearance Christian, but in true understanding is Antichri­stian, i. e. diverse from, and opposite to Christian; for the order thereof is Babylonish, disorderly, and confused, in respect of Gods order in his Word, though to the Spirit of the World, it seemeth ve­ry, yea onely uniform and orderly in Nature, and in it self; yea, and thereby the parts of God's Worship are perverted, and subordinate to ano­ther superiour or end, and so lose their proper na­ture, at least, in respect of the Consciences of the Users, which is to be esteemed according to the intention of the principal and predominant Insti­tutor and Author of the Work and Worship it self; and therefore it were great folly to indea­vour to consonate the Order of Christs Wor­ship unto Antichrists, as it is to make good Mu­sick on an Instrument put wholly out of Tune; and therefore I leave the Mother of Rome, and [Page 103] Daughter of England, to their folly and fury in this case, wherein I cannot prevent them.

Secondly, that though I will yield much to the weakness of the exercise of the Order of God's Worship in the present Reformed Churches, and will endeavour to shew, that this distinctness is, and may be observed in them: yet if men be not satisfied therewith, I will not yield, that the Rule is to be framed according to the present buil­ding, but that to the Rule of God's Word; and if excuses be made, that all things cannot by them be established, according to the perfect Rule, both through the hinderance of the otherwise in­formed Magistracy, and for the want of fit mat­ter or persons thereto qualified, and maintenance for them, if they be to be had: First, let not Pleaders of extenuations, no nor of excuses, be Judgers of that Law, from the breach whereof they excuse themselves; for that were more then childish pettulancy, even to bite and whine: Se­condly, though indeed they be excuses from all fault, yet censures for dissonancy are not seasona­ble, till things are in their compleat and adult estate; for as exactness is not to be required from, so also not by a child under Age and Tu­tors until he come to his mans estate.

Thirdly, for the matter, though one or two of the Offices be wanting; yet may the two or one remaining, conveniently agree with this distinct­ness; the onely seeming otherwise, is between the Labourers in the Word, especially in the Exhor­ter, who, without Doctrines before laid, proved and cleered, cannot exhort to the observation of them.

To this I have answered before, to which I refer thee; adding onely, that though in the case of necessity, and without which, Exhor­tation cannot be, it be lawful, yea necessary for the Exhorter to Teach: yet without those cases, and where there is a Teacher, that doth his duty; yea, and where there is equally necessary matter of Exhortation, received as true by the Church, it is not lawfull, much less his bounden duty, to teach the Theory of Divinity.

Secondly, for the Teacher, there is no necessity of not teaching, though there be neither Exhor­tation nor Ruling, to bring it's Teaching to its more powerful and plentiful effect; and ergo the same reason warranteth him, not to exhort or rule in any express, plain, and known act, though he be not forbidden all manner of acts that are horta­tory or ruling so absolutely; as Murder, Adulte­ry, Robbery, or the like: but there is a Brotherly Fellowly, and mutual freeness, and friendly boldness to be presumed on and allowed; yea, in some occasionall acts, even to the danger of Usurpation, if those acts should be constantly and functionally used: As for the Ruler, none plead for his administration of the Sacraments, which are Appendices to Teaching and Exhorting, and Signs and Seals of the same things, to the other Senses, which they speak to the Ears, or rather through them all, to the Understanding and Heart: but those that hold them one Office, ha­ving divers names, who are not the Objectors of these Inconveniencies; and therefore I need say nothing against the same.

Fourthly, though matter of conveniency and inconveniency, pertaineth properly to Wisdome, and not to Duty, and is but a little better then Humane Authority: yet since it is so esteemed, and insisted on by many, I will put the conveni­encies of the distinctness I stand for, into the other ballance, both for the cleer confutation of this Argument, and proving the point by the be­nefits thereof, if any such proof be therein, as men account; and I grant, in respect of the Wisdome of God, if the matter be clearly shewn, though as a proper and original Argument, which is onely from the Word, Rom. 12.2. I dare not obtrude it, but onely in the respects mentioned, and compa­ratively, and as a retorted, plausible, and probable Argument: Now the Name and Nature of con­veniencies lead us to consider of the answering respects of these Offices, which are, 6. viz. Christ, the Church, each other, eaches several work, the Lords of the Gentiles, and Antichrist. Christ is the Monarch, Head, Law-giver, and Master of his Church, ergo it is fit that he alone should be Su­pream and Primitive; and that each Office of his Church should be derived out of his Primacy, and none others; else should the derived have another Lord and Master than Christ, for which no ordinary person is fit in any respect, though extraordinary persons by Gifts and Functions, immediate as Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets, and by Offices made types of Christ by the Word, were; and also ordinary Corporations, which are of an higher nature than any person, but no man than any other; which is the reason, that in Common-wealths, that are most conveni­ently [Page 106] governed, no Ruler may depute a Deputy-Ruler under him; though, where the constitution of the Common-wealth is otherwise, it be lawfull to depute, to be deputed, and to submit to either: yet our present point is, Whether Deputation and Superiority of Church-Officers be more conve­nient in respect of Christ, than equality between them. Secondly, for confusion of the three Offi­ces, or Functions, whether it be more convenient in respect of Christ, than their distinctness, which the three answering, yea primitive respects of Christ, as God, Man, and Mediatour, before paral­lelled, do evidently clear, viz. that equality and distinctness are more convenient.

Secondly, the Church is the Basis, End, and Owner of the Ministers, 1 Cor. 3.9, 10, 16. Chap. 12. all, especially v. 28. 1 Tim. 3.15. & therefore is it most fit that it should have the deputing and distinguishing them, and not any ones Authority, in the former, or discretion in the latter.

Thirdly, though a disparity should be granted, which of them should have the Superiority? Surely the Pastour: Why? because his Office is to seed the whole Flock, and so the other Offi­cers. Now [...] signifieth also to rule, and so he is to feed by Ruling: There is no fear of this Argument, except the Arguer be made curst by Antichristian hands and breath, at his Ordina­tion and Custome in his Practise; and also long horned by Authority, Reputation, and Gifts: and yet then, God is more to be seared, and his Truth more to be regarded, than our Skin, and he to be answered: First, that that name is common to all the Three, so well as Bishops and Elders; as is [Page 107] plain by Act. 20. where Paul is said to send for the Elders of Ephesus, and charge them to feed ( [...]) the Flock, whereof the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops: Why therefore doth he not claim the name & nature of Bishop and Elder so well as of Pastor? that all the World, and Ephes. 4.11. do give him: What the Word, Ephes. 4. doth give him, I will reverendly consider: but what all the World doth, I regard not, lest I should be little regarded by Christ, Jam. 2.1. In­deed, Ephes. 4. nameth Pastours: but, first, the drift thereof is, to declare, that the Spiritual Offices were all given by Christ as a tryumphant King; but neither to constitute, nor distinguish them.

Secondly, he first sheweth, that the principall Offices, viz. The feeding, were so given by him; and then, that the principal of them, in respect of Gifts, and extraordinary need, through its least supply from Nature (which is the unum and par­ticular scope of that place, viz. The Teachers, were so also, Whether you take Teaching generally, for Labouring in the Word: as 1 Tim. 5.17. doth; or strictly, as Rom. 12.7. Under which, two terms are compendiously comprehended, the less princi­pall Offices also, a majori; for if he gave the chief Offices or Gifts, whether in a generall, or particular regard: he both would and could, much more give the secondary also.

Thirdly, all the Offices are not there reckoned, either generally, synedochically, nor particularly, but as I have said; for no mention is made of the serving offices at all otherwise, therefore there can thence no exact particularizing of the Church-offices be concluded, but such as is supplyed out [Page 108] of other places. Secondly, for their Unity in kind, if it should be supposed, yet why may the Pastour (as he is called) more excommunicate, than the Ruler administer the Sacraments? which is the main of the Controversie. No answer hath been given me herein, though I have oft and instantly demanded it; neither know I any, and therefore I must conclude, that the Exhorter cannot at­tain that Ruling-power, claimed by the right of the Word, or Reason, from that exaltation above, or confusion with the other overseeing Offices, which is pretended; nor by any other, but Babylonish; because his Collegues will not, nay may no, y [...]eld it him, though I should yield him that Super [...]ori­ty and oneness which he standeth for; wh [...]ch yet in the third place I deny him, for the Reasons before-mentioned; and also, lest he oppress them, if he be of that Spirit, and eminently gifted, or be oppressed by the inequality of his work, if he be equally gifted, and modestly spirited, which will the better be discerned in the prosecuting the fourth sort of Arguments, viz. which arise from peculiar and distinct respects of each office, which now succeedeth.

Fourthly, as every Officer is immediate from the Church; so is it convenient, 1. That his Functions and Actions should be assigned him from the same, and not by the diverse personall abilities of the other officers; for else doth he not walk in the particular assignment of the Church disposed to him, according to his gifts; but in his own, allotted him by his own discretion, or of his Collegues.

2. That his Authority of discharge, of h [...]s di­stinct [Page 109] office, should be absolute in his place, in respect of the parts thereof, and every other Of­fice under it, and it's Parts, Function, and their Exercise; as that the Teacher should be above all the other Offices in teaching them their Du­ties, the Exhorter in charging the other four to do their duties; the Distributer, to distribute to the o [...]her four; the Ruler, to order the rest circum­stantially, and to execute the determinations of the Church toward the other four; and the Wi­dow to shew mercy to the rest; besides, their du­ties to themselves, and the whole Church, in their joynt Authoritative Actions, and their severall sanctified Conversations; and also toward the Prophets in their Exercise: both wh [...]ch Argu­ments confute both their Superiority and undi­stinctness.

3. Another Argument against the former parts of this fourth sort, is, that else none were fit to be an Exhorter, except he were first enabled to every office.

And a fourth, that a man were fit to be of one of the other offices, if there be an Exhorter esta­blisht, though he be but half fit thereto, simply and without that supposition, which four distinct personal, and peculiar respects, prove, that the Ex­horter hath not all offices included in his.

Fifthly, against the latter part, viz. the undi­stinctness: First, else there should be no more di­stinctness between the three over-seeing offices, than between the particulars of each of them, and between the Deacons; yea, the Prophets: I will instance in the Deacons, one of them is fitter then the rest to hu [...]band the goods of the Church, [Page 110] in disposing their employment; another to fol­low necessary suits in the Law, for defence or re­covery; a third, to excite to due contribution; a fourth, for simple and discreet distribution; a fifth, to provide for, and tend on the help of the administration of the Sacraments, &c. and accor­ding to this fitness, every of them is disposed, ei­ther by themselves, the Church, or the over-see­ing Officers; or else by ea [...]hes severall inclina­tion: This, for the present, being supposed, shall we thereupon conclude, that these are five, or moe distinct serving offices: Surely, he were unfit for the meanest of the five, and much more for any of the three over-seeing offices, that should so judge, except he could find where the Word did distinguish them; and if he could, then were it as great weakness to hold them but one office in kind: and yet greater, so holding, to hold also that they may promiscuously execute each others Function, whereby they are found and held di­stinct; but most of all, to lay it as a general rule, that they may so execute: and yet to exempt the Pastour onely from the same, without giving a peculiar reason therefore. The like and greater intricateness and distraction is in our case, because it is evident in the Word, that there is such a di­stinctness, in kind, to be found and held. Now, if there be but one Office in kind, as the Deacons, then is every one charged with every over-seeing action by God, and no mutual agreement, nor Church-assignment can excuse any one, if any one overseeing action be wholly omitted: But on the other side, if they be three in kind, and di­stinctly assigned by the Word, the one is excused, [Page 111] though the other fail, either in being, or well-being: nay, he should as much fail as Vzzah, if he should supply the failing office, through the affinitive of his office, or personal devotion. But in the third place, (to conclude at last) to be put to hold and practise both, is to be put into an in­extricable intricateness, and labyrinth, without light or clue, to help him out, or to work within it; which is more then ever God charged upon man, or man could discharge unto God; yea, if they be flat contradictories, as they seem, more then God can discharge, for he cannot lie, and then he can charge, for he cannot oppress: Let not us there­fore give or take an higher office, nor harder work, then God himself will either give or take to himself, or any other. The like may be said of the Deacons and Widows, and both may be ex­emplified by the legal and present joynt practises, Numb 3. and 18. and very oft in positive and op­posite respects.

Sixthly, and secondly, it is said, 1 Cor. 12.28, 30. that God hath given some to be Teachers, and some other Governours, and not Teachers, and so on the contrary; the scope of the place be­ing to shew, that excellency, above others, cannot be had in the offices of the Church, because they are severally distributed by God, and not divers to one person; as is before fully proved.

Hereupon, if a man should frame his practise in any o [...]fice, it should be distinctly to observe the peculiar Function of his so distinct office: but if he, according to the second opin [...]on, hold them bo [...]h one o [...]fice; or according to the third, that though they be d [...]stinct offices, yet they are com­mon [Page 112] in their Functions and Execution: he should look unto his gifts and discretion, or to some as­signment beside that of God, the Church and his Office, and so must shape a clean different, if not contrary course, in the discharge of his office: Now, therefore the destruction and entoxication will be little less hereby than in the former Ar­gument; so that a man, by these Opinions, must be rent from himself, yea and the word, in the Un­derstanding and conscionable discharge of his office to God.

I might have added other Arguments against the first Opinion, that all Offices are in the Pa­stour, out of 1 Cor. 12.7. and Rom. 12.8. with 1 Tim. 5. The former place shewing the end of Christs distribution of the Offices, to be, to profit the Church, and not to magnifie any Officer: But that his end, is to magnifie the Pastour above the rest, and so that the distinction should be as great, or greater, then the former two: and the latter places, shewing the fift Office to be a Wo­mans, and not a mans, and so unfit for the Pastour to discharge; as because her office is night and day to attend the Sick, both men and women: But I leave them for you to prosecute, by your own meditations, supposing the other fully suffi­cient.

The fifth head, is the respect of the Lords of the Gentiles, from which the Church-officers are expresly forbidden, Matth. 20.26. Mar. 10.43. Luc. 22.26. viz. in that they rule, or are superiour one over another in Office, Place, Authority, and Dignity; for, other Superiority, is either not in rerum natura, or not intended in this place: Or, [Page 113] thirdly, not pertinent to our point, or else not spi­ritually instituted, or peculiar to an instituted Church: but the Hierarchical superiority of Or­der, whereby some Reformers palliate the superi­ority of Bishops over Priests, and Arch-bishops over them, &c. is neither of all these four; for the best Philosophers admit it not into the estate of a being; and therefore we may exclude it out of the last three; for, by best Philosophers, I intend both Ancient, Modern, Christian, Heathenish, and Antichristian: a taste and summe of all whose Judgments, in this point, is set down, Timpler. Metaph. lib. 3. cap. 7. and Kecker. Sustema Logicum, l [...]b. 1. cap. 6. and the sum of them in this Disti­con;

If other order or priority seem to be in the World, it is either for want of discerning the in­tent and extent of these 9. or else it is but the stamp of the Mystery of Iniquity set upon World­ly orders, arising from the reflex of the Antichri­stianing order, oft mentioned by our Writers, to extenuate the evils of the Bishops, between the Apostolical, and Apostatical times, i. e. between Anno Dom. 100. or 200. unto 300. and after, out of which Antichrist arose; and according to that reflex, reflecting on Civil or Monkish Estates, for­ged and framed them, as a refuge for their brood [Page 114] into the Mothers belly in time of danger, like the Serpent and it's brood, mentioned by Aelian.

Now the direction which Christ giveth unto his Ministers, from the negative or contrary, to find and keep his Ecclesiastical Order, being, not so as the Lords of the Gentiles: and yet the course which I now oppose, in respect of the first Opinion, being according to them: What distra­ction of mind, & disturbance in practice (or rather what not) must this breed in and amongst the Understanding and Conscionable? Let it here be remembred, that though the occasion of this Ar­gument, be but to prove an inconvenience or mis­chief: yet I omit not it's absolute proof of the point of equality of Christs Bishops; but against these places, it may be objected with the Jesuits, and other Hierarchians, that Christ there forbid­deth onely tyranny, pompous, and vain-glorious Titles, and Master-fulness over Inferiours; and not the superiority over other Ministers. I an­swer: First, that I hope they will not more destroy the generals of Truth, and light of natural Inge­nuity, than the Jesuits themselves of Rhemes, who in their Annotations on Luk. 22, 24, say; The Apo­stles perceiving Christs departure from them, and his Kingdome, to be neer, as infirm men, and not yet endued with the Spirit of God, begin to have emulation and cogitations of Superiority one over another; which our Master represseth in them by Exhortation to Humility, and by his own Example, that being their Lord, yet so lately ser­ved them. They, as Expositors of the Scriptures, minding their scope and apparent truth, suffered themselves with the Pythonisse, Act. 16.16, 17. [Page 115] To speak the truth, though it utterly destroy their and their Holy Fathers Kingdome; and they as Antichristians, and men of scared Consciences, presently after contradict the Truth and them­selves,; adding, Not forb [...]dding majority or superio­rity in them, but Pride, Tyranny, and Contempt of their Infer [...]ours. How can these Jesuits brook their name without a metathesis of s and u, and b set in the first place of s; then indeed, they with the Jebusites are treaders of Mount-Sion, the most holy place of Jerusalem, under foot, Rev. 11.2. i. e. professing possession of Mount Moriah, yet being true Intruders thereinto, and blind and lame contradicters of themselves, and the true David and King thereof, and contradicted and destroyed with their blind and lame gods.

THE scope of Rome, 12.1. to 8. is exact­ly, yet summarily, to describe, teach, and effectually to charge the matter and man­ner of Gods instituted Worship; as is ex­pressed, v. 1. in the general, and v. 6. in the parti­culars: Those two Verses are also expresly connec­ted by causal and illative Conjunctions, which are the absolutest Connecters of the Connection of v. 4. with 5th. and 7th. with 6th. and 8th. with 7th. there can be no doubt. Now, the soul and sinews being of the same body, the flesh and bones cannot but be granted, to be of the same also: neither is the encorporatedness of these 8. Verses onely literall, but especially reall, each without other being maimed, and all joyntly yiel­ding an excellent description and charge of Gods [Page 116] Worship; the Root, in v. 7. and 2. giving life to the body in v. 3, 4, 5. and to the branches, v. 6, 7, 8. the body giving sustenance and sustentation with the Root to the Branches, and the Branches shewing the Heavenly Fruit of both. Let the words be observantly read, and a sense worthy the Scripture be conceived; and the matter being the same with the second Commandement, and yet being very imperfectly delivered, but in this place, and here also in the common sense: and I cannot but think, that the Understanding and Ingenuous will find an admirable concise­ness of such a large matter, a clearness in this dark and s ecial point of the Word, yea, a plea­santness in what is most harsh to Nature, as being not onely above it, but mainly intended to thwart it, and to proclaim and constrain God's absolute Will to be submitted unto, as to the Lord and Ruler of all; the Fall also of Adam, and the most abominable sinnes ever since, were there-against, and all desolations thereout, and the yet prevailing Antichristian sinne, assisting in oppo­siteness thereto, and usurpation thereover.

The drift therefore of the Holy Ghost being herein to preach and press preciseness in the mat­ter, and distinctness in the manner of God's spe­ciall Worship: The latter of this place, and the rest of this subject, must have their spirit from hence; which also, will not onely easily, but ex­cellently sort therewith, and better than with any other; and though the manner or order of any thing cannot be shewn, but upon supposition of the matter known, or in the shewing to be withall made known: yet when the Apostle [Page 117] cometh, v. 6. to assume and conclude his intent in the premisses, v. 1. to 5. he seemeth to have suppo­sed, and intended onely the distinctness of the Church states, by their peculiar Functions, and the order of exercising them in the Church Assem­bly; onely in the handling, Paul, after the excel­lent Scripture-manner, interlaceth the peculiar vertues of three of the Offices, which were hardest to be known, leaving the other two easier to be by the like course understood, as on the other side, he expresseth his main drift of charging the distinctness of the Offices, and their Functions, onely in the two first, leaving the like to be sup­posed in the other three; so that it is expresly proved, that the Offices are distinct, v. 6. which after are expressed to be five. In the Inference therefore of v. 6. is the drift of the Holy Ghost expressed, which is the Soul and Life of the whole Context: upon it, therefore, we are to stand as we use to do, on the parting of the Branches from the Body of the Tree; for the best finding and gathering the Fruit of the Tree, whereby the Nature of the Tree, and Intent of the Planter is best to be discerned; that therefore saith, We ha­ving then gifts (or since then we have gifts) ac­cording to the grace (measure of Faith, v. 3. that is given, (measured v. 3.) different, (divers or di­stinct) whether it be Prophesie (the estate or abili­ty of a Church-Prophet, or both): according to the proportion (measure v. 3. gift v. 6.) of Faith (grace v. 6.) 2. Of the Interest in Christs bo­dy, v. 4, 5. or Worship and Will of God, v. 1, 2.) He seemeth to have left the speech very imper­fect; yet therein he most excellently perfecteth [Page 118] the drift of the Holy Ghost affirmed; that is, to prove a distinct observance in the offices, and not to provoke unto vehemency in the execution, which will undoubtedly follow this distinct dis­cerning the speciall intent of Gods zealous and jealous distinguishing them. Secondly, it suiteth with the ten times greater care that is taken throughout the Scriptures, that Gods Worship should be observed according to his Precepts, Statutes, or Institutions, or Laws; and Zeal that is used, in the reproof of the contrary, than that a zealous Worship should be given him. Thirdly, he therein well observeth the order of the Com­mandements, in more regarding the second then the third. And fourthly, the order of Nature, which first, and more regardeth the truth of the matter then the measure. And fiftly, his own scope, intimated in the five former verses, and oft ex­pressed, to take care for Gods Worship of his Word, v. 1. of his Will, v. 2. of his apportioning, v. 3. of his disposing, v. 4, 5. of his divers giving, v. 6. and of his exact distinguishing, v. 6, 7, 8. more than for the measure thereof. Sixthly, he well preferreth the maine of the matter, before the exactness of words, yea than competency: but in this case of endangering the proper scope of the place, which would have been the easier wrested, to the provoking and stirring up the gifts and powers, had there been the least word of provoca­tion or exhortation expressed; and therein some way should seem to have been given to the Baby­lonish confusion of Gods Worship, currant in the World for the true; yea, the zeal for the Wor­ship established, mixed with the acuteness and [Page 119] violentness of the interessed therein, would have made it seem, that it had made way for the same: but the Holy Ghost would not give them so much cloak for their sinne, and deceit of the weak: nei­ther know I what other pretence of the scope of this place can yield to any kind of audaciousness of Conscience herein. Seventhly, he could not have perfected that verse, (nor v. 7. nor 8.) but he must have endangered the other, and so the whole, in some measure; at least, if the phrase which is as the Charret-man of the Holy Ghost, should have failed in this sore-front of the Bat­tle, the fearful and far-of, would first have shrunk, and then the next would have followed for com­pany; and so the rest must have been overcome by violence; which was the case of Darius Codo­manus, and the reputed Cause of the translating of the Monarchy of the Persians to the Grecians: But the All-seeing Wisdome better provided for his Charret-man in th [...]s great Case, though ordi­narily he rideth more open, plainly, boldly, and at liberty. This, therefore, is a second Argument, that the scope of the place, is to teach the distinct­ness of the Offices, and their Functions, in that this sixt verse is left so extreamly imperfect, and no other good reason being for it, but to prevent evasion there-from; for though it be said, v. 6. Let us prophesie; and v. 7. Let him wait on; and v. 8. Let him do it: yet there is not a word there­of in the Original, but the Translators have taken liberty to insert them all, because to them there seemed otherwise no sense; whereas they have thereby made new Scripture of their own, yea contrary to the intent of the Holy Ghost, if they [Page 120] and their Readers intend any Exhortation to the Acts of Prophesie, Ministration, Distribution, with Simplicity, &c. or to vehemency in any of them, or to any thing, but the precise observance of Gods allotment committed to them.

Thirdly, as the first Argument proveth the in­tent to charge the distinctness, and the second to prevent all evasions there-from: so doth the exact Analysis of all Church-States, and their Functions in the matter preceding, second both therein.

In ver. 4, and 5. we are to observe; first the positive part, and then their opposite; and in the former, their Fabrick it self, and its use and end: their Fabrick is a body, with its members and their works: the end thereof, is the entire good of the body, and each part thereof: the other ends thereof are proper to the relation of these verses with the three former, and three sol­lowing. The Fabrick it self is two-fold, Natural and Spiritual: the former is set by the Holy Ghost here, as the Protasis and Pattern of the lat­ter; and the latter, as the Apodosis and reflex of the former; not as a bare simile or allusion, but as such a necessited and compleat Directory and Pattern of Divine Evangelical Worship; as the Pattern seen by Moses in the Mount was unto him for the Tabernacle, and all things thereof, and the Pattern left by David to Solomon, was to him for the Temple, and all things of the Tem­ple, and both for the main Warrant of the Legall Worship; so is the Protasis here said to be the Pat­tern, and thereby made the Warrant of Evange­lical worship: a distinct and intent view therefore is to be taken of this Divine Exemplar, that our [Page 121] writing may be answerable, and so acceptable, di­vine, and holy; whereas otherwise, the fairest writing in letters of gold, and with all ornaments, is odious to God, as self-boasting, yea against him. This Pattern is not simply a natural body, but as it is the Pattern and Protasis of a politick body; as the scope of the place and the offices, v. 7, 8. be­ing the instanced parts of that body shew.