CHAP. I. Wherein the Authors method in his Answer is laid down.

AS this sober Gentleman hath in his first Chapter set down his method: so I shall doe mine, that the Reader may not be tyred with an indistinct discourse.

1. I shall examine his second Chapter; and shew how far we have, or have not granted; and how we have granted what he there men­tions.

2. I shall examine his third Chapter (in severall Chap­ters, because it is very long:) there I shall examine whe­ther he hath sufficiently proved his ten Propositions he layes as a foundation, or the eleventh; which is his main work. I shall examine the last more strictly; and reply to his severall (pretended) arguments, for the preaching of such as are not in office.

[Page 48]3. I shall examine his fourth Chapter, where he answers our arguments: and try whether he hath done it suffici­ently; and reply upon his pretended answers.

4. Possibly I may adde some short notes to his last Chapter, which is not argumentative, but onely practicall, and therefore I shall not speak much to it.

CHAP. II. In which part of the Authors Second chapter is examined: and the Preachers grants are opened, how far, and in what sense they have granted the things mentioned.

THe Author is pleased in the first Chapter to tell us, that he grants these things:

1. ‘That that there are or ought to be in all the Churches of Christ regularly constituted, certain Officers call'd Preachers, Pastors, Teachers, or Elders, &c.’ Eph. 4.11, 12. 1 Cor. 12.29, &c.

‘2. That no man may take this office upon him; but he that is called, and set apart to it, according to the Gos­pel way and rule 1 Tim. 5 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. Acts 13.3. When they had fasted and prayed, and layd their hands on them, they sent them away.’

So that he grants the Gospel rule for Gospel Preachers to be that those that take the Office upon them should be solemnly set a part by fasting and prayer, and imposition of hands.

‘3. That these officers are to be heard, acknowledged, sub­mitted to, honoured, maintained, countenanced, and furthered in their office by the people.’ 1 Thes. 5 12. Eph. 5.21, &c.

‘4. The opinion denying the Ministery, is as bad as that denying Magistracy: and both of them hereticall, dan­gerous, and damnable.’

‘5. He grants, that the publique and common prea­ching [Page 49] the word by such officers in the Church of Christ is the speciall, and great standing Ordinance of Christ now under the Gospel for the gathering to, and perfecting Saints in the Church, there to continue to the worlds end, Eph. 4.11. Matth. 28.20. Rom. 10.17.’

In the close of that Chapter he saies:

‘We utterly dislike therefore all opinions and practises that tend to the derogation or prejudice of this Office, Ordinance, and Ministry, which must be kept safe, and untouched; and we may not endure it to be spoken against. Thus much we grant to the Preachers.’

(Sir,) Although we believe that Gods word doth ob­lige you to believe and grant this, and all this: yet we have cause to thank you, that in this erronious and back­sliding age (wherein so many have lost their first love) you will thus far bear witnesse to the truth of God. This is much more then those that usually handle your sub­ject will grant: and I suppose enough (if well improved) to bring you to close with that other piece of truth, a­gainst which you contend, viz. That Publique preaching the Gospel amongst professors is a proper and distinct act of these Officers.

In this second Chapter you come to tell us, what we have granted you, and there you confesse we grant you twelve things.

"1. That such as have not been brought up in the Ʋniver­sity, or want School-learning, may (being duely called) become publique preachers.

This indeed I have granted, in my Vindiciae, p. 14. but in these terms onely: that School-learning is not abso­lutely necessary. So that doubtlesse in cases of necessity, when the Church of God cannot be supplied enough with men of learning, this may be done (and I conceive this is our case and part now) for truly, I judge a godly gifted man, duely ordained and set a part to the work (though un­learned in part) farre fitter for the Ministry then a pro­phane [Page 50] wretch (though the greatest Scholler in Christen­dom.Quoniam non omnibus forte etiam nullis ea donorum ubertas obtingit a spi­ritu, quae Apo­stolis. Nulla fuerit impietas quod donis illius diminutum est supplere disciplinarum adminiculis Erasmus. in Ecclesiast. edit. Froben. An. 1554. Hodie quum plusquam necessaria fit linguarum cognitio, & Deus hoc tempore mirabile beneficio eas ex tenebris in lucem eruerit sunt nunc magni theologi qui fuoiosè adversas eas declamitent quum certum sit spiritum sanctum eterno elogio hic ornasse linguas, colligere promptum est quonum spiritu agantur isti censores. Calu. in c. 4. 1. ep. ad Corin.) Thus far now this is granted. Yet withall I cannot think that God would have supplied miraculously the first preachers of the Gospel with an extraordinary gift of tongues; and an infallible spirit in expounding Scrip­ture: if he had not in his wisdome thought that it was most fitting for one that were learned in the Originall Tongues to interpret Scripture publiquely.

A second thing you say we grant is, ‘That the Ceremony of imposition of hands is not necessary to the making of a Minister.’

But who hath granted this I know not. I have not, for p. 76. I say, that I cannot think it can be omitted without sin in an ordinary orderly ordination: and I give reasons for it. Nor can I finde any place where my reverend brother, Mr. Hall, hath been so free in granting away Scripture precepts. Nor is it much considerable who hath granted it; for who ever they are, they have granted away a truth was not theirs to dispose of. The word of God hath not granted it; and we cannot grant you away any piece of that, unlesse you can bring us a ticket under Christs hand. Nay, you your selfe will not grant it, for p. 2. you say, they must be set apart, Non est mini­mum iota legis à quo non màgni montes pendent. according to the Gospel rule. Now what that is, you tell us, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. And Acts 13.3. To the Law, and to the Testi­mony, (Sir,) Is. 8.20. Except we could finde some ordi­nations there, without this we cannot make so slight a businesse of it, especially when the holy Ghost layeth so much weight upon it as to expresse the whole ordinance of ordination by it.

3. A third thing you say was granted is, ‘[Page 51]That such as intend the ministry, and are to be set apart for it, may as probationers preach publikely, and that Batchelours of Art may common-place in a Chap­pell, to the end that their Abilities may be tried and judged.’

This indeed is granted you by Mr. Hall, Pulpit guar­ded p. 4. Vindiciae mi­nist. 17. V. Mr. Ruther­ford, Due Right p. 281. 305. and by my selfe, upon that ground of Scripture, 1 Tim. 5.22. yet not without due limitation. 1. As Probationers. 2. Before the Elders, or the Church in which he is constantly to preach. So Mr. Hall limits it.) I have added, 3. Not without the ap­probation of the Presbytery that is to ordain him. 4. Not to make a work of it, but to doe it some few times. And (Sir) these are Scripture bounds. For the text onely sayes,A minori ad majus affirman­di. Lay hands suddenly on none, and Let him be first proved (which is spoken of Deacons, but holds a fortiori, to preachers. So that all his preaching must be in order to a proof, and a securing of Timothy from laying on hands suddenly. Now (Sir) the means must be proportionate to the end; Reason tels you with these limitations, it is granted, sir.

4. You say we grant, that ordaining is not the onely thing necessary. We grant it indeed, for there must be before this ministeriall gifts, 1 Tim. 2.2. and an inclination to the work, 1 Tim. 3.1.

‘5. We doe grant you, That in extraordinary cases, as when no regular ordination can be had, nor any possibility of obtaining it, as in case of persecution, or the like; or when people are dispersed into Countries, where no Minister can be had, or where a Church is to be planted amongst Infidels; and so in the infancy of the Church. Also in the corrupted collapsed estate, & generall disorder of a Church. So when the Church is in any danger; as in case of lack of a Pilat or Cap­tain, when the ship is in danger, or the Souldiers assaulted, the Marriners or Souldiers may appoint a Captaine or Master of the ship: so may the people in these and such like cases set apart, and appoint one of themselves to this office, and here (as they say) God doth call immediately and extraordinarily.’

Si itaque hic factum est in us qui imme­diate sunt vo­cati, &c. V Chemnit. l. com. p. 3. p. 137. Edit. fol. Ʋ. Calv. Instit. l. 4. sect. 14. Necessitas non habet legem.That same word such like comes in unhandsomely after your large enumeration of all the necessary cases, I know or ever heard of. Yea, you reckon one too many. For suppose a Church be to be planted amongst Infidels, I thinke Gods way is the best way to doe it in. So it was Acts 13.3, 4, 5: he did not send meerly gifted persons to doe it, but calls from Heaven to his Church to set a part Paul and Barnabas, before they went; which they did by fasting and prayer, and laying on of hands: yet both of them were extraordinarily gifted. Indeed if such ordination cannot be had) we grant it.

6. You say we grant, That every private man may in his "own family read and apply to his own family something from the letter of Scripture.

Expounding is not a proper terme for their ablities. Otherwise we grant it.

7. You say truely we grant, ‘That any private Christian may privately and occasionally, exhort, teach, admonish, re­prove or comfort his brother.’

8. You say we grant, That any private Christian may write "upon any Scripture, and teach another by pen.

No (Sir) we onely say, able orthodox private Christi­ans may.

9. We freely yield, That private Christians occasionally "meeting together, may repeat Sermons, relate experiences, and confer one with another.

10. We grant that private persons may make an open con­fession "of their faith, if called to it, or forced to it.

11. "That Magistrates may give publique charges, and make speeches and exhortations to the people; we yield it.

12. That any man may make a publique apologie or defence to cleare himselfe from unjust accusations we grant, if he be called to it in seasonable time, and convenient place he may doe it; but not to justle out an Ordinance of God.

You say, "We will make further use of this afterwards. We will wait upon you for that (Sir) In the mean time let me make a little.

And now (conscientious Reader!) if thou beest of an hum­ble learning spirit, judge betwixt us the ministers of the Gospell, and Mr. Sheppard. Is there not room enough in these grants for a Christian in his own private family, or in a private meeting (if he be of an humble and sober spirit) to exercise all the gifts he hath? but the Pulpit must needs be made big enough for him to sit in, even with the Ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ? and to preach in their place? Judge, I pray thee Reader, whether the Preachers of the Gospell of Christ in England be so guilty of smothering the brethrens gifts, as Mr. Sheppard would make them to be p. 12, p. 74, 75. of his book, and see how those pages and these agree.

CHAP. III. Animadversions and an Answer to the fourth and fifth page of the booke, stating the businesse in difference; together with an account of the ten propositions he brings in order to the guard.

THis Gentleman comes now to his third Chapter, and in that, having already shewed wherein we agree both, he comes to state the businesse in difference.

And in his first lines, he sayes right that the Preachers doe affirm (yea, and must stand to that affirmation too) till better arguments be brought us, then this book will afford us) ‘That private persons (though gifted and called,Question stat. i. e. d [...]sidered by the people) may not ordinarily open and apply Scriptures in the publick assemblies of a constituted Church, without a solemn setting apart to that office.’

My brother Hall puts in a Call. I balk't that word pur­posely, because I knew what our brethren call a Call, and I meant something more.

This point (saith this Gentleman) The people deny and oppose. (That's no great matter, if they cannot disprove it. But in order to the mannaging of their opposition, he brings us ten positions (which he calls truths) which well proved, he thinks will guard this priviledge.

I hope he intends them not for a Life-guard to the pre­tended truth; if they were they should stand neerer to it. For, for the first foure, I will undertake for him, that shall oppose the intended truth, which chiefely lies in the fifth, sixth, and seventh. He shall cut the throat of them, if he will, and neither a one of the first foure shall check him. So the Van-guard stands for little, but to make a shew. Yet it will not be amisse to examine these (for fear they should have a dagger more then any one sees) and be more in the Authors meaning, then they are in common view and apprehension.

The Vanguard then consists of these foure notions. 1. "That the Scripture doe as well belong to the people, as the Preachers. Quid inde? what then? or who denies it.

2. ‘That the people, as well as the Preachers, are to read and study the Scriptures.’ God forbid but they should read and study them; but what of that?

3. "That the Exposition of the Scriptures, as to the right use and understanding of them, is necessary to the people, as well as the preachers. I observe a scurvy term, As well as, in every proposition. If there be not a snake in that word, I see nothing of falshood in this.

4. "That the people, as well as Preachers, are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures. [As wel as] again? Surely the cheat lies in that terme; we will search it anon. But admit it rightly understood.

After these, comes in the Tripartite notion, called, the priviledge that should be guarded.

‘1. That the gift of Scriptures exposition (being a part of that prophecy which doth now remain) is a gift common to all people of Christ out of office, as well as the Preachers of Christ in office.’

[Page 55]"2. That the people may as well use the gift of expounding Scripture, as the Preachers.

"3. That it is the duty of all people of God, as well as of the Preachers to expound Scriptures.

In the last place comes in the Rear-guard, consisting of three other positions: which are innocent truths, if they have no daggers under their shirts, more then a common Reader will see (God willing) we will search them anon.

"1. That all Gods people may and ought to expound Scrip­tures to themselves, and one to another.

Query. What the Author means by expounding. 2 By one to another? If by expounding he means speaking of the Scriptures, or telling their thoughts; or what they have heard, or read, or observed of the sence of the Scriptures; and by One another, he means privately. It is granted.

‘2. That such as have any singular gift herein above others, are to exercise it, as may be most for the profit of others.’

This is true enough: onely adding, that they keep the limits by which Gods Word, and their calling bounds them.

‘3. That these expositions of Scripture of the people one to another have been frequently blessed of God for the begetting and encreasing of faith in the hearers.’

This I feare will prove anon to be barely proved; yet we dare not limit the holy one of Israel; nor say, but that they may have sometimes been so blessed: although I be­lieve you might have left out the word frequently, I feare you will want Scripture proofe anon for that word.

These are his ten Propositions.

Now, Sir, although I could grant you, and easily doe grant you severall of these positions to be true (if rightly understood) yet I shall examine what you have said to all them. Partly, because I have a suspicion upon some words in them not to have so honest a meaning, as they have a looke. And partly, that I might see whether you have been guided by the Spirit in your applications of your many Scrip­tures [Page 56] to prove the points for which they are brought. I will begin with the first of your Van-guard.

CHAP. IV. Wherein the fifth, and part of the sixth page is exa­mined: and the first proposition is scann'd, and opened, viz. That the Scriptures doe as well belong to the people, as the Preachers.

THe first proposition is, That that the Scriptures doe as wel "belong to the people, as to the Preachers.

This point the Gentleman, first proves. Secondly, cleares from objections.

1. He proves it (he should have done well to have ope­ned it first.) Those two terms, 1. Belong. 2. As well as, are not cleare. We may say, the government of the City belongs to the people of it; but how? quoad exercitium actus? as to the exercise of the acts of government. Are the keys of government theirs? no sure. Then farewell Magistracy, and welcome Levelling. But it belongs to them as it is for their good, and peace, and order, as that under which, and according to the rule of which they are to live.

If this Gentleman means by belonging, what the Apo­stle saith, 1 Tim. 3.16. That the Scriptures are profitable for all, for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righteousnesse. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good workes. God forbid but we should grant it; and this belonging is proved by Deut. 29.29. and Ioh. 5.39. and Iude 3. and many other places.

But if this Genleman means, that they should belong to them as the keyes to the Steward, to open and apply them to the people, he both contradicts himselfe, for he tels us in other places of this book, That they cannot ex­pound [Page 57] and apply Scriptures authoritatively; and he contra­dicts the Apostle too, 1 Cor. 4.2.Mysterium distribuimus in verbum Dei & Sacramenta. P. Martyr ad loc. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Iesus Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Of which mysteries the Gospell is one, Col. 1.16. And if he doth not meane, that the Scriptures thus belong to the people

1. He sayes nothing to the purpose.

2: His second objection is little worth (of which more by and by) for suppose we argue thus: ‘If the Scriptures be for the peoples use, and belong to them for reproofe, correction, doctrine, instruction in righteous­nesse, then the people may expound and preach them pub­liquely.’

He sayes: ‘They are committed to Preachers, and yet not so as excluding the people,— But The Preachers are especially,Natura enim omnes jubet mutuò esse cu­stodes ac defen­sores salutis nostrae & alienae, maxime veri fratres. Pareus. Immo quod tibi frater est & proximus, ideo es illius custos & tibi illius salus est a deo com­mendata. P. Martyr. and by publique office, and the duty of their place to take care of them; but this hinders not, but that every Christian is by duty bound in generall to take care of the soules of his fellow Christians, and so of the truth.’

We easily grant that private Christians are in the gene­rall bound by the Law of God and nature to take a pri­vate care of their brethrens soules and bodies; and of the truth, so farre as to keep it in their own hearts, and propagate it in their own families; yea and to admonish, reprove, and exhort one another: to watch over them, if standing: if any brother be fallen through infirmity, to endeavour to restore him in the spirit of meeknesse. But (Sir) they are not to take a publique care of, nor are they put in a publique trust concerning their brethrene soules. Neither are the Scriptures committed to them to teach others. Quicquid enim ingenio humano ex cogitatum assuitur Scrip­turae ut pro di­vinitus revelato habeatur men­dacium est. Pareus in Apoc. c. 22. 1 Tim. 2.2.

What the word of God doth not say in reference to the Ordi­nances and worship of God, that we must not say. For if we doe we shall adde to the Scriptures. God must order every pin in the Tabernacle.

But the word of God no where saies, that the people [Page 58] have the glorious Gospel of God committed to their trust, to teach others out of it, as 1 Tim. 1.11. 1 Tim. 6.20. 2 Tim. 2.2. and therefore we must not say, the people have it com­mitted to them. The Scripture warrants no such speech, it is not the language of Canaan. And so (Sir) in point of publique trust they are excluded, as much as a Com­mission to his Excellency to be Lord Deputy of Ireland, ex­cludes others from being so, though it be not said so (in the letter) in the Commission. In point of use indeed the people are every where included, but they are no where called Stewards, &c.

And (Sir) for your distinction between committed, and so committed, it is Apocryphall. The Scripture no where sayes, they are at all committed to them. You must remem­ber (Sir) your own marginall note which you give, as p. 29. Ʋbi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum.

But to justifie what you say, you tell us that it is com­mitted to the people; for, ‘In 1 Tim. 3.15. the Apostle saies, That the whole Church, not the Preachers onely, is the pillar and ground of truth.’

Any one may see a Non sequitur (without spectacles) in the Argument. And the Gentlemans proofes will none of them prove this, nor any thing like unto it.

In the next place he comes to cleare his point from two Objections. He frames one from Revel. 2. ‘Where the Epistles are directed to the Angels. To this he answers: 1. The Angels are taken collectively for the whole Churches, as Exod. 4.2. Israel my sonne. 2. He sayes, It is clearly ex­pressed, Revel. 2.7. He that hath an eare to beare let him beare what the Spirit sayes to the Churches.’ To which I answer.

Though I should never have made this objection, but think there is very little strength in it, and the Gentle­man onely brought it forth to try his skill about it, yet I conceive his answer is too short in it: and seeing the ar­gument is weake, it is charity for disputation sake to take its part.

[Page 59]1. It will hardly be proved, that Angel is taken any where collectively; that Israel is, is plain enough from more pla­ces then one. The term Angel, I take it, is scarce found but to signifie an Angel by nature, or by office. Now it is absurd to say, that all the people in a Church are sent, and in office: which is the appellative signification of the term.

To his second answer.

2. The Spirit spake to the Churches. Although the Epi­stles were not directed immediately to all the members, doubtlesse they were directed to their Officers for their use. And thus the holy Ghost speaks to us in speaking to the Jews of old: and to the Jews, and Christians in the new Testament. Else neither the Scriptures of the Old, nor the New Testament belong to us.

He frames a second Objection, p. 5.

Ob. ‘The Scriptures are committed to the trust and care of Preachers in Office.’ 1 Tim. 1.11. 6 20. 2 Tim. 2.14.3.14. Tit. 1.3.

The bringing of this objection makes me think, he understood by [as well) that the Scriptures did equally belong to people as Preachers, and are alike committed to them. For if this objection opposeth the doctrine, he must mean by belonging, a belonging to them as the Lords Trustees and Commissioners in the Gospel. And then his position is false, and these Scriptures which he here quotes unanswerably prove it so. Yet he pretends to answer.

Sir, As to that text, 1 Tim. 3.15. it is a very disputable text, who the Apostle calls there, the pillar and ground of truth, is not so well agreed, as you presume. Some refer it to Timothy. Mr. Calvin saith,V. Deodate ad loc. Ʋ. Leigh ad loc. Calv. ad loc. Ʋ. Leigh ib. Engl. Annot. Elogium hoc ad ministe­rium verbi pertinet. That it is to be applied to the ministry of the Word. Others understand it of the living God, who is indeed the pillar and ground of truth. So Cameron, and others.) To bar either of these interpretations, you have nothing but the poor credit of a comma or two; [Page 60] and those that knew any thing, know that the Originall copies generally are both without stops and distinction of verses. For my own part, I should understand it of the living God, and supply [...], [who is] and then your proofe failes.

But admit it be the Church, it is gratis dictum, and not proved, that by Church he mean all the individuall mem­bers. The Papists generally contend, that the Church is there called the pillar and ground of truth; and thence Bellarmine and Estius, V. Estium ad loc. V. Calv ad loc. Beza ad loc. and others conclude it cannot erre. It is also disputed, whether it be meant of the Church Ʋniversall or particular. Protestants maintain it of the Church Ʋniversall. And doubtlesse if it be to be understood of the Church at all, it must be of the Church Ʋniversall, and not of every individuall member of that. And then it is to be considered in what sence the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; and it is concluded, that the Church is the pillar of truth, because in that truth is to be found. As Proclamations hang upon pillars, so the Church is the Pillar of truth; but (Sir) you prove nothing, if you doe not prove that the Individuall members of the Church are speaking pillars, which will be an hard task for you. Indeed they should be pillars of truth, to beare the Law of the Lord upon their hearts and conversations. And they are, as you say, from Iude 3. to contend for the faith. But the question is, whether God hath committed the doctrine of faith to them to preach? No such thing is proved from that text in Timothy, nor that in Iude neither. And in earnest (Sir) if every gifted brother be to be a pillar of truth, truth hath lost its uniformity. Many of them have been pillars upon which the divell hath hung all the errors and blasphemies of former times; not one of many a pillar of truth.

In short, I shall dispatch your first proposition granting you, that the Scriptures belong to all, to be exercised in them, to search and examine them, and their own hearts [Page 61] by them; to read in them, and meditate in them day and night. But they doe not belong to all to preach them publikely.

CHAP. V. Wherein the sixth and seventh pages are examined, and the Authours third proposition is scanned, and his proofe of it enquired into, &c.

FOr your second proposition, viz. That the people as well as the preachers are to read and study the Scriptures. I grant it you to be a t [...]uth, and wish it may be practised. But it concludes nothing to the businesse in hand, unlesse you will conclude thus: ‘They that are to read and study the Scriptures, are also to expound and preach them.—That is denied.’

Your third proposition is p. 6.

‘That the exposition of Scripture (lying in the opening of the true sense of the words and sayings thereof: and the applying of them in that sense to them that heare it, and read it, as to the right use and understanding thereof, is of neces­sity to preachers and people.’ This you prove p. 6 & 7. by seven particulars.

But Sir, before you had proved your doctrine, you should again have opened it, for the meaning is not clear.

1. Whether you mean that it is necessary they should have the Scriptures opened. Or

2. That they should open the Scriptures themselves. Whether you mean necessary as to salvation, or to the bene esse, and further edification of a Christian.

If you mean that it is necessary to salvation that one have the Scriptures opened to him, I cannot grant it, nor have you proved it. If you mean in the other sense neces­sary, I grant it; though I think another word would have better expressed it, especially if Varro's notion for [Page 62] the Etymology of necesse, Necesse est quod nec esse aliter potest. Varro. Haec à me per­stricta sunt ut intellige es te in Scripturis sacris fine previo & monstraente se­mitam non posse ingredi. D. Hier. ep. 103. c. 6. or necessarium (from whence our English word comes) be true. Necesse quod necesse aliter potest. But I easily grant you, that the exposition of Scripture is an ordinance of God, and of singular advan­tage, though such things as are necessary to salvation may be understood without an expositor, the wisdome of God having so compounded the Scriptures, that there is milk for babes, and meat for strong ones.

But I am afraid you mean something else: that it is of necessity to the people, that they themselves be able to expound Scriptures. This you must mean, or you have spoke little to your purpose; and then I deny it: for every Christian (according to your own principles) hath not the guift: and God hath denied no necessary guift to any of his Saints. But you goe on to prove it necessary, in what sence I know not.

1. You say God doth command it, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures. I easily grant (though that speech be directed to the Pharisees) that it concernes every Christian to doe what in him lies to finde out the meaning of the Scrip­tures, and so indeed it is necessary necessitate praecepti. But I am not of the mind that your second place, 1 Cor. 14.1.39. Covet to prophecy, proves it. They are to search the Scrip­tures for their own use. But prophecying is an extraor­dinary guift which they were to covet in those times; and that precept is a speciall precept relating to them, pro­phecying being now out of date; of which more here­after. And although, as you say right, I believe the neglect of the study of the Scriptures is a sin: yet I doe not think it is contrary to that Negative precept, 1 Thess. 5.20. Nor doe I think it the prophecying there meant, we will argue that hereafter. In the mean time let me tell you, that those places you quote here to prove it, 1 Cor. 14.3, 24. prove it not at all. V. 4. He that prophecyeth edifieth the Church. V. 24. If all prophecie, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, be is convinced of all, be is judged of all.

Let us now argue from hence, it must be thus:In secunda figu­rā exduabus af­fi [...]mantibus non conciuditur.

By as good Logick (Sir) you may prove the Moon is made of green Cheese, as we say.

• Green Cheese is a creature.
• The Moon is a creature.
• Ergo The Moon and Green Cheese are the same

If I should argue so (Sir) you would tell me there were more creatures then one; and so I must tell you,He that admi­nistreth the Lords Supper edifieth the Church, doth it therefore follow that it is all one to expound Scripture and administer the Lords Supper? there are more waies by which the Church may be edified then one. The Church was edified by prophecying, and by the guift of tongues: it doth not therefore follow, that both these are continuing guifts to the Church of Christ; or that our opening and expounding Scripture is the same with the prophecying so often mentioned in the New Testament. The thing you say is a truth, That Christians are to search the Scriptures, and to covet the best guifts; To desire to be able to understand the meaning of Scripture. But you have not proved it by your second reason, nor doe you prove your third reason well by 1 Cor. 14.3 I grant you your fourth, that Christ and his Apostles made much use of this way of expounding Scriptures, and doubtlesse his Ministers ought to doe so still. Your fifth I grant, that there are many hard things in Scripture, [...]. that had need of explication. And that place in Peter which you quote, 2 Pet. 3.16. proves the unlearned very unfit to open them; and your other place, Acts 8.30, 31. shewes whom God hath appointed to that work. The Lord did not send one of the guifted brethren to doe it, but Philip, one ordained, Act. 6.5. and so in office a Preacher, Act. 8.6. and that had extraordinary gifts given to him; one that [Page 64] had power to baptize, and give the Holy Ghost, Act. 8. For that place you quote, Iob 33.22. I will not dispute the meaning of that place with you, whether it doth prove there are many things hard in Scripture to be under­sto [...]d. The Interpreter there spoken of seems to me to be one rather that should interpret visions or revelations, or Gods providences, read V. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. and see what they speak of the Scriptures being hard to be under­stood. But (Sir) admit it, that the Interpreter there spoken of be meant One that should interpret hard places of Scrip­ture, Buxtorfius, ad verbum. marke what a one he must be. 1. He must be [...] a Messenger, an Angel. Qui sic dicitur a functione quam deus ipsi imponit, called so from his office (saith Buxtorfi­us) The Prophet Malachy hath his name from this word, and he must be one of a thousand. Nec enim ego [...]anctior sum hoc Eunucho nec studiosior, qui de Aethic­piâ, id est, de extremis mundi finibus venit ad templum, reliquit aulam regiam: & tantus ama­tor legis divi­naeque sapientiae fuit ut etiam in vehiculo sa­cras literas lege­ret, & tamen cum librum te­neret & verba domini cogita­tione conceperat, lingua volverat labiis personaret ignorabet eum quem in libro resciens venera­batur. Hieron. ep 103. c. 5. So that, Sir, although it is true, that those places 2 Pet. 3.16. and Act 8.30, 31. prove there are some things in Scripture hard to be understood; Yet I desire you to take notice by the way, that he that opens them must not be one unlearned, for (saith the Apo­stle) he will wrest them; but he must be a Philip, an Angel, (saith Job) and one of a thousand. What else you say, p. 7. concerning the profitablenesse of the exposition and ap­plication of Scripture in generall, I grant you: onely I think Heb. 3.12. proves not that you bring it for: the words are these, Take heed brethren lest there be in any of you an unbelieving heart to depart from the living God. I suppose you intended v. 13. But exhort one another daily. But al­though you did, yet you cannot from thence (except your Logick be better then mine) conclude this truth, that The opening of Scripture is like the breaking and bruising of Spices. And yet you adde, see for this Matth. 23.16, &c. Heb 3.12. I have done with your third position, and my Marginall notes upon it; onely I wonder you speak so much of the excellency of Application, and make so little use of it; but I suppose we shall have the uses anon. In the mean while having helped you in the exposition of your [Page 65] doctrine I have granted you it in the same sense wherein the Scriptures you quote prove it, though I suppose not in the same you would have it.

CHAP. VI. In which Mr. Sheppards fourth position is exami­ned, and his proofe of it scanned.

YOur next, and in order your fourth position is this, ‘That the people as well as the preachers are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures. This you prove, 1. Be­cause it is commanded, Col. 3.16. 2 It is commended, Ro. 15.14. 3 It was prophecyed and promised it should be so.’

This doctrine should have been expounded a little too before it had been proved: that term [as well as] upon which the whole strength of your designe lies, is not pro­ved by any one Scripture, nor can I well tell what you mean by it. For if you mean,

That not only the Preachers, but the people are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures, I grant it you, and that you have proved it, though to very little purpose, in or­der to the designe of your book.

But if you mean, that it lies upon the people in point of duty, to be as much busied and versed in the Scriptures, as the Preacher is bound to be, I cannot yield you that: For that God hath no where said to them as to Timothy, [...]. Theophylact. ad loc. 1 Tim. 4.15. Meditate upon these things, give thy self wholly to them. I suppose you believe a Preacher shall not sin against God, if he spend his whole time in order to his aboun­ding in the knowledge of the Scriptures; but, I suppose those who are not in that Function should. But I easily grant you, that every Christian ought to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures; and that because, as you say, God hath both commanded and commended it. I [Page 66] grant you also, that a fuller measure of knowledge is pro­mised and prophecied,Joel 2.18. Dan. 12.4. Is. 11.9 Is. 33 6 and possibly that place in Ioel may be a proofe in some part for you, viz that under the Gospell God would poure out his Spirit in a larger measure then before. Here you frame an Objection that some make, viz.

1. This restrained sense is against the coherence of the Text.

2. The words themselves import a further matter and time.

3. The guift hath been given to some in all times under the Gospell.

4. The same and like words are used in other places in the larger sense, Lu. 4.17, 18, 19, 20. Matth. 8.21.

5. Some sound and learned interpreters take it in this larger sence, &c.

6. There are other paralell Scriptures speak the same thing.

Concerning this text, I have already noted to you in my Ʋindiciae, p. 49. that if this text proves, that persons not ordained may preach,All flesh. it proves 1. That all have the guift, and may doe it. 2. That women may doe it, v. 28. 3. That they may preach by dreams and visions too. That according to this place there need no election or proba­tion: or any such thing.

For the restraining of it to the daies of Pentecost, the Apostle hath warranted it, Act. 2.16. This is that which was spoken, &c.

Whereas you say, it is against the coherence of the words, you shall doe well to shew it us, and then we shall reply to it.

Whereas you say, the words doe import something fur­ther, I cannot finde it out in respect of time, there is no term but afterwards; what you can make of that I cannot tell. Whereas you say, that the guift hath been given to some in all times, it is but petitio principii, a begging of the que­stion. [Page 67] Fourthly, you say the same and like words are used, Luke 4 17, 18, 19, 20. I have searched that place, and finde it a prophecy fu [...]filled in Christ, and applyed by himselfe to himselfe; neither are there any such words there, as I will poure out my Spirit upon all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophecy. Your other place is, Matth. 8.17. the words are these, That it might be fulfil­led which was spoken by Isaias the Prophet; Himselfe tooke our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Now, where are the same or like words in the text? I thinke there is not one word the same in the text, nor any like. Indeed the two places in the margent are something neerer, Is. 43 3. Zach. 12.10. Both those speak of a powring out of the Spirit, but neither of them speake of the Spirit of pro­phecy, nor of sons and daughters prophecying. The latter speaks of the Spirit of grace and supplication. But what is that to the spirit of prophecy? But in the fifth place you tell us, Some sound and learned Interpreters so un­derstand it, but who those are you spare mentioning I an­swer first, who ever they be St. Peter is to be preferred be­fore them, and how it is to be understood he hath told us, Act. 2.16. Let us heare a little what Expositers say: Oecolampadius upon the place hath these words.

Et nunc in sequenti versu eximium illud donum quod est concessum discipulis in Pentecostes die praedicit, Oecolamp. ad loc. & Actorum se cundo Petrus ipse testatur haec per prophetam Joelem esse dicta, unde nemo verba ista in alienum sensum rapere conetu [...] quam ab Apostolo adducta sunt & interpretata. — Spiritum pro­mittit omni carni sed non propterea prophetiam omni carni— Hoc omnibus fidelibus concedit ut pio corde ferantur in Deum non quod propterea promittit omnibus scientiam omnem & Scripturae sensum.

‘That is, And now in the following verse he foretels that excellent guift which was given to the Disciples in the daies of Pentecost. Peter himselfe saies that that was foretold by the Prophet Ioel, whence (saith he) let no [Page 68] man goe about to wrest the words to any other sence then that to which the Apostle brings them, and in which he interprets them. — He promiseth the Spirit to all flesh, but not prophecying to all flesh. This God gi­veth to all to have their hearts made heavenly, & carried up to him. But he doth not promise to all, that they shal understand all knowledge, and the sence of Scripture.’

In the next place let us heare what learned Mercer saith. Nunc prophetia de Spiritu Sancto quam die Pentecostes fide dignus testis Petrus impletam dicit misso Spiritu Sancto, Mercerus ad loc. qui fecit ut Apostoli magna virtute testimonium darent resurrecti­oni Christi, qui antea id docere immo ne in publicum quidem prodire audebant. De sententiae ergo tempore, & modo impletae prophetiae constat.

‘This prophecy, saith he, is concerning the Holy Ghost and Peter, who may be believed, applies it to the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was sent, the Apostles by his great power gave testimony of the resurrection of Christ, who before durst not teach it, nor come out in publique. Concerning therefore the meaning of the prophecy, the time and manner of ful­filling it is plaine.’

But let us enquire a little further, (for I would faine know that man that would pretend to a better judgement in expounding Scripture then St. Peter had; or after he had said, This is that was spoken of by Joel, would presume to say, No, it is another thing.) Let us heare what Gualther upon the place saith.

Gualtherus. ad loc. Initio de Spiritus Sancti missione vaticinatur.—Post haec effectus Spiritus Sancti Joel commemorat, — Prophetiam nimirum; sub qua donum linguarum quoque comprehendi ex Petri interpretatione patet. Prophetare antem dicuntur qui de arcana dei voluntate, & de rebus futuris differunt, Paulus verbi hujus significationem latius extendens, eos quoque prophet [...]re dicit, qui vel Scripturas ipsi exponunt, vel aliorum interpreta­tiones attenti audiunt. In praesente tamen ac vaticinandi dono [Page 69] & penitiori mysteriorum Scripturae cognitione Ioel loquitur. Prophetabunt, inquit, filii vestri & filia vestrae, id est, ex illis passim orientur qui futura praevideant, quique Scripturae ar­cana eruendo illa commune omnium institutioni & consolationi accomodent. —At quae hic promittuntur mox post ascensio­nem Christi praestari caeperunt, quando Spiritus Sanctus super Apostolos delapsus visibili specie illos & Scripturae sacrae & linguarum cognitione ita illustravit, ut hostibus quoque ad­mirationi essent qui illos homines idietas & illiteratos esse sciebant. Eosdem quoque visiones vidisse, & in somniis de re­bus gravibus & necessariis admonitos fuisse Petri & Pauli exempla satis testantur. Iidem quoque futura praedixerunt, quales nimirum novissimi saeculi mores futuri sint, utque An­tichristi tyrannis Ecclesiam horribili modo sit vastatura quo totus Apocalypseos liber referri debeat, quid quod Philippo quatuor filias pr phetantes fuisse Lucas tradit? Nec Aposto­lorum modo tempore prophetandi donum floruit, verum etiam aliquot saeculis deinceps sicuti historiae testantur & Theodoretus Episcopus suo tempore aliquos fuisse scribit qui singulari Spiri­tus dono instructi futura praedicerent. Quia vero donum hoc singulare fuit, & ea Scripturis abunde jam tradita sunt quae nos scire necesse est donum hoc ut & alia pleraque cessavit.

First (saith he) he prophecieth of the sending of the Holy Ghost. — Then (saith he) he speaketh of the effects of this Spirit, — to wit, prophecy; under which it is plain from St. Peters interpretation, that the guift of Tongues is comprehended. They are properly said to prophecy, who discourse concerning the secret will of God, and things to come. Paul doth extend the significa­tion of this word further, and saies, that they prophecy that expound Scriptures, or attend diligently to others expositions. But here the Prophet Ioel speaks concerning that guift of prophecy, in the more accurate knowledge of the mysteries of Scripture. — Those things, which were here prophecied of, began to be fulfilled immediate­ly upon the ascension of Christ. When the Holy Ghost [Page 70] descended upon the Apostles in a visible shape, and did enlighten them with the knowledge of Scripture and of the tongues, so that they were an admiration to their enemies, who knew them to be illiterate men, and ideots. The examples also of Peter and Paul witnesse, that they saw visions and were warned by God in dreams of things weighty and necessary to them. And they foretold things to come, as what should be the manners of the last times; and how the tyranny of Antichrist should waste the Church in a dreadfull manner—. And Philip had foure daughters prophetesses.—Neither did this guift of prophecy only flourish in them very times, but some ages after, as Histories witnesse. V. Theodoret witnesseth that there were some in his time who were furnished with this singular guift, and foretold things to come. But be­cause this guift was singular, and now those things are delivered in Scripture which it is necessary for us to know, this guift as also many others is ceased.

Petrus secundo capite Actorum dicit hanc pro­phetiam am­plectam fuisse quum missus est Spiritus.— Deinde hic pro­phetae non loquitur de publico munere docendi, &c. Calv. ad loc.Mr. Calvin upon the Text saies, that Peter witnesses that this prophecy is fulfilled; and saies, that Joel doth not here speak of the publique work of teaching, for he calls those Prophets that were not call'd to that, but were en­lightned with such a degree of knowledge that they might be compared with Prophets.

St. Hierome rests upon that interpretation, that St. Peter makes, and spends his time only in proving the coherence of the words before and after, to that sence.

Deodate restraines it to certaine times, and certain persons, Acts 2 17.

Indeed I finde our own late Annotations, and one sin­gle Pareus; the latter of which speaketh it expresly, the other in effect, That (they think) it is to be restrained to the day of Pentecost. But suppose those two were two [Page 71] hundred, what were they to one Peter? who long since told us. This is that that was spoken of by the Prophet Joel For the former part of the verse, I will poure out my Spirit, I will easily grant you a truth, that God under the Gos­pel doth grant a larger measure of his Spirit, then he did under the Law, viz. his Spirit of grace, and supplica­tion, and sanctification: but for the prophecying spoken of, God hath fulfilled his word (saith Peter.) Whereas you say sixthly, that other paralel Scriptures speak the same in effect: you have quoted none that doth. You have indeed brought in many, but you have brought them in against their wils, so none of them speake to prove what you would have them, viz. that it is any where prophecied, that the guift of prophecying and under­standing the mysteries of Scripture, by an extraordinary in­spiration of the Spirit, should abound under the Gospel as a standing guift to all the Saints. Indeed most of them prove an increase of saving knowledge, practicall experimen­tall knowledge of God, and of things necessary to salva­tion, and possibly of the knowledge we are speaking of, to be acquired by ordinary means and waies; but none of them of such an immediate inspiration, to make them under­stand the Scriptures so as to be able to expound them where they are darke, and their sense not obvious. Nor doth that place quoted by you Mat. 11.11. prove any thing at all, it being clearly to be understood of Christ, whom the Jews coun­ted least in the Kingdom of Heaven [...]. Theo­phyl. in loc. V. Dickson in Matthaeum..

You bring another reason p. 9. to prove that the people are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures as well as the Preachers. ‘Because they have many uses to put it to, viz. to teach, reprove, exhort, &c.’

But all this they may doe, though they have not so full a knowledge of the Scriptures as Preachers are and ought to have. I grant you they are to labour for a knowledge in the Scriptures, but not that they are tied by duty to seek for such a measure of knowledge as the Preacher is bound by [Page 72] duty to seek after. But I hasten to your fift proposition, p. 9

CHAP. VII. Wherein is examined Mr. Sheppards 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 pages, and his fifth proposition, scann'd and examined.

YOur fifth proposition is this: ‘That the guift of Scripture exposition and explication being a part of the prophecy which doth now remain in the Church, is a guift common to all the people of Christ out of Office, as well as the preachers of Christ in Office.’

This now well proved were worth something to your purpose. Here are two things to be proved:

1. That the guift of Scripture exposition and explanation is a part of the prophecie which doth now remain in the Church.

2. That it is a common guift. I am mistaken if I finde ei­ther of these well proved. You should have proved the former first, but you begin with the latter; and I will fol­low your method. Now to prove that this is a common guift, you would prove,

1. That all Gods people have Gods Spirit, Jam. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.8. 1 John 4.13. Rom. 8.9.

2. That this Spirit is a Spirit of illumination, and Scrip­ture interpretation, Zech. 12.10. Rom. 8.15, 26. Eph. 6.18.

3. That by this they are or may be enabled to see the sense and meaning of Scripture, 1 Cor. 2 12. Eph. 1.17, 18. Jer. 31.33. Psal. 40.7, 8. Jo. 3.27. Jo. 10.26. Jo 6.44, 45. Matth. 13.11, 12, 16.

This is the substance of your ninth and tenth pages.

For the first, I grant it, that all Gods people have the Spirit. But (Sir) surely you were not guided by this Spirit in the interpreting of Scripture, when to prove this you quote Jam. 4.5. The words are these. Doe you think that the Scripture speaketh in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us [Page 73] lusteth to envy. Is that meant of the holy Spirit of God, think you? But the thing is truth: that all Gods people have the Spirit now let us make it into an argument.

Whoso hath the Spirit of God hath the guift of expounding Scripture.—But all Gods people have the Spirit of God.

Ergo, they all have the guift of expounding Scripture.

Nego majorem. Prove (Sir) your first proposition: and to this purpose I suppose you bring your next medium, and tell us that this Spirit is a spirit of illumination and Scripture interpretation, in all that have it. Your Logick is this.

Nego minorem. The latter proposition is false. I grant you that the Spirit is a Spirit of interpretation, that is, that the Spirit can teach a man the meaning of Scripture; for all Scripture is dictated by the Spirit, and ejusdem est interpretari ac condere. Yet let me tell you, you are behol­den to me for granting you this, for you have not proved it. You indeed bring in (against their wils) the Prophet Zachariah proving it, Zech. 12.10. where are these words, I will poure upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace, and of supplications, &c.

Here is no mention of the Spirit of Scripture inter­pretation. Your other place is Ro. 8.15, 26. v. 15. For you have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have rceeived the spirit of adoption whereby you cry Abba Father: v. 16. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit maketh intercession for us, &c. Here is plain men­tion made of the spirit of bondage and adoption, and supplication, and intercession. But you are a better Lo­gician then I, if you can from any of these Texts prove that the Spirit is a Spirit of Scripture interpretation; [Page 74] though the thing be a truth, (Sir) yet, I say, you are beholding to me to yield it you in arguing.

Nay, I will grant you a little further, that the Spirit of God in whomsoever it dwels doth so farre enlighten their minds in the knowledge of the Scriptures, that they may see all that is necessary for them to know in reference to their own salvation. But this the Spirit doth upon their reading and hearing, imprinting a perswasion of the truth of what they heare and read upon their hearts.

But though I yield you easily that the Spirit is a Spirit of Scripture interpretation; yet I deny that it is in all, so. Nay, I shall question whether it be in any so as you would have it.

I grant you in these: 1. That the Spirit doth dwell in all. 2. That the Spirit can interpret Scriptures. 3. That it doth doe as I have said. But I conceive that which you would have is this, That the Spirit by a secret immediate work doth en­lighten men (without the use of ordinary means) such as are the understanding the tongues, weighing consequences, considering coherences, &c,) in the understanding of the Scriptures. That a Saint quà a Saint, by vertue of the Spirit dwelling in him, is able to interpret any Scriptures, so as to expound them to o­thers. This is a false and dangerous opinion; I shall there­fore spend a few words to shew you what assistance the Spirit of God ordinarily gives men in the opening of Scriptures.

That the Spirit of God hath by such an immediate worke shewn its power in enlightning the minds of his Saints hereto­fore is true, so he did in the Apostles daies. But thus the Spirit doth not now.

Eam f [...]cultatem humana partim industria superveniens uberior spiritus gratia non dissolvit nec absolvit, nec adimit sed adjuvat qui sicuti naturae [...]otes egregias nactus, magnificentius per eas exercet energiam suam, non ali­ter quam insignis artifex li [...]entius & accuratius ostendit artem suam in splendida tractabilique materia, ita nostram industriam adeo non aspernatur spiritus ille coelestis, ut exigat etiam, nec indignatur sua dona nostro vicessimi studio adjuvari, tantum absit impia nostri fiducia. E­rasmus de ratione concion. l. 2. p. 202. Edit Froben. 8.But thus far the Spirit assists: God hath allowed us means [Page 75] to finde out the meaning of his word, we have waies to come to the knowledge of the Languages in which they were writ, and the labours of many eminent servants of God who have taken paines in it, we may by study consider the coherence of the words and paralel Scriptures. Now whosoever he be that with an humble heart takes up the book of God, and in order to the finding out of the wil of God in any portion of his word, shall first seek God by prayer, that he would open his heart to understand the wonder of his law, and then give up himselfe to study the word of God;Sint castae deliciae meae Scripturae tuae nec sallar in eis nec sallam ex eis. —Vide pate­aspice & approba & placeat in conspectu mise­ricordiae tuae in­venire me gra­tiam ante te, ut aperiantur pul­santi mihi in­teriora sermo­num tuorum. — q [...]i illi servo tuo de­disti hoc dicere da & mihi haec intelligere. D. Aug. confess l. 11. c. 2. &c. 3. Optimus interpres hic est qui sensum è scriptura potius retulerit quam attulerit. Hilari [...]s l. 1. de Trin. using the means that God hath afforded him, considering the scope of the penman, and of the words precedent and consequent, and other paralel places; and shall bring to this enquiry not discutiendi acumen, a disputing head, but discendi pietatem a pious heart, desirous to be instru­cted. This man shall be assisted with the Spirit of God. 1. Raising up his naturall parts of reason and judgement to comprehend the will of God. — Secondly, Possibly bringing to his mind such Scriptures as may paralel the place he seeks about, and help him in the interpretation of that Scripture, for the meaning of which he seeks. 3. Working in him perswasion of necessary truths. But for any other assistance, I know not where it is promised, nor how it can be expected.

1. Nor doe I take the two first to be any speciall work of the Spirit, for then it were incommunicable; but we finde that not onely Saints, but such as have left little evidence of the work of grace in their hearts, have yet left us ju­dicious and sound expositions of Scriptures, which we have cause to blesse God for. And besides, secondly,

2. If the Spirit by such an immediate work inspired Saints as Saints, Hoc perpetuo debet animo ob­servari homines illos fuisse carne circundatos nostri similes qui in multis labi potuerunt & reverâ lapsi siat, & [...] Hyperius de ratione studii theolog. l. 4. c. 9. then it were impossible their interpretations of any [Page 76] Scripture should be false; but how much the holiest servants of God have erred in some expositions of Scripture and doe erre, former times have evidenced enough. And Sir, I hope the Spirit of God dwelleth in you; yet as I hinted before, it did not thus assist you in the application of Iames 4.5. or Zech. 12.10. or Rom. 8.15, 16. p. 9. There might be a quick experience of this: Take a Saint and turn him to a difficult place of Scripture or two, and try if he can give an infallible interpretation; which he must doe if it pro­ceed from the immediate work of the Spirit that dwelleth in him.

3. Further yet, if this were truth, Let twenty Saints ex­pound the same Scripture, and they must all agree, if all their interpretations proceed from the Spirit; that doth not dictate to me this to be the sense, and to another another sense. But the contrary of this we see by daily experience. Quot sancti, tot sententiae.

4. If this were a truth, The same Saint could never alter his judgement upon any one text. But I believe you will see cause, Sir, to alter yours (as many Saints before you have done theirs) in the application of some Scriptures which you have made use of; and we live in times when most eminent Saints give this to be the sense of a Scripture now, and another a twelve moneth hence.

5. Nor doe I see how you can shift granting, that every Saint must have this faculty; for in every Saint the Spirit dwels. But if this be true, you doe well in the eleventh page to give us reasons why it doth not appeare. But you tell us there that your meaning is, ‘That there is in all the people of God a seminall vertue and power more or lesse enclining and enabling them hereto, some sparke of the heavenly fire of Gods spirit herein. 1 Jo. 20.27.’

If you meant by seminall power and vertue, an habit of reason, and some degree of judgement. &c. I grant it you; but you mean I perceive something else, viz. a spirituall [Page 97] ability, a spark of the heavenly fire of Gods Spirit herein; that there is something of the Spirit in them I grant, there is some sparks of that heavenly fire, shewing them things ne­cessary to salvation, Quod autem omnia dicit novisse, non u­niversaliter capi sed ad praesentis loci circumstanti­am referre de­bet. Calv. ad loc. V. Deodate ad loc. and shewing them the things freely given them of God (yet not that alwaies neither) and serving to burn up their lusts, and to enflame their hearts for God; but the word herein I question, yea, and deny that in every Saint there is such a Spirituall ability. Nor doth that Text you bring, 1 Io. 20.27. prove it. The knowledge of all things there spoken of, must not be taken in the latitude, for so we know the Scripture would not be true. The meaning is, all the parts of doctrine neces­sary to salvation, saith Deodate; but the interpretation of all the Scriptures, or an ability to doe it is not necessary to salvation. But you will quarrel with me if I leave behind what you have p. 9.

This proposition now is so mollified, that I know not how to touch it. First, it is minced with are or may be; who can deny that so long as there is an Almighty God. Then it is minced with more or lesse; it were hard else, if there should be any Saint, that should not be able to tell the meaning of one line in Scripture. Then I meet with the term Scriptures, which I know not whether I should understand it of the Scriptures generally, or so much of Scripture as is necessary for them to know in order to salvation: If in the latter sense, it is true enough; if in the former sense, the Author will understand it, still he will save him­selfe in the arms of his are, or may be: or else of his more or lesse. But to prove this he brings 1 Cor. 2.12. onely he feares it will be objected against. How he hath warded it we will consider by and by; onely by the way I could [Page 78] have told him of a fitter place to prove this proposition, which would have put it past disputing; it is that Mark 10.27. With men it is impossible, but not with God, for with God all things are possible. This proves his may be. But let us heare what he concludes from 1 Cor. 2.12. the words I quoted before if he can argue from hence at all, it must be thus:

Num igitur ex his concludemus eos qui Spiritum Christi habent omnia noss [...]? fatebimur sed quadantenus, ut a deo condita sunt ad ejus ho­norem faciunt & ad nostram salutem condu­cunt, &c. P. Martyr ad loc. Ʋ. Pareum ad loc.The Minor is unquestionably true, but the Major is false; and is sick of that fallacy that Logicians call Fal­lacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The Spirit doth not teach all Saints all things that are freely given them of God. Many Saints doe not know they are justi­fied or sanctified, that Christ or Heaven is theirs, and yet are reall Saints; and the text (saith Mr. Leigh) is to be un­derstood chiefly of that knowledge. All that the text proves, is this, that the Saints may know by the Spirit the things freely given them of God. It doth not prove that they doe know all of them the things given them of God: Nor that, they doe know all the things given them of God.

But a word more, Sir, before you and I part with this text. Doth not this text look as if it were to be under­stood of a reflex knowledge: such a knowledge by which a man knows that he knows. The originall word is [...], and doth signifie a certain and infallible knowledge; so Col. 3.24. Col. 4.1. and if it so signifie here, you doe ill to apply it to a direct knowledge. The words seem to argue such a knowledge as is infallible; and thus surely every Saint doth not know the Scriptures. I perceive you were afraid we should tell you, that the things here spoken of [Page 79] are those good things which God hath prepared for them tha [...] love him, So Pareus un­derstands it. as indeed the coherence tell you, v. 9. and the knowledge spoken of an infallible perswasion of our right unto them: And to defend your selfe you tell us,

‘That these things cannot be revealed to the soule but in and by the Revelation of the G [...]spel and word of God.’

I am glad to heare you of that mind; that God hath grounded you in his truth against Enthusiasmes. But sir, I must tell you, they may be known to us by the hearing of the word of God opened to us, and preached to us, and usually are so. And therefore it will not follow, that a Christian in order to his knowledge of them must have in himselfe the spirit of interpretation. You further tell us.

"That the promises are the things freely given us of God; (some of them at least.) 2 Pet. 1.20.

Truth, Sir; and the Spirit must make us to know that these promises belong to us: but doth it therefore follow that every Christian must have an ability to open all the Scriptures? Many of the promises, those especially of greatest concernment, are so plainly written, that he that runs may read and understand them. Some of the pro­mises indeed are darker. Nor doe I think every Christian hath an ability to understand all the promises fully; but God is pleased to enable his Saints to understand the pro­mises, so many of them, and so far as they are necessarily to be understood in order to his salvation. But we (Sir) that are as much versed, I believe, and something more, then those not in the Ministry, with the workings of Christians spirits, finde it by experience, that Gods dearest Saints oft times put strange interpretations upon the promises: which is evidence enough, that the Spirit doth not enable all Saints to know the true meaning of them. But I return again to the 11. and 12. pages.

Having laid down for a position, that all the Saints have a seminall vertue enabling them to expound Scriptures, [Page 80] you come to enquire the cause why it doth not appeare; and you are pleased to charge it upon us, saying, ‘The Preachers preach, and the people believe there is no such power in them, nor to be exercised by them: and there­fore the peopl [...] never look after it.’

Upon this you dilate, p. 12, 13. shewing how gifts are improved by exercise, and lost by neglect of it (a thing no one ever denied, that I know.) And there you take upon you to give us a fatherly advice.

To all this impertinent discourse I shall answer briefly. That the Preachers are charged falsely: we doe desire all that fear God to stir up the guift that is in them, to be much in reading and studying of the Scriptures, to meditate upon them, to instruct their families out of them. Indeed we doe not presse them to preach; for if you mean by guift [...], the office, in which sence the Apostle useth it, 1 Tim. 4 14, we believe according to that Scripture, that that guift is given them by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. [That is] that by ordination they are impow­red to the exercise of that Office. But you tell us, ‘That such as have this fire within them, cannot well for­beare, for it is like new wine, or materiall fire within them, which cannot be kept in, but will break forth, Amos 3.8 Acts 4.20. Jer. 20.8, 9. Psal. 39.2. Joh. 1 41, 45. Jo. 4.28, 29 Job 32.19, 20.’

Severall Scriptures, but strangely applied; as if Saints under the Gospell had generally such a spirit of prophecy as Jeremy and Amos, Why doe you put rules and restrictions upon them then Sir, in your 78, 79, 80. p. 25. and Peter, and John had: but indeed it seems they cannot forbear, for the Law of God cannot restraine them, their pretended spirit is like new wine in­deed (that hath intoxicated them.) And like fire (for it hath broke forth, to the burning up of a great part of the Lorde heritage.) But (Sir) you are mistaken in saying that we doe not perswade them to refresh themselves with [Page 81] their new Wine; we onely wish them to forbeare Ivy bushes, except their Wine were better, and to keep their bottles for their own use, and not to make their guifts means of others drunkennesse. We doe perswade them [...], to blow up their fire onely, we advise them to keep it within the chimney.

I suppose you mean publiquely, or else you both charge us falsly, and say nothing to the purpose too. But (Sir) we must finde God commanding us to doe it, before we durst take your counsell. But yet your experiment hath been tried, and is (God knows) too much. There is a liberty enough given to men this way, and the people are ready enough to take it. Nor are there some wanting that have bidden them God speed. The Socinians and Arminians of old, after them the Brownists, and lately some of our more valuable reverend dissenting Brethren; and I believe any time these ten yeeres in severall places this liberty hath been pleaded. But where's the flame, Sir? or what is the fruit of it? is not T. Colliers spark blown into a flame? see his blasphemous discourse at Axbridge. It is indeed miserably true, that their sparks are blown into flames, but they are such flames as have consumed the Church of God, and endanger the Elect: the blowing up of these sparks hitherto in all places in the world where they have been endured, hath proved a sad flame. Enquire of the Churches in New England, did not Mrs. Hutchinson, and the rest of her followers sparks come into flames? Aske the Churches in Holland what pretty flames these sparks made; did not the Yorkshire Sadlers sparks make a flame too in Mr. Oxenbridges Church (if I have not been mis-informed.) I believe our judicious brethren will soon see if this practice goe on, that they will be troubled with such flames that they will hardly be able to quench. We [Page 82] have seen these sparks by blowing grow into flam s of Anabaptisme,Ʋbi Africa eversa fuit per Manichaeos mox secuti sunt eos Donatistae, qui & ipsi inter se dissentientes divisi erant in tres sectas — Ita secta semper parit sectam & alia aliam dam­nat. Lutherus. Antinomianisme, Blasphemy, Ranting, Divi­sions, &c. These are the best fruit we or any of the Chur­ches of Christ ever saw of it. But to passe this discourse which I believe will hardly please you.

I perceive you are afraid that the Apostle, 1 Cor. [...]2 10. saying that all men have not gift of prophecy, hath thwar­ted your large maxime. Now to this you answer.

1. That that Text may be meant of extraordinary prophecy, which is now ceased.

Very right; but surely tis the same prophecying spoken of in all that Chapter and the two following; and if that be extraordinary, you have lost the best string to your bow. But it seems you have two strings to it. For secondly you tell us, ‘If it be to be understood of that prophecy which doth con­tinue, it is not against your point; for then it is to be under­stood of a great degree of Scripture exposition and application. Every one that hath the guift of prophecy hath the guift of expounding and applying; but every one that hath a guift to expound and apply Scripture, hath not a guift to prophecy, that is, to speak in publike assemblies.’

The latter clause is unquestionably true; but, Sir, I must mind you again of your marginall note, p. 29. Ʋbi lex non distinguit, non distinguindum est, you force a sence here upon the Apostle. In short, to turn this trifle out of the way, your sence is this, Every one hath the guift of prophecy, but every one hath not an eminent guift to prophecy; then, Sir, the sence of the foregoing words must be this, Every one hath the guift of healing, but every one hath not the eminent guift of healing? Every one hath a guift to work miracles, but every one hath not an eminent guift to work miracles; every one hath the guift of Tongues and interpretation of Tongues, but every one hath not an eminent guift of Tongues, and interpretation of Tongues. Is this the Apostles sence (Sir) think you? if it be, bring forth your linguists, and your miracle-working Saints; or else shew us a reason why the Apostle in the [Page 83] words before and after should speak de re, and in those words onely de gradu. — Et eris mihi magnus Apoll [...]. And now I have done with your fifth proposition.

CHAP. VIII. Containing an Examination of the sixth and seventh positions: and a scanning of Mr. Sheppards proofe of them.

YOur sixth point is this,Page 14. ‘That the people may as well use the guift of expounding Scriptures as the preachers.’

‘This you prove, 1. Because the use of this guift is no where confined to any certaine men [...]fficers of the Church nor others, But to every one as the Spirit willeth, 1 Cor. 17.7. Rom. 12.6. Act. 17.11’

‘2. The people have the same guift of the Spirit in some degree as the Preachers have, 1 Jo. 2.27. Acts 17.11. Ro. 12.5, 6. and by this they did interpret in the primitive times, 1 Cor. 14.26. Acts 18 26. Acts 8.4. Acts 11.19.’

‘3. All men that have this guift are commanded to use it to Gods glory and the Churches good, 1 Pet. 4.10, 11.’

‘It is reasonable you say they should use it, for they have occasion to use it as the Preachers have, &c.’

‘2. They are given and directed to the people to be used by them.’

"3. The Scriptures exposition is as of great concernment to the people as to Preachers.

This terme as well troubles me again, if you mean by it as publiquely, and as often and ordinarily, and as warrant­ably; I deny it.

To your first reason I answer, that the publique use of this guift is confined. Christ did not say to all the Disci­ples, [Page 84] but to the Apostles and their Successors onely, Goe preach and baptize, Matth 28, &c. and what though the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 12 7. that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall; Datur unicuique ergo nema solus habet ūniversa. Pareus ad loc. he opens him­selfe v. 7.8 and shews that he means not, that the severall guifts of the Spirit are given to every one, but one to this Christian, another to another; something to all, v. 29 Are all Prophets, are all Teachers, are all workers of miracles? That very Text, 1 Cor. 12.7, 8. is witnesse enough against you. Nor doth Rom. 12.6. prove that the use of this guift is not confined: for it is confined to them that have it, and those are onely such as are Officers, (if you mean by pro­phecying ordinary preaching, which I perceive you take for granted, though I shall shew you anon you have no reason to doe so.) For your third place, Acts 17.11. that onely proves that searching the Scriptu [...]es is not confined to officers but people also may doe it, and this none denies.

Your second reason to prove that they may use the guift is, because they have the same guift the Preachers have. The Argument is thus:

Your Minor is undoubtedly false of the most Saints. But suppose it were true, you Major is fallacious. If you mean using it in their places, and relations, none denies it; if otherwise, your Major is false. For by such an argu­ment, I would prove that every one that hath the guift of a Souldier may exercise the Office of a Colonell or a Gene­rall. For the Scriptures you bring to prove they have the same guift, I have answered them before. But you say, by this guift they did interpret in the Primitive times, and for this you quote, 1 Cor. 14.26. Acts 18.16. Acts 8.4. Acts 11.19. Here, Sir, you beg a question, which is so great a piece of truth that I cannot give it you upon [Page 85] alms; you must purchase it by a solid proofe, if you have it, viz. that the Prophecy spoken of in the New testament was not an extraordinary, but an ordinary guift. That they did preach, I deny you not, but what their guift was, whether ordinary, or extraordinary, we will argue anon.

But thirdly, you tell us that reasonably they should use the guift, because they have occasion to use it, to reprove, exhort, teach, comfort. This you told us before p. 9. I told you then this proves a private use, but not a publique use of their guifts.

But you tell us fourthly, that God hath commanded them to use this guift, 1 Pet. 4.10.11. I have fully answered this place, I mean this false glosse put upon it, in my Vindiciae p. 57. to which I refer you.

You tell us, That some say, Page 15. none but those that are skilled in the Tongues can interpret Scriptures, some places in it are so difficult.

To this you answer: 1. That Preachers grant, that such as want School-learning, being duely called, may be publique Preachers.

2. You agree that somethings in Scripture are very hard to be understood, but others easie.

3. You take it, that the knowledge of the truths of Gods Word is a guift of God, attainable by the Spirit onely, and not by any humane power and strength: and this you promised after to shew.

This is to set up a man of Straw, and then to spend time in undressing him. I know none say that none can interpret, or rather know the meaning of any place of Scripture, but such as have skill in the Tongues.In omni copid Scripturarum sanctarum pas­cimur appertis exercemur ob­scuris, illic fames pellitur, hic fasti­dium, Aug. t. 1. p. 16. E.

This indeed we say, that none are so accomplished by means to doe it, as they; nay further, that there are some Scriptures, to the right interpretation, and full interpre­tation of which a knowledge in the Tongues is necessary. Other Scriptures there are which need no interpreter, he that runneth may read them; and the coherence is evi­dent enough.

‘But you say we grant, That such as are not skild in the Tongues,Nam quan [...]o Scriptura, non habet vivam vocem, quam audiamus, uten­dum est quibus dam medus qui­bus investige­mus quis sit sensus, quae mens Scriptura­rarum: si enim Christus ipse nobiscum ageret: si Apostoli, & prophetae inter nos viverent, eos adire possemus ut sensum illo­rum quae ab iis, scripta sunt no­bis indicarent: sed cum illi abi­erint, & libros tantùm suos reliquerunt, vi­dendum est qui­bus medits ut verum Scrip­turae verborum­que divinorum sensum invenia­mus. Ecclesia enim semper mediis quibus­dam usa est. Whitaker. de Scrip. l. 5. c. 9. if duely call'd to it, may be publique Preachers.’ If there be such a necessity that the Church cannot be o­therwise supplied, and these be otherwise qualified, we grant it.

To your second, it is granted that there are some places of Scripture easie, and these need no Interpreter.

But for your third, viz. That the knowledge of the truths of Gods Word, is a guift attainable by the Spirit of God onely, and not by any humane power or strength; You have delive­red it ambiguously. I know not whether you mean a practicall reflex knowledge, or a notionall direct know­ledge. If you mean the first, we grant it you; but it makes nothing to your purpose. If you mean a notionall knowledge, we deny not but that the Spirit can and doth teach us that: but it is (Sir) in the use of means, of which the knowledge of the Tongues is one. If your mea­ning be, that an enlightning our minds in the knowledge of our Scriptures, upon our searching of them, meditating, study­ing of them, and using all other means is a guift of the Spi­rit, none denies it; but this is nothing to your purpose. But if you mean, that the Spirit by a work of speciall grace enlightens the minds of his Saints onely in the understanding of Scriptures; and that (I know not which way) without the use of those means he hath allowed us, in order to that end: As it is a pernicious opinion, so it is as false and simple. For how many have been able to expound Scripture, that never had the Spirit of grace? what think you of Iudas? And what strange nonsensicall erroneous inter­pretations doe many make of Scriptures, that think, and others think too, that they have much of the Spirit in them. But you promise to prove your assertion hereafter. You had need open it too.

I am now come to your seventh point: That it is the duty of all Gods people, as well as Preachers, to expound Scrip­ture. This you endeavour to prove, saying,

What you mean by expounding Scripture I cannot tell. If you mean by it searching the Scripture, to finde out the will of God in it, for the advantage of their own soules, and to furnish them to the duties of their relati­ons and callings, it is granted you. But if you mean by expounding, undertaking to deliver to Congregations, this to be the meaning of the Scripture, you have neither proved it is commanded nor commended.

Your five reasons which have served almost all your Doctrines prove it not. To the first I answer: What ever duty lies upon private Christians to doe, may be done by them to their brethren, without speaking to them out of Moses chaire.

To your second I answer: You have not proved that they have the guift of Scripture exposition; if they have the guift, yet they must have the Office too. Those two places, 1 Cor. 2.12, 16. 1 Cor. 12.7. I answered before.

To the third, I deny that they must be able to expound them themselves, to enable them to make the best advantage of them. The best use they can make of [...]m, is to search their hearts, and order their lives by them; And this they may doe upon the hearing of others expound them. 2. For their own uss they ought to apply them.

To your fourth, I say, that this was never commended by God. Indeed searching the Scriptures, to see if it be true that Preachers say, is in that place Act. 17.11. com­mended: [Page 88] but for that other place which you quote, 2 Pet. 1.19. I admire at your application of it. The words are these, We have also a more sure word of prophecy, to which ye shall doe well if ye take heed, Exhortatio est ad legendas Scripturas pro­pheticas. Estius ad loc. as to a light that shineth in a dark place, till &c. The words are in themselves a precept, in­deed they carry in them a commendation of them that Take heed to the word of prophecy. But (Sir) what doe you think is meant there by the word of prophecy? Private bre­threns expounding Scripture? Doubtlesse the Apostle never call'd this a light shining in a dark place. No, no, the Apostle means the Prophets, V. Calv. ad loc. Beza ad loc. Deodat. ad loc. Lorinus ad loc. and word of prophecy in the Old Testament. See Calvin, Deodate, our late Annotations. Beza, he call's this a more sure word, [...]. More sure, not in respect of it selfe, but because the Jewes, to whom he wrote, had it in a very high estimation. So Beda, Aquinas, Hugo, Erasmus, &c. yea, and St. Augustine so understands it, De verbis Apostoli, Ser. 27. Quis enim nostrum non miretur delata voce de coelo certiorem propheticum sermonem ab Apostolo dictum esse, &c.

Who would not wonder (saith he) that the Apostle should say, Aug. ser. 27. de verbis Apo­stoli. that the words of the Prophet are more sure then the voice from Heaven. He saies indeed it is more certain, but he doth not say it is better or more true, for that word from Heaven was as true and good and profitable as the word of prophecy. What therefore doth he mean by more certaine, but that the hearers would not undoubtedly believe: and why so? because men were unbelievers, and detracted from Christ, saying, that what he did he did by Magick; therefore unbelievers might refer the voice that came from Heaven to Magick arts by their humane conjectures, and unwarra [...]ble curiosities. Thus that holy man. And further to the same purpose, T. 9 tract. 35. in Joan.T. 9. tract. 35. in Johannem. So that this place, Sir, is nothing to your pur­pose.

Your third place to prove it is commended, is Rom. 15.14. where the Apostle saith, that he was perswaded they were full of goodnesse, full of all knowledge, able to admonish [Page 89] one another. Here he commends them, that they were full of all knowledge; but how doth he commend them here for expounding Scripture, that is a piece of practice. Nor doth the Apostle mean,Scilicet eorum quae ad fidem pietatem & sa­lutem sicat piis necessaria. Pa­reus ad loc. they were fill'd with all know­ledge in all kinds and degrees, for 1 Cor. 13 12. he saies, that himselfe knew but in part: he meanes therefore all necessary knowledge.

Lastly, you tell us, they are commanded to expound Scrip­tures: but where, sir? You tell us, Jo. 5.39. Deut. 6.7. 1 Pet. 4 10. Col. 3.16. For that place, Io. 5.39. they are in­deed commanded to search the Scriptures; but what is that to a practicall expounding of them?

In Deut. 6.7. we are commanded to teach our children the Law of God, and to talk of it in our house: but doe you think (sir) every Jewish housholder was to expound the Law, or that there have not been many old Christians have taught their children and families more of the Law of God heretofore, then professors usually doe now, and yet never expounded the Law to them. But suppose they may hint to their families some obvious observations from the Scrip [...]es they read (though I doe not think that is commanded there) yet neither is this an expoun­ding Scriptures, nor that which you plead for.

For the third place, 1 Pet. 4.10. I spake to it before: There is nothing but a generall command to Christians, to use the guift of God bestowed on them; which gene­rall must be restrained by other Scriptures, to manner, time, and place. Your last proofe is 3. Col. 16.

There indeed Christians are commanded to let the word of God dwell in them richly, to teach, and admonish one ano­ther. But (sir) all this may be done without expounding Scripture: so that this place proves nothing to your purpose. And thus I have shewed you the insufficiency of the proofe of this proposition, though if you mean no more, Then that it is the duty of Christians privately to read, search, and study the Scriptures, to endeavour to finde out Gods [Page 90] will in them, I grant it you. But then this seventh pro­position amounts to no more then your fourth, and you might have spared your selfe and me this trouble.

CHAP. IX. In which the 16 and 17 pages of Mr. Sheppards book, containing his eighth and ninth positions are examined, and his proofe of them scann'd, &c.

Page 16.I Am now come to your eighth position, viz.

This you prove by six Reasons, which I will examine apart. [...], saith the Proverb. We have had this said over and over again; it was the substance of the seventh proposition. Let us see if it be better proved here.

1. Your first reason is, because the Se [...]ure by exposition is made more usefull and profitable. This doth not prove (sir) that therefore they ought to expound it to them­selves, or one to another. This proves indeed that it ought to be expounded to them.

2. Your second reason, because they are to be alwaies tea­ching, reproving, & comforting one another: and this cannot be done without expounding, &c. How often shall I answer this crambe? 1. This may be done by applying to themselves and others plaine and easie Scriptures, for which there needs no expounding. 2. By applying to themselves and others the sound interpretation of those that God hath call'd to that office to interpret his will.

3. Thirdly, you say, Every private Christian hath in him a guift more or lesse, and this is not to be hid. To prove that they have a guift of Scripture interpretation you [Page 91] bring again, 1 Cor. 12 17. I am sick of this tautologizing, this is the third time I have met with this, but I must look I see instead of strength of arguments, for to be served with a flood of words, I answer again you have not pro­ved they have all a guift. 2. If they had they must be called to the exercise, or else, every Souldier that hath the gift of warlike prudence might be a Colonell.

4. They should covet more then this (you say) viz. to pro­phecy, 1 Cor. 14.1, 5. and to speak with Tongues too v. 5. They are as much bound to one as the other. But (Sir) it was their duty to covet those gifts, because then they were not ceased, but not ours alike now: the like may be said to that place, Num. 11 29. Prophecy was an extraordinary gift of God then in date, now ceased, Moses did not wish they were all Priests.

5. Your fifth reason is the same with the fourth you say: All the people of God as well as the Preachers, are commanded to labour for the highest degree of this guift, and wherfore are they to labour for it if not to use it when attain'd, 1 Cor. 14.1, 39. 1 C r. 12:31. 1 Cor. 14.20.

1. The substance of this was answered before. 2. The second as wel as, upon which all your strength lieth, is not proved (but I perceive you take great paines to prove that which none denies. You say Io. 4 39.Page 16. [...] I suppose you meane Io. 5.39. ‘We are commanded to search the Scrip­turet, and Mr. Loigh te's you it is a metaphor taken from them that dig in mines, and if so, it noteth foure things. 1. The breaking in pieces of the earth. 2. The taking out the precious matter. 3. The carefull laying of it up. 4. The em­ploying it to the use to which it serveth, whence you infer p. 17. That it is the duty of all Christians industriously to study the word of God, to breake it in pieces in his meditati­ons, draw and take out the spirituall sense and truths thereof. carefully to lay up these in his soule, and then bring them forth upon occasion for the profit of others, and so no doubt it is, Psal. 1.2. Col. 3.16. Acts 17.11. Deut. 6.7. Mat. 13.51 Psal. 119.11.’

Nihil necesse est ut similitudo aut Analogia quadret per om­nia. Erasmus de rat. conc. 428.To your foure particulars and your inference, I answer shortly.

1. I perceive you are good at making similitudes run on foure feet contrary to the knowne maxime, I shall minde you of a rule in Divinity. Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa, and a Latin Proverb, Similia ad pompam, non ad pugnam.

2. You are out in your metaphor, for usually those that dig in the Mine are neither they that lay up the oare, nor Mint it, nor employ it.

Similitudo legi­tur proverbio­rum. 11. Monile aureum in naribus porci est mulier for­mosa—mag­num sane disc [...]i­men inter porcū & mulierem. Hyperius de rat. studii Theol. l. 2. c. 19. Ob. 5.3. The care is to be purified in the furnace too, and to re­ceive a stampe before it be currant, but Gods word is puri­fied seven times.

4. I grant all you say to be a Christians duty, but what Christians? and when, and how, this is the Question, he that digs in the Mine must have a spade, Christians must have gifts to doe it with; and doe it by meanes, and then imploy it according to the rule, as the righteous man, Psal. 1.2. as the Colossians ch. 3.16, and the Bereans, Acts 17.11. in their families, Deut. 6.7.

6. You adde: By this meanes especially Christians may as salt season themselves and others, keepe them from corruption and destruction, and they and their workes made savoury to God and good men, and as a candle they will give light to all the family of God about them, Math. 5.13, 14, 15.

By this meanes? what meanes by unlearned mens expo­sitions of Scripture? Saint Peter thought otherwise, for he sayes they wil wrest them to their own destruction, 1 Pet. 3.16. there is no speaking against experience (Sir) we have seen this a meanes to corrupt and pervert others to draw men off from Ordinances and duties, and to a contempt of the messengers of the Gospell and meanes of grace, in­stead of giving light they have beene like thieves in the candle, eclipsing the light of truth and holinesse, a little more time will convince you Sir of your mistake; in this surely a diligent attendance upon the preaching of the [Page 93] Gospell by Christs commission officers, were a better meanes to these ends.

I am now come to your ninth position:

‘That those that have received any speciall gift of prophecy or Scripture exposition are to exercise and use it so as may be of most advantage to the Church.Primò termi ni axiomatis expli­candisunt— Chappell in Meth. conc. 133.’

Your not opening your proposition, makes you speak very darkly, and puts me to much trouble, you should have told us.

1. What you meane by gift of prophecy.

2. Who are those that have that same speciall gift.

1. If you meane by gift, office, as the Apostle hath it, 1 Tim. 4.14. it is granted, but then it makes nothing to your purpose.

2. For the guift of prophecy, none hath it now.

3. For the gift of expounding Scripture, those that have it are bound to exercise it in their place and calling, otherwise it cannot be for Gods glory or the Churches good.

But I suppose your meaning is, That there are some not in office that have an ability to expound Scripture, and they are bound to use it as shall be most advantagious to the Church Keeping the rules of Gods word and the bounds of their callings, I grant it you. You say, 1. It is given them for this purpose: Right.

2. God requires it (you say) 1 Pet. 4.10, 11.

You are afraid we should say that that Text is onely to be understood of gifts given to men in office only, and to prevent it, you tell us, it is improbable; for,

1. You say the Epistle was written to the Jewes amongst whom were as you thinke few regular Churches.

2. The words are generall, and so not to be restrained.

I know none sayes that the gift there spoken of is to be restrained to gifts given men in office, but it may much be questioned whether the gift there meant, be not [...]ffice, [...]. it is the same word there used that is used. 1 Tim. 4.14. [Page 94] and there office is plainely meant, and then it followeth, as stewards of the manifold grace of God; now stewards is a name of office, applyed to Ministers and officers. 1 Cor. 4.1. Tit. 1.7. and no where in Scripture applyed to private persons not in office. But you thinke there were no regular Churches amongst the Jewes, and so no officers, what thinke you (Sir) of the Elders mentioned, 1 Pet. 5.1.2. that are commanded to feed the flocke of God amongst them, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, &c. Was not that flock of God under the oversight of Elders a Church thinke you?

But the words are generall, and therefore to be understood of all Christians and all gifts? Truth (Sir) if there were no other Scriptures to limit them, nor are the words gene­rall neither, if Christians have not [...], there spoken of. I passe over your other five reasons as proving nothing that I have denied, nor any thing to your pur­pose.

CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 18, 19, 20, 21 pages, are examined, and his tenth position, and what he hath said to prove it, is scann'd.

I Am come to the last of your Lifeguard, your propo­sition is this:

‘That opening and applying Scriptures by private men one to another, in a way of teaching, reproofe, Admonition, Ex­hortation, and comfort hath beene frequently blessed of God for the begetting of grace in the hearers, and increase of it.’

Now you have done us the favour to tell us, what you meant all this while by expounding; for your position, I onely am troubled you have not told us, when and where and how, and that you have used the word frequently. [Page 95] For the proofe of this you appeale to experience, saying,

‘Let the Converters and Believers of our dayes be askt by what meanes they were brought into Christ? and what it is that doth edifie them in the faith of Christ? and doubtlesse they will tell us of other meanes also with Pulpit-preaching, and by other men as well as Preachers in [...]ffice. To all I answer:’

1. (Sir) if you meane that God hath pleased to blesse the private labours of his people in their private exhor­tings and reprovings of one another to encrease Grace in the soules of his servants, I doubt it not.

2. But if you meane that God hath frequently blessed the publike preachments of persons not called to that office for the conversion of soules, I doubt it very much.

3. You make a very ill appeale to the Converts of our age. Perverts there are many, but the Lord knowes few converts, and very strange believers and professors; appeale (Sir) to the old puritanes of formes ages, aske them by whom God spake to their hearts.

4. Gods making use of such meanes, as private admo­nition or reproofes to convert souls, doth not prove that this is Gods great ordinance, for that end Waldus the father of the Waldenses confesseth his conversion to a sud­den death of a friend or companion of his, but yet none will say sudden deaths are Gods ordinance for conver­sion.

5. God may sometimes possibly begin a conviction by a private reproof, but I believe he usually makes use of his word Preached to beget Faith, and to perfect the work.

Lastly, I say the holy one is not limited, but I believe you would be posed to bring me one good instance of a soule converted from a loose and profane life to an humble, close, strict walking with God in truth and uprightnesse that hath sate under no meanes but onely the Preaching of a private person, that not being called to the office of [Page 96] the Ministry hath yet set upon that work, it were easie to bring you five hundred that have been perverted.

I appeale to all the Hereticks and Blasphemers in Eng­land, all the Antinomians, Antiscripturists, Antitrinitari­ans, Ranters, where did any of you learn your principles? was it with constant hearing of the Ministers of the Gos­pell, or rather was it not with hearing men that without any call but upon the pretence of their gifts undertooke to expound the mysteries of God.

And (Sir) if three have been this way converted and edified, and the soules of five hundred perverted and de­stroyed, what becomes of your proposition, or to what purpose is it brought us?

To your proofes, That God doth hold forth those duties and ordinances as meanes of Grace, 1 Cor. 7.16. Math. 18.15, 16, 17. Jam. 5.19, 20. we grant it, and they are so when performed regularly; the woman may be an instrument to save her husband. 1 Cor. 7.16. But not by Preaching to him, but by carrying her selfe as a believing wife before him, Math. 18.15, 16, 17. proves it concerning private ad­monition, but prove Sir, by any Scripture. That the tea­ching Brother, not called to the office hath a promise made to him.

"You tell us secondly, that it is the word that doth rege­nerate.

Yea, and this (very controversiall truth doublesse) you prove by a whole line of quotations. Fewer would have served the turne (you should lay most proofe Sir up­on the weakest cause) He that dispenseth it, is but the convey­ance or conduit-pipe by which it is carried, 1 Cor. 3.5. Very much truth doubtlesse; but to what purpose doth any speak otherwise? hence you infer, that the word is the same in a private, as in a publike officers mouth; True Sir, it is so materially, but not formally; the one speaks with authority, the former only as a Scribe, the one as Christs messenger particularly entrusted, the other without any such com­mission.

By this time your conscience checks you, that the A­postle Ro. 10.14, 15, 16. and you in this doctrine are not of a minde and p. 19, 20, 21. you spend, to answer that unanswerable place.

‘1. You grant that the Preaching of the word by a Preacher in office is the speciall and common way of gathering in men to Christ, and a singular ordinance for increase of men gai­ned and converted, yet this is not the onely meanes, nor all the Ordinances of Grace, for there are many more that men are to attend upon for their edification and growth in Grace as well as this.’

(Sir) for this concession we thanke you, for we are be­holding to any one that in this erroneous age will give an assent to any truth of God, and to requite you, we grant you that Preaching of officers is not the only means of edification, which is all you say.

But you conceive that that place, Ro. 10, 13, 14, 15. is mistaken, and therefore you have favoured us with a kinde of loose paraphrase, p. 19, 20. But Sir to keep you close to the businesse, what sending is there meant? the A­postle plainely sayes, how shall they preach except they be sent? your paraphrase hath not touched this passage; I sup­pose you were shy of it wittingly, for this is the onely passage in the Text that galleth you.

You tell us negatively, p. 20.

"That it is not to be taken in a literall and restrained sence, for then these things would follow.

‘1. That by hearing the Scriptures read by a Preacher in of­fice, men may (I suppose you would say, may not) be brought to believe.’ But you think men may be converted by rea­ding, or hearing them read by any.

‘2. That men are not brought into or nourished in the faith of the Gospell by reading Scriptures, Epistles, good bookes, con­ferences, &c.’

‘3. That it is as impossible for a man to have Faith with­out hearing a called Preacher, as to be saved without Faith, [Page 98] or to have Faith without the word of God.’

It is easier to say what is not meant then what is, but p. 21. you tell us. That the Text is cleare enough that by Preachers sent is meant any one that God by his providence shall send to tell men the glad newes of the Gospell; by the subsequent words, v. 15. and the two Texts, Nahum. 1.15. Es. 52.7.

2. Pag. 20. ‘You tell us, that when a gifted brother doth preach the doctrine of the Apostles and prophets, the hearers heare the Apostles and prophets, who were preachers sent.’

‘3. If the Scripture it self without any preacher speak, then it may be heard without any other preacher, then he that first preacht it. If the workes of God have a voyce and speake, as they have, and doe preach, Psal. 19.1, 2, 3. Micah 6 9. If the works of men speake as Heb. 11.4. Abel being dead yet speaketh, that is teacheth the world to imitate him, how much more then may Gods word be said to speake.’

‘4. That the Apostles did preach by their writings as well as by their voyce and speech.’

This is the substance of all you say over and over again; it comes to this little pittance of truth, that preaching is taken in a proper and in a figurative sense, that a man may be sent providentially as well as authoritatively; but Sir:

1. We will allow that gifted brethren may Preach, as the workes of God are said to preach, Psal. 19.1, 2, 3. Mi­cah. 6.9. And as dead Abel spake, but (Sir) these prea­chers were not [...] Gods heralds, as those spoken of, Rom. 10.

2. Gods word (Sir) doth speake, but it doth not preach (in Scripture phrase) nor is its speaking the ordinary meanes of God to convert soules to Christ. Mr. Perkins tels you there is a difference betweene reading and preaching a Sermon. Mr. Burroughes in his Gospel-worship saith the latter is under a more speciall appointment for conversion of soules then the other. God hath said, Heare and your soules shall live, Not, Read and your soules shall live, though we [Page 99] grant reading to be a duty, and of singular use.

3. For your new Nonneno of second hand hearing, the Scripture allowes no such distinction, that's but a cheat put upon the reader, will not any one thinke him mad that should interpret, Faith comes by hearing, that is, by reading, and how shall they preach, that is, how shall the Scriptures preach, except they be sent?

4. By the same foppish fancy I would avoid all places of Scripture that plead either for preaching or hearing. Go preach and baptize, what is the meaning of that, go preach by an holy life and baptize, or go write bookes and bap­tize; but having shewed you the folly of your quibles, I come to your answer. As you cannot avoid the strength of this place by distinguishing of preaching, the prea­ching there meant, being the preaching of words not of workes, and writings, and dead letters, but the preaching of them that make reports of God to the soule, v. 16. those that have feet, and bring glad tidings of peace, not the Gospells preaching, but the preaching of the Gospell, v. 16. such a preaching as hath a sound goe with it, v. 18. and correlates to hearing.

So neither can you avoid it by distinguishing upon sending, I demand what sending is meant? you tell me a providentiall sending, and this is cleare enough by these subse­quent words, v. 15. Nahum. 1.15: Es. 52.7.

So say the Socinians and Erastians, but it is a miserable shift.

1. The Originall word is [...] which signifies to send as an embassadour (saith A lapide) to send with power and authority (saith Chamier.)

2. But secondly I am at a losse to understand this blind notion of a Providentiall sending, when may a man be said to be Providentially sent? And indeed it hath posed better heads then mine to fadome this Notion, how shall one know if he be providentially sent, will you say, if God hath furnished him with gifts, and he meets with [Page 100] an opportunity to exercise them? then a Blasphemer may be a sent preacher, for he is providentially sent, the provi­dence of God permitting him to play his game, but sure­ly the Apostle never meant such a sending as might be from the Devill directly, and from God onely permissively; yet such are providentially sent; but I have cleared this Text from this Erastian glosse in my Vindiciae Ministerii, p. 42, 43, 44, 45.

3. Thirdly, let us see what sense you have made of the Apostles words by your glosse: how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, that is, either by the writings of good men; or by reading of the Scriptures, or by considering the workes of God, or by making use of the Examples of dead Saints (for this four-fold hea­ring you will have) and how shall they heare without a prea­cher, that is, how shall they read the Scriptures if they have no Scriptures to reade? how shall they consider the workes of God, if they have none to consider? how shall they read good bookes, if none write any? how shall they imitate such men as Abel if there be none to imitate? And how shall they preach except they be sent, that is, how shall any man speake to another, if he doth not come where he is? Sir, I am of the minde the spirit never guided you in this interpretation, by which you have justled out the two great ordinances of the Gospell, Preaching and hearing, and have pleaded faire for the Papists who tell us of their pictures preaching, and making lay-men ser­mons. But fourthly:

4. Sir doe you thinke the Apostles were no more then providentially sent? had Isaias no more thinke you, nor the 70 any more?Ʋ A fuller an­swer in Gille­spies Miscell. quaest. p. 40. it is plaine that they are spoken of, v. 15, 16 17, 18, had Christ no more? he is spoken of Na­hum. 1.15. so that the following, verses and those two Texts, Nahum 1.15. Is. 52.7. are so farre from being clearely for you, that they are fully against you, and ar­gue more then a providentiall sending.

[Page 101]5. The providence of God ordereth all our motions and actions, Hananiah, Ier. 28. was providentially sent, but was he sent to work faith in the hearers think you.

6. It is such a sending, as it must be a duty in us to heare them that are so sent, but providentiall sending is no such sending, the seducers mentioned 2 Tim. 3.6, were providentially sent, (how came they there else?) but yet surely it was not a Christians duty to heare them, but to avoid them, v. 5. So that Sir, what sending soever the Apostle meanes, it was not a meere providentiall sending, you must find out a new distinction, or you cannot avoid this place.

But you say,Pag. 20. the Text cannot be understood in a literall and restrained sense: what that is you doe not mention. I suppose you meane, That none may preach but those that are in office, So you expound your selfe in your three answers.

I am glad to hear you grant that the literal sense of Sent, is one in office,Whitaker de Interpretati­one Scripturae q. 5. c. 2. Etsi enim verba varie accommo­dari & appli­cari possunt vel tropologicè, vel Allegorice, vel Anagogice, vel alio aliquo modo, non tamen ob id sunt varū sensus variae interpretationes & explicationes Scripturae, sed sensus tantum unus est, idemque literalis, qui variè potest accom­modari, &c. ib. now sir I will give you a noiion of Reverend Whitaker in his controversies. Saith he, though words may be variously referred and applyed, Tropologically, Allegorically or Anagogically, or any other way, yet there are not various senses of Scripture, or various interpretations and explications of Scripture, but the sense of all Scripture is one, and that lite­ral, which may be variously applyed, and out of which many things may be gathered.

It is Basils note, that the literall interpretation, if it can be admitted, is never to be rejected.Ex verbis sen­sum sequamur, ex sensu ratio­nem & ex ratio­ne veritatem apprehendamus. D. Hilarius de Trin. l. 5. V. Hyperium. de rat. studii. Theol. c. 35. But you tell us it can­not be admitted here, and why? I pray it will follow then you say.

‘That by reading the Scripture or hearing it read, men can­not be converted.’ This is the substance of your first and second cavill which are both the same, but you have [Page 102] not writ your book by the rule of frustra fit per plura quod fieri possit per pauciora.

3. You answer, that then it will follow, that it is as im­possible "for a man to be converted and have faith without hearing a sent preacher, as it is for a man to be saved without faith.

1. To these three cavills I answer, that it is not ordinary for a man to be converted by reading, or hearing the Scriptures read, nor by hearing those that are not ministers of the Gospell. To God all things are possible, nay, I believe an hundred are saved without actuall faith, to one that is converted by a gifted brother, or any way but by Gospel-officers; for what shall we thinke of children of belie­ving Parents dying in their infancy. But secondly:

2. According to your owne interpretation no man can be converted but by a Preacher sent providentially; so that for your objection concerning Reading and conver­sion that way,V. Gillespy Miscell. Qu. it will fall heavy upon your selfe, and when you unty it for your selfe, we shall have the liberty to make use of your distinction for us we hope.

3. Preaching is as necessary as hearing, and a sent prea­cher as necessary as either, yet all onely mentioned as Gods ordinary meanes to which he is not tied.

4. They are all necessary, not by absolute necessity, God can save those that never call'd upon him, nor actu­ally believed nor heard, but he doth not ordinarily con­vert or save those that have opportunities to heare prea­chers sent,Gillespy Miscel. Quest. p. 41. and time of believing, and refuse those meanes of grace which he hath appointed: It will be hard to prove saith Mr. Gillespy that any believe who can heare the Gospell preacht by Ministers lawfully call'd and sent, and doe not heare it.

5. Lastly, it is possible that by reading the Scripture, or hearing it read, or by conferences, or private exhor­tations, or reproofes, or the like, God may create in some soules, reflections upon themselves, and begin convicti­ons, [Page 103] but the question is now, suppose these Christians should never hear a minister of the Gospel preach, and yet might doe it, whether a continued Reading were enough to carry on this work to a full worke of conviction and contrition, and to a clozing with Christ in sincerity. I doubt whether one instance of this can be brought or no. (Sir) every slighty conviction and reflection of ones Spirit upon it self, that may be in order to conversion is not formall conversion.

And now, Sir, having examined your lifeguard, I come to the great proposition which you lay downe p. 21.

CHAP. XI. In which the main Question is stated, and Mr. Shep­pards Extensions and Limitations of it are Exa­mined.

THis great point of controversie as you call it, you lay downe p. 21. open it p. 22. I will be thrifty of my paper, and take you at the second rebound; in the close of the 22 page you tell us, The summe of what you hold is this,

‘That a man out of office, gifted indeed and fitted to the worke, may lawfully in a publike way expound and apply the Scriptures to the people in a settled Church, without any externall call of the Church enabling and authorizing him to the office.’

That is without Election, Ordination, or confirmation, (as you expound it before) this proposition you, 1. Ex­tend. 2. Limit. 3. Pretend to prove. 4. And to Vindi­cate from objections. In this Chapter I will examine your Extensions and Limitations. For your Extensions, you say it may be done,

‘1. In some cases ordinarily and constantly, what cases [Page 104] these are we cannot learne from you, you instance on­ly one, viz. where no preacher in office can be had: this we grant you, necessity hath no law.’

2. It may be done you say by taking Texts, raising observa­tions "and doctrines, and making applications thereof.

"3. It may be done on the Lords day, or any other day.

"4. In the publike Assemblies.

5. In the publike meeting place.

6. In the Pulpit.

We grant you all this where there are no preachers in of­fice can be heard; it may be done as you say ordinarily and constantly, and he that doth it may expect a more extra­ordinary assistance of God, in regard the ordinary means faile. But (Sir) what kind of constituted Churches are these that have no preachers in office belonging to them. I take it, a constituted Church must be a body of Chri­stians united, and under the inspection of a Pastour.

Extraordinarily and occasionally, if on the Lords day the congregation be met, and the Minister failes through sicknesse or otherwise, and there be no preaching Mini­ster near to whom the people may go, we agree with you, that a private person, if prepared and truly gifted, may either in the Church, or in some other place, according to his gift, discourse of the Scripture to the people, though we think he might spend the time as well in repeating a Sermon to them, and they spend their time as well in go­ing home and searching the Scriptures, and meditating and praying privately.

It is true that you say, that there were exhortations in the Jewish Synagogues, but the places you quote, Io. 16.20. Acts 18.28, 13, 15, 20, 9. prove onely that Jesus Christ so taught, and Paul and Apollos (called by the A­postle, 1 Cor. 3.5. a Minister, and rank'd with Paul) so exhorted, none of these were meere gifted brethren.

Page 24.You would have such men as these, viz. Naylers, Tay­lors, Bakers, Weavers. p. 22. have leave and encouragement [Page 105] to visit Parishes destitute and unprovided, and exercise their gifts; and doubtlesse you say this would doe more good then setting up meer Readers.

I answer: 1. Provided that first all those be first employed who are more fit for it, being more eminently gifted with learning and the knowledge of the Tongues, being also sober and godly.

2. Provided that according to the Apostles rule, these same Nailors leave making Nailes, and the Taylors leave stitching, and the Coblers cobling, and the Weavers wea­ving, or else I am afraid that rule of the Apostle will be broken, which he gives to preachers, 1 Tim. 4.15. Medi­tate upon these things, give thy selfe wholly to them, and that v. 13. Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to do­ctrine. Surely you will not say, that those rules concerne onely preachers ordained, that are pastors: for then it must follow. That it is Gods will that the pastors of Chur­ches should meddle with his word reverently and seriously, and speake of it premeditately: but the gifted brethren have a priviledge to prate at randome and ex tempore, and that curse denounced on them that doe the worke of God neg­ligently belongs onely to pastors in office.

3. Provided that they be called and sent out, and ordained according to the Gospel-rule, else they will not be able to answer him that questions them, who gave you this autho­rity? it will be no Scripturall answer to say: the State gave it me, with these provisoes, I grant you what you would have, especially considering your excellent limi­tations, and your sober reproofe of extravagant mem­bers in p. 24. 25, 26, 27. Against which I have nothing to say, but easily grant you that all Gospel-preachers must be limited by those rules. And I am glad to heare from you so sober a checke of the lawlesse preachers of this sinfull age.

But yet (Sir) you must pardon me, if I yet after all this say to him that would be a preacher [...] one thing [Page 106] is yet wanting, if you be an ordinary constant preacher, viz. A solemne setting apart to the office after Probation by fasting and Prayer, and laying on of the hands of the Presby­tery, without which his constant preaching will be a constant sinning against God in the rules of the Gospell. This now you oppose by 10 Arguments, from the 27 to the 50 page of your booke: I come now to the strength of them.

CHAP. XII. In which Mr. Sheppards first Argument for Guif­ted brethrens preaching ordinarily, is examined, and answered.

YOur first argument is (ex concesso) you say, we grant you:

‘1. That private persons may, and must read the Scrip­tures, Catechize their families, and that they may expound the Scripture to their families, Deut. 6.7, 8, 9. Col. 3.16. and they which tell you that every Master is a Prophet, a Priest, and a King in his family. And’

2.—‘That we give you leave privately, occasionally, ex­traordinarily, and by way of discourse to reprove, admonish, encourage, teach, exhort, comfort, support, feed, out of the texts: Leu. 19.17. Heb. 3.13. Es. 2.2. Mal. 3.10. Gal. 6.2. Job 2.17. Acts 18.26. Pro. 20.23. And’

3.— ‘They also allow you to make an open confession of your faith, or an Apology for defence against unjust accusations, or being a Magistrate to give a charge to the people, and this they warrant by other Scriptures.’

4. ‘And that in case of planting or decay, or corruption of a Church, and where a Church is not regularly constituted, that in these and such like cases a gifted man may ordinarily and publikely preacht and that without a solemn call.’ And

[Page 107]5. That they may preach as probationers, and by writing. "Nay

6. We doe admit strangers to preach, of whose call we are not "assured.

Here is now an huddle of arguments together, all ta­ken out of our own concessions and practice; for my better answer I will observe this method.

1. I will shew you how farre we have granted those, or any of those.

2. I will examine, quid inde? what this Gentleman can conclude from those our grants.

3. I will answer what he sayes in the enforcing his argument.

1. Therefore I confesse I have granted him, that pri­vate persons must read the Scriptures, Catechize their fa­milies, and they may observe what God discovers to them of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. This I have granted from Deut. 6:6, 7. and the usuall notion that every one is a Priest, Prophet, and King in his family, in my Vindi­ciae, p. 19. 20. but not that he may un [...]y the difficult pla­ces of Scripture, or meddle with the [...]; see my limi­tations of this grant, p. 20. for Col. 3 16. indeed my Brother Hall quotes it as a proofe of this, but I have not, being not I think so clear and conclusive; but suppose we doe grant this, if you have any argument from this (Sir) it must be thus.

What private persons may doe in their families privately, that they may doe in a constituted Church, and its assembly publikely, but privately they may teach their Children and ser­vants. Ergo.

I deny your major utterly, (Sir) you may as well con­clude that every private person may rule the Church, be­cause he may rule in his family. God hath set him over his family to instruct that, but not over his Church to instruct that; see my answer to this trifling argument in my Vindiciae, p. 64. 65.

‘But you say people and preachers are both meant alike Rev. 1. v. 5, 6.19. 1 Pet. 2.9.—and therefore the duty and power laid upon them and given them hereby, is to be perfor­med in other places as well as their own houses.’

1. I grant you, that for the terme Priests, it doth not properly belong to the Ministers of the Gospell.

2. That it is by allusion applyed to both, and the people are called Priests, and Preachers Priests in a common notion. But yet let me tell you, I doe not thinke their services are both alike. For:

3. He that Ministred the Gospell of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the holy Ghost, was one that was in office and had grace given him of God, to be a Minister of the Gospel of Christ, Ro. 15. [...]6. Shew me where in that sense the people are called Priests.

‘You tell us next, that that place Deut. 6. Doth contain and command more then bare reading the Scriptures, and and preaching of them to a mans owne family onely, and to this purpose you tell us, that that Text in Deut. seems to be a Metaphor taken from whetting an instrument, by which it is made more sharpe, and so more usefull.’ So the word of God, &c.

I wonder how many words you would have to re­straine a Text, here are four or five, 1. To thy children. 2. In thy house. 3. When thou lyest downe and risest up. 4. Ʋpon the posts of thy house and thy gates. Let the indifferent reader judge whether this Text be not enough restrained.

For your observation of the metaphor, I say nothing, for it is nothing to the present purpose.

‘But p. 29. You say, suppose there come twenty or an hun­dred in of the neighbours, may you not preach to them also, &c.’

Sir, we can give you no license to preach to any. To the law and to the testimony, if that say you may, you may, if not, you may not; this Text in Deuteronomy gives you no liberty to preach to them, nor doe I know any that doe; you may doubtlesse, if they come occasionally [Page 109] to joyne with you in a family duly) go on with your duty before them, but if you make it your businesse to call them into your charret to see your zeale for the Lord of hostes, I know no Scripture will justifie you.

I passe on to our second and third grant, as you say.Scriptures mis­applied.

We doe, (nay the word of God doth) grant you, that you may privately, occasionally, extraordinarily, and by way of discourse reprove, admonish, encourage exhort, comfort, support, but we doe not grant it you from Pro: 20.22. or Mal. 3.10. there is not a letter in them to any such purpose, no more is there in Io. 2.17. nor in Gal. 6.2. nor in Acts 18.26. A­pollos was more then a gifted brother, (Sir) indeed we grant it from Levit. 19.17. Heb. 3.13. Es. 2.2. your o­ther five places are shamefully applyed to shew you that it is not the spirit of God that immediately and specially directs you in applications of Scriptures alwayes.

We doe grant also, that private persons (if called to it) may make open confessions of their faith and apologies on their own defence, and magistrates may make charges: and in them make use of the Scriptures. But now let us heare what you will conclude.

If they may doe this, then they may without any call preach the Gospell publikely in a constituted Church. I deny this shamefull consequence; (Sir) are families constituted Churches? or meetings of people at assizes constituted Churches? fy, fy; surely your mind (if we may judge of it by your Logick) is to abuse, not convince your readers; but to defend your weake cause you tell us,

1. The texts named and duties pressed doe as much appertain to preachers as people, what then Sir? therefore the prea­chers may also exhort &c. privately, we doe not goe to conclude from those Scriptures what you may not doe, but what you may doe.

‘2. You tell us, The preachers have forced these termes, occasionally, extraordinarily, and privately upon the texts, there being not any one word in any of them, holding forth any [Page 110] such distinction or intention, only in Acts. 18.26. a place very neare to one of their texts, there is this, that Apollos, a man then doubtlesse out of office, did mightily convince the Iewes; and that publikely by the Scriptures, proving that Ie­sus was the Christ. Nor can we understand what they meane by these terms, or how to make any certain definition of them, or to give to our selves any certain rules for the guiding our selves therein, the duties enjoyned are common and necessary, the command generall and indefinite, how then are such de­stinctions warrantable?’

‘3. Let the force and use of the words, and the nature of the duties thereby enjoyned, and the use and sense of the words in other Scriptures, Acts 2.4. Heb. 10.22, 23, 24, 25. Acts 15, 32, 13, 15, 11, 23. Titus 2.3. Heb. 5, 12. 2 Chron. 17.7, 8, 19, 6, 7. 2 Tim. 2, 16, 17. be well weighed, and then let the preachers tell us, if they can, wherein these things doe differ from preaching, and how they may be done without preaching.’

"To these cavills I answer.

1. If the preachers have devised the distinctions of Occasionally and Extraordinarily, and privately, you are be­holden to them for it, for you your self make use of them, p. 23. and tell us, that but in some cases it may be done ordinarily and constantly.

2. Though the very word privately should not be found in Scripture, yet words are found that argue the same thing, Heb. 3.13. exhort one another, which is a terme of a private notion and differing from exhorting the congregation.

3. The peoples inquiry concerning the interpretation of Scripture was privately, Math. 24.3. Mar. 13.3. Math. 13.36. contrary to the practice of many publikely to dis­pute with the Preachers when they have done their ser­mons, or interrupting them when they are preaching.

4 As the term (extraordinarily) is not put in, so neither is it needfull: for the duties commanded them are, to [Page 111] be done ordinarily, viz to admonish, reprove, comfort, support, &c.

5. Though it be no where said they must doe it onely privately, yet withall it is no where said they may do it in a constituted Church that hath publike officers to preach to them.

6. Neither is there any one example of any not gifted with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Chost, nor in office that did it publikely.

7. If Apollos mentioned, Acts 18.25, 26. were at that time out of office (which yet by your favour is not doubtlesse) yet he was no private person, for it is more then probable, he had the extraordinary gift of proph [...]cy, and to be sure he was to be a minister in office, 1 Cor. 3.5.

8. The very putting in of that terme, Acts 18.28. and that publikely argued that it was not ordinary for private persons or any not in office to speake publikely in the Sy­nagogues.

9. It is an easie thing for men to pretend ignorance, when they have no mind to understand; to helpe you, By privately, we meane not in publike assemblies and congre­gations: By extraordinarily we meane they may doe it. 1. Where no Ministers in office can be procured or resorted to, till such time as the congregation can be supplyed re­gularly.

10. The duties enjoyned are common and necessary, but those duties are private exhortings, not publike expoun­dings, for those are neither common nor necessary to be performed by persons not in office, and the command is generall, but not to all duties.

11. The command to preach is no more common then that to Baptize Math. 28.19. But your selfe will grant they may not Baptize, unty the knot for your self, and you doe it for us.

12. What though the same words be used to expresse [Page 112] the duty of the peoples private exhortations one of ano­ther, and the Pastors publike exhortations: yet this will not prove that their exhortations are to be in the same manner, nor that the duty is the same. The Magistrate in his charge at an assize may be said to exhort: yet surely it is not every private persons duty so to exhort the peo­ple.

13. If the use of the same word for both be any argu­ment, then they are not only bound to exhort and preach but to doe it as Apostles and prophets and pastors, the places you quote will prove this, yet you your selfe say, p. 24. that they cannot doe it as preachers in office, in an [...]uthoritative way, or as a pastorall act.

14. The same word signifies to Baptize and to wash our hands, or pots and cups, and by your Logick it will follow, that every man that may wash his hands, or every kitchin wench, that is by her office to wash a cup, may Baptize a Christian, why? the word is the same.

But to proceed yet with you p. 30. you say:

‘We grant that in case of planting, or decay, or corruption of a Church, and where a church is not regularly constituted, that in these and such like cases, a gifted man may ordinari­ly and publikely preach without a solemne call. If so, we desire them to consider how neere our case at this time, at least in some congregations, comes to this; if our Churches be rightly constituted (you say) why is there so much labour to alter and reforme the constitution of them?’

1. Let us see how far this is granted. 2. What you can conclude from our grant. 3. how you apply it, and cavill from it.

1. I never granted you that in case of the planting or decay of a Church, and where a Church is not regularly constituted, that in these cases a gifted man might preach without a call, &c. except the case were so, that none could be found to ordain, nor none ordained found to do the Lords worke.

Nor doe I thinke it Regular. I doe not thinke it the [Page 113] best way to convert Indians to send unguifted men to them not ordained. But for the Church to set some apart by fasting and prayer, and send them out to them, with au­thority.See M. Firmin [...] separation ex­amined, p. 60. I am sure this is Gods way when he was to send preachers where Churches were not formed, Acts 13.5. indeed if the case be such that no ordained persons can be found, nor any Presbyters to ordaine them, the case is o­therwise. My Brother Hall in his pulpit-guarded p. 5. 6. durst grant you no more, now what doe you argue from hence.

Those that may preach to Heathens or to Christians where no officers can be had to preach or set apart preachers, these also may ordinarily preach where there are preachers in office and more may be made. A miserable consequence, Sir; apply it to Magistracy, and you will see the absurdity of it.

But you tell us this is our case or very neere.

We are beholden to you for this (Sir) are we no better then Heathens thinke you? 2. Have we no officers ordai­ned in England? nor 3. Any meanes of Ordination? But our Churches are not rightly constituted.

1. The Church of England (Sir) is rightly constitu­ted, here are in it preachers rightly ordained, and people rightly qualified, and the ordinances rightly admini­stred.

2. For the particular Churches in England, possibly they may not be organized regularly, but constituted they are, though corrupted, and so have much need to be refor­med.

3. You have foisted in this terme, Rightly, into our grant; we doe not thinke that every particular fault in the constitution of a Church makes the Lords Vineyard such a common, that every one may come and dig in it.

But fourthly you tell us we grant you,

That gifted men may preach as Probationers, and by wri­ting in what manner and method they please, without any call at all—and that a judge may give a charge,—and a Colonell [Page 114] or Captain exhort his Souldiers.—That a man may com­fort his afflicted friend.

1. The three latter we grant you in terminis as you propound them.

2. We also grant, that men may exercise their gifts as probationers, but not in what manner and method they please; for their method we deny them not what they please, but for the manner it must not be ordinarily but once or twice, or more, in order to Timothies laying on of hands upon them, which must not be suddenly.

3. These Probationers must not be Naylors, Taylors, Coblers, &c. but such as have beene approved, as have stu­died the Scriptures and give themselves wholly to that worke.

4. We say others may write, but we doe not call wri­ting preaching.

But what followes upon this grant?

Will you conclude that therefore those that never in­tend the office of the Ministry, nor to give themselves wholly to that worke, may make it a Trade to preach e­very Lords day in a constituted Church, is there no odds thinke you (Sir) betwixt our grant and your taken con­clusion? we have given you an inch, you have taken an ell.

But lastly you tell us, that we doe constantly admit prea­chers to preach for us that are strangers to us, and of whose call we can have no assurance, I answer.

1. It is no argument to argue a facto ad jus, that because some doe it, it is lawfull.

2. But surely none do it, if they know them to be such as are not called, if we be deceived by report or common fame, or their own words, the sin is not ours so much.

3. I know none that doe it; if there be any, let them plead for themselves. If such thrust into our places, we give them no leave.

And thus Sir, I have shewn you the weaknesse and in­sufficiency [Page 115] of your first argument, which proves too short for your purpose. I come now to your second.

CHAP. XIII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards foure next main Argu­ments are weighed in the ballance of the Sanctu­ary, and found too light.

I Am come now to the second argument (which you call a maine one.

‘That it is no where forbidden in the word of God, and then it cannot be unlawfull.’

Your Logick is this.

What is not forbidden to be done is not unlawfull:

But the ordinary preaching of gifted uncalled men in a constituted Church is not forbidden, Ergo. Arg. 2

As you deliver your mind we must be forced first to distinguish, then to answer: 1. A thing is forbidden ei­ther generally or specially, either directly or by consequence.

If you meane that what is no way forbidden in Scrip­ture, neither by any generall precept, nor by any particu­lar precept, neither directly, nor by consequence, is not unlawfull, then we grant you that what is not forbidden in that sense is not unlawfull. But every thing not com­manded or allowed is in that sense forbidden, for Rev. 22.18. It is forbidden to adde any thing to the word of God.

But then we deny your Minor, and say, that the ordi­nary preaching of persons uncalled publikely in consti­tuted Churches or publike assemblies, if they be such as have not the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost (which are now ceased) is forbidden.

1. For how shall they preach except they be sent, Ro. 10.15. and no man takes this honour to himself.

2. It is no where commanded nor allowed, therefore im­plicitly forbidden.

[Page 116]3. Consequentially they are forbidden, for it is an act of office which they are (by your own confession) forbidden Math. 28.18, 19.

[...]. If you meane by not forbidden, not forbidden in so many words, we deny your Major, and say it doth not fol­low a thing is lawfull, because it is not forbidden in so many words. For upon this score the Surples, the Crosse in Baptisme, bowing at the name of Jesus: in short, most of the Popish ceremonies are not thus forbidden.

‘But you say, this duty is alike necessary with prayer, and you know not any reason why the same rules and liberties should not be granted in one as the other, that it be done in all places, and at all times and all manner of wayes, 1 Tim. 2.8. Eph. 6.18. 1 Thes, 3.10.’

1. We grant you that expounding of Scripture is ne­cessary, but it is not alike necessary for every private Chri­stian to expound Scripture as to pray, Prayer is a piece of naturall worship, Preaching a piece of Instituted worship, and we must keep to the Institution, God hath bid all pray, he hath not bid all preach.

2. The places of Scripture you quote prove nothing for preaching onely, but for praying, which none denies you; yet you set your Scriptures as if they should prove both, but there is no such matter.

Your third argument is this.

‘That the word doth command it, for it doth every where command to exhort,Pag. 32. warne, teach, comfort, reprove, edifie one another, and this cannot be done without the opening and application of Scripture, therefore it is commanded, for it is an undeniable rule; that when any thing is commanded, that also is commanded, without which the other thing cannot be done.’

To bring your argument into forme it must be thus.

‘That which is commanded is lawfull, that is unque­stionably true. But the ordinary preaching and expounding of Scriptures by persons meerely gifted, not called to the office [Page 117] in publike assemblies and constituted Churches is comman­ded. Ergo. This I deny Sir.’

You prove it thus:

‘Where the End is commanded, all necessary meanes is commanded: but exhorting, warning, teaching, reproving, edifying one another is an end commanded, and the ordinary preaching and exp unding Scripture by persons meerely gif­ted not called to the office in publike assemblies, and constitu­ted Churches, is the necessary meanes to that end? therefore this is commanded.’

1: To this I answer, Sir, that I grant God hath comman­ded private persons to comfort, reprove, exhort, edifie one ano­ther, this is an end commanded.

2. That God hath allowed, yea and commanded them the use of necessary meanes to this end, without which the end could not be attained.

3. I say, that although by publike preaching this end is promoted, yet this is not the onely necessary meanes; but Chri­stians may be edified by their brethren without this, and there­fore it doth not follow this is commanded them.

4. Through the ignorance of the preachers, this more proba­bly would be a meanes to pervert them: 2 Pet. 3.16.

5. This argument would prove, that they are comman­d [...]d to administer the Sacraments too, and do all pastorall acts; for they are commanded, say you, to edifie one another, and these are meanes of edification.

6. This argument would prove, that all Saints though not gifted nor any wayes proved or approved, may preach and doe all other pastorall acts, for they are all bound to edifie one another, and these are meanes in order to this end. By this time (Sir) I believe you understand your own falla­cy. For what you say, that the Scriptures have enjoyned these duties, and no where restrained time, place, or manner. I an­swered that before: there must be a time and place too, Sir, observed, or else you may prove they are bound to preach, when the Minister is praying and preaching, as [Page 118] well as what you doe, and for the manner you your self have set downe one, p. 25. and pretended to bring Scrip­ture for it. You say you

‘Know no reason why they may not speak publikely by exhortation to men, as well as in prayer and praise to God.’

I will tell you Sir. 1. Prayer and praise are both pieces of naturall worship, preaching a piece of instituted worship; in performance of which you must keep to the instituti­on. 2. The Scripture doth not so fully prove, nor indeed at all prove your duty of publike preaching. 3. By this argument the vilest men in the world may, yea and are bound to preach for they are bound to pray, Acts 8.22.

Your fourth maine argument as you call it is this.

It being forbidden for women to preach publikely in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. It is strongly implied that it is permitted for men to doe it. ‘As the forbidding of certain persons the entry into the Congregation of the Lord doth ne­cessarily imply, that all others not forbidden might enter other­wise that prohibition of the Apostle had been alogether imper­tinent and uselesse. For there were at that time no women in office, but extraordinary prophetesses, who did and might speake publikely &c.’

Your argument is this.

The Apostle forbidding onely of women to teach and prophecy gives liberty to all men to expound Scriptures publikly, but wo­men are forbidden to prophecy or teach publikely, Ergo. 1 Cor. 13 34. 1 Tim. 2.12.

If any reasonable satisfaction would have served this argument, and the authors and the Abetters of it, it would never have come halting on to the stage againe: I know of twice it hath been beaten off. The Brownists appears with it first, holy Mr. Rutherford knockt it downe, in his due right, p. 301. Chillenden brought it on againe, the Author of the Booke called Church-members set in joint, knockt it downe the second time, p. 30. of that Booke, to it therefore hath beene already answered.

It will infer a liberty for all men as well as gifted men, Church-mem­bers set in joynt, 308. Rutherford, due Right, 301. and if you put in (if they be gifted) why may we not put in if they be ordained.

2. It will infer that all men may administer the Sacra­ments too, because all women are forbidden.

3. It is to be understood of women that had, or pretended to have the gift of prophecy. This the Author of the aforesaid Booke proves, because it is not said [...], but [...]; which particle [...], as he notes from Scaliger, is determinative.

But to this third answer,Gillespy, Miscell. Qu. p. 75. Filodexter Transilvanus, p. 30. Rutherford, due Right, p. 302. that women propophetesses might prophecy publikely; so it could not be meant of them, for they might speake publikly. So said the Brownists, so saith Chillenden. But it is answered by Gillespy, Miscell. Quest. p. 75. by Mr. Rutherford, p. 302. of his due right of Pres­bytery, by Filodexter Transylvanus, in the Book before named, p. 30. that it cannot be proved that women pro­phetesses prophesied publikely in Gospell Churches: nor do any Scriptures prove it: see what they say severally to this cavill.

4. It is answered by Mr. Rutherford, that the Lawes of France forbidding women to fit on the Throne of France, doth not therefore prove every Frenchman may. To this now this Gentleman replies.

‘That the law forbidding women, doth tolerate any man that hath right, and so our gifted Brother hath.’

This is a begging the question: we question whether they have right or no, you prove if they have right they may: that is, if they have right, they have right. Pretty Logick.

5. To what you say, that the forbidding certaine persons to enter into the Congregation, Deut: 23. allowes all other to enter.

I deny that; it allowes indeed that all that are not for­bidden there, nor any where else may, but not that all not there forbidden may: for all the heathen, and all un­cleane [Page 120] persons are not forbidden there, yet it is plaine from other places, they might not enter.

6. Lastly I answer, your comparison halts, there is no paralell betwixt undertaking the worke of preaching, and entring the congregation; entring the Congregation was a thing common; a priviledge that nothing but a prohibi­tion could debar them from; preaching is a publike act of office, to which a man must have a call and mission, or else he can have no warrant to his worke.

CHAP. XIV. In which Mr. Sheppards fifth Argument is brought to the Touch-stone of truth, and found Brasse, not concluding what he would have.

I Am come to your fifth maine argument:

And that is drawne from an induction of particular examples.

‘That it hath been usually so done, and never disallowed, but rather approved by God and good men.’

‘To this purpose you bring us the instance of the Elders, Num. 11.23, 24, 25. Saul, 1 Sam. 5.10. Noah 2 Pet. 2.5. Jehosaphat: 2 Chron. 19.6, 7. Stephen: Acts 7. the 70. Luke 10.1. Simeon, Lu. 2.25, 26. Iob and his friends. Anna, Lu. 2.36, 38. Apollos, Acts 24.25. the primitive Christians, 1 Cor. 14.26. Paul: Acts 29.20, 22. Scribes, Pharises, and Lawyers:’ Those Paul speakes of, Phil. 1.18. the custome of the Jewes: Acts 13.6. Christ himselfe, Lu. 2.42.

Dr. Seaman in his answer to Chillenden, prefixt to his [...]. Pulpit guar­ded, p. 46, 47, 48, &c.To this argument and every piece of it, is already e­nough said by learned Doctor Seaman, the Author of Lay preaching unmarked, p. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. Mr. Hall in his Pulpit guarded, Mr. Ferriby in his lawfull preacher, p. 33, 34, 36, 37. &c. The Author of Church members set in joynt, p. 14.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, &c. Mr. Rutherford [Page 121] in his due right,Lay-preaching unmaskt, p. 11. 12, 13, 14. Mr. Ferriby, in his lawfull preacher, 33. &c. p. 281. 282, 283. and in his peaceable plea, 255. Mr. Gillespy in his Miscell questions p. 66. 67 &c.

One would thinke here have beene replies enough to stop the scolding tongue of this Argument But to be short your argument lies thus:

‘What hath been usually done, and never disallowed but approved by God and good men, may be lawfully done. Granted.’

‘But gifted men meerely gifted, have usually preach' [...] and expounded Scripture being in no office, and that in a consti­tuted Gospell Church publikely and ordinarily.—Ergo.’

1. This proposition is false enough, 1. You must prove that these men were meerly gifted, as Christians are now gifted, and not in office, nor extraordinarily inspired.

Your instances of the Elders Num 11.23, 24, 25. of Saul 1 Sam. 5.10. of Stephen, of Anna, of Apollos, of Paul, of the Scribes and Pharisees, of Christ, come short here.

The Elders had the extraordinary gift of prophecy, Num 11.23. so had Saul, and never after so 1 Sam. 5.10. Stephen was ordained and full of the holy Ghost. Anna was a prophetesse, Apollos a Minister. Paul had received the holy Ghost, Acts 9. The Scribes and Pharises sate in Moses chaire saith our Saviour, and surely Christ himselfe was some thing more then a gifted Brother.

2. Secondly you must prove they expounded and applied Scripture, prove this concerning Eldad and Medad, or Saul, or Noah, or Iobs friends, or Anna.

3. Thirdly, You must prove they did it in a constituted settled Church, in which were publike officers; prove this of Noah, of Saul, of the primitive Christians that were scat­tered, Acts 8.

4. Fourthly, you must prove they did it ordinarily and constantly, prove this of Saul, of Eldad and Medad, of those scattered Christians, Acts 8.

Thus you see Sir what your argument comes to, not [Page 122] one instance holds to your case, you may see fuller an­swers to them in the Bookes which I before cited, when you have disproved them you may expect an answer from them or me.

For Mr. Simons or Mr. Marston, whose Letters you in­sert, their words are no Oracles, and they have neither answered what hath been said against it, nor yet favoured us with any arguments for it. Magisteriall placets or friendly Commendams are worth little to prove a truth, unlesse you can assure us that they are in them guided by an infallible Spirit, which I believe they will hardly say they are, they are Gentlemen I know not, they may be learned and holy, but as I take it there be ten for one as learned and holy are of another mind, you are beholden to them for their Letters, but I thinke the truth of God and the Gospell of Christ is not much.

Page 35.In the close of this argument you would know,

‘What is the difference betweene Preaching and Orations and common placings, speeches, Sermons, and exhortations.’

O Sir, take heed of paralelling the great ordinance of God to an Oration or a Speech, this is a very unsavoury paralell to come from one who seemes to have so much of the feare of God dwelling in him, as you have given the world cause to hope you have (from some sober passages in your Booke) why doe you not as well say what is the difference betweene the word of the living God and a good Sermon-book? Betweene Reading the Scrip­tures, and reading a godly booke; yet Luther was wont to say he would burne his bookes if he thought any one would make that use of them. Suppose there be not a ma­teriall difference, but both be good, yet is there not a great formall difference, is not one the Ordinance of God to salvation, and are the other publike Ordinances under the like divine appointment: (Deare Sir) take heed of such termes to vilifie this great Gospell Ordinance.

CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Sheppards seventh and eighth Argu­ment for Lay-preaching are Examined, and one of them found not to conclude Logically. In the handling of the other is examined whether Pro­phecy, mentioned in the new Testament, be ordi­nary preaching and expounding Scripture.

I Am come to your sixth argument.

The Apostle Paul doth reprove the irregular use of this gift in the Church, 1 Cor. 1.14. and doth direct them in the right use of it.—Ergo.

Your Logick is thus:

‘He that doth reprove an irregular use of a gift, and direct in the right use, doth grant and establish an use. But the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.14. doth reprove the irregular use of the gift of prophecy, and direct in the right use of it.’

Both these propositions are true, I must deny the con­clusion which should be thus, or else it doth not conclude what you would have it.

Ergo, The Apostle doth grant that gifted men not cal­led to the office, may expound Scriptures publikely in a constituted Church.

But Sir, if you conclude thus, I will tell you your pre­misses do not prove your conclusion, and your argument is a paralogisme, all that you conclude is this: Ergo, The Apostle establisheth an use.

We grant it, that in those times there was an extraor­dinary gift of prophecy, which the Apostle establisheth the use of, and directeth those that had it how to exercise it. But what's this to your purpose? if you look againe into that, 1 Cor. 14. you will finde that the Apostle doth give rules likewise to direct in the use of the gift of [Page 124] Tongues, but doth it therefore follow, that that is a stan­ding continuing gift?

But I hasten to your seventh argument, for in this you have not so well lookt as to conclude your question in your conclusion, (surely this is not the argument confir­med Mr. Marston, nor that light that in Mr. Simons Judg­ment should convince the world of this truth) for this argument shies at the Monster and refuseth to conclude neer it. If I mistake not, I am now come to Goliah, & indeed it is the best argument can be brought; yet, if I mistake not, in the strength of God with a sling and a stone, he may be slain too. It is drawn from: 1 Cor. 14.23, 24, 31, 32.

‘You may all prophecy, that is (say you) all amongst you that have this Propheticall gift, [prophecy] that is, use it [one by one] that is orderly one after another, that all may be taught, &c.’

Your argument is this, If all that had the gift of prophecy in the primitive times, might prophecy orderly, then all that have the gift, may expound and apply Scriptures now.

But all that had the gift of prophecy then might—Ergo. we deny your Major: for two reasons.

1. We say that that gift of prophecy was an extraordinary guift which none now have, your argument labours of that fallacy which is call'd Fallacia equivocationis, we say a­gain.

2. That that prophecying was an act of extraordinary officers.

To this you answer:

1. By telling us there are two sorts of Prophets men­tioned in Scripture, 1. Such as were to foretell things to come, or reveale Secrets by vertue of an extraordinary calling from God onely, such you say were Agabus, Acts 11.17, 18, 19, 20 21. Philips Daughters, Acts 21.9. Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Saul, Acts 13.1. Judas, and Silas: Acts 15.32. the twelve Brethren, Acts 19. John Baptist, Math. 11.7, 9. of such the Apostle speakes, 1 Cor. 12 8. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 13.2. [Page 125] and they, Math. 7.22, 23. Math. 15.7. 1 Sam 9 6. All this is true, we will make use of it anon; by the way, I hope I shall heare of none of these Scriptures or instances brought to prove the liberty of private brethrens prophecying. But then you tell us:

‘There were others that improperly and by way of resem­blance called Prophets, either because God did more reveale himselfe to them then to others, and they had a part of the propheticall gift, so Balaam. 2 Pet. 2.16 So Noah was called a Preacher. 2 Pet. 2.5. so some were called Singers —so the Angell calls himselfe a prophet, Rev. 22 9. So the two witnesses who prophecyed, Rev. 11, 3 4. &c. So Abra­ham, Isaac, and Iacob seeme to be called Prophets, Gen. 20 7. Psal. 105.15. — And these were such whether men in or out of office, that had a gift or skill above others, by their study and labour in the word, and not extempore or miracu­lously, and were able to open and apply it to the profit and e­dification of others, 1 Cor. 14.1. 1 Tim. 4.13, 15. 2 Tim. 2.15, 1 Tim. 5.17. And this name we doe not finde to be any where more applied to preachers then to the people. But the preachers in office are clearely distinguished from them as th [...]y are from Apostles and Evangelists, Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. And the word seemes rather to be applied to all, Psal. 105.15. Gen. 20 3 And the places urged by the preachers to this purpose, 1 Cor. 14.22. Lu 4.24. Rev. 18.19, 11, 10. doe no more belong to them then others, and according to them there was and is a gift of prophecy, which is nothing else but an ability and skill which some men have above o­thers to teach or to open, and to expound Scripture, and to ap­ply it to the edification, exhortation and comfort of others, 1 Cor. 13, 9, 14, 3. and these are the prophets, and this is the prophecy intended especially, 1 Thes. 5.20. despise not pro­phecying, and so Rev. 10.11, 19.20 1 Cor. 14.1. and from v. 24 to v. 31: Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 13.9. And all those that are said to witnesse against the doctrines and doings of Anti­christ (are said to prophecy, Rev: 11.3.6. Some other Scriptures [Page 126] there are which seem to refer to both these kinds of prophecy, as 1 Cor. 12 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Matth. 7.22, 23. 1 Cor. 14.31. These Prophets, and this kind of Prophecy, which we have lastly laid open, are not extraordinary, nor ceased, but have been, and still are in the Christian Churches. And this guift of Prophecy is, and is to be found in the Preachers and people, who have or may have it at this day.’

Here now is a tedious confused discourse to very little purpose. I know not well how to unravell it, there is such a jumbling together of things granted and denied; things true and false, and doubtfull. I had best (I think) deale with it in this last method. And 1. shew you what is true, and granted to us. 2. What is false and denied by us. 3. What is doubtfull betwixt us. First therefore:

1. It is true that some were called Singers, that had rare gifts in making songs, though not one of all the five places he brings proves that any one in Scripture was called a Singer, but those in Office, 2 Sam. 23.1. In­deed David is called a Psalmist, because he made Psalms.

2. It is true that he sayes, That a skill in Scripture must be got by study and labour and doth not come extempore and miraculously.

3. It is true, That the Preachers in Office are distinguished from Prophets, Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 12.28. neither were they such Prophets.

4. It is true, The Angel is called a Prophet, Rev. 22.9. and the witnesses, Rev. 11.3.4. From hence we argue,

If a skill to open and apply Scriptures must be got by study and labour, then it doth not immediately come from the Spirit without any humane power and industry, as be told us, p. 15. 2. Then those are not to undertake it that cannot study, or doe not labour for it.

3. If the Prophets spoken of, Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. be distinguished from Preachers, then their Office is something else besides expounding Scripture and ap­plying [Page 127] it, that's the Pastors and Teachers worke.

4. If the Prophets were so guifted, as Pastors and Tea­chers are not, then surely beyond our guifted brethren?

Come we now to what is false in what he hath said.

1. It is false that Balaam is called a Prophet, as prophe­cying is used for expounding and applying Scripture. He foretold things to come, Num. 24.5, 6, 7, 8.V Calv. ad loc. Deodat. ad loc. Mr. Calvin sayes, he was inspired by God. Deodate thinks it was be­cause he was a witch.

2. It is false that those places, 1 Chro. 25.6. 1 King 10.12. Ezra. 2 65. 2 Sam. 23.1. prove that any are called Singers not in office; and if they did prove it, it were nothing to the purpose.

3. It is false, that those mentioned, 1 Cor. 14.1. or that prophecying mentioned 1 Tim. 4 14. were such Prophets as did that thing which you call expounding, and apply­ing Scripture; or that that was their prophecying, to expound Scripture upon study and labour. Prove that: for your places, 2 Tim. 2.15. 1 Tim. 5.17. They have no­thing about Prophets or prophecying.

4. It is false that the term Prophet is any where in the Gospell either applied to standing Gospel-officers, or to people.

5. It is false to say, that by that text Psal. 105.15. Pro­phets can be applied to the people, for they are before cal­led the Lords anoynted; nor can it be properly applyed to any but the Prophets of the Old Testament.

6. It is false to say, the term Prophet, Gen. 20.3. is ap­plied to ordinary people, for v. 3. the time is not mentio­ned, v. 7. it is, Abraham is called a Prophet, but was he an ordinary brother, think you? he was a Priest, Gen. 22. he sacrificed, and might every Jew doe this? he did it in an extraordinary time, before the Law was setled for the worship of God; he was called a Prophet, because God revealed himselfe to him miraculously.

7. Neither doe the Preachers apply any way, but by [Page 128] way of allusion any of those Texts, 1 Cor. 14.22. Lu. 4.24. Rev. 18 20. to themselves they literally respect neither people, nor ordinary Gospell preachers.

8. It is false to say, that the prophecy mentioned, 1 Cor. 13.9, 14, 3. 1 Thes. 5.20. 1 Cor. 14.1, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 13.9 is nothing else but a gift and abi­lity that some men have above others, by labour and industry to open Scripture, and apply Scripture for edifica­tion. It was a miraculous extraordinary gift given by extra­ordinary revelation in that infancy of the Church, and those Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Math. 7.22, 23. 1 Cor. 14.31. speake onely of such a gift, see reasons for it in my Vindiciae, p 50. 51. how you have answered them we will see anon.

9. It is false to say, that the prophecying and prophets men­tioned, 1 Cor. ch. 12. ch. 13 ch. 14, &c. is not ceased, nor doe your Scriptures prove it, 1 Pet. 12.10. doth not so much as mention it.

There is something doubtfull betwixt us: viz.

What prophecying of the witnesses is, Rev. 11.3, 6.

By the way before we passe on, I desire the Reader to consider, how you wind about the Scripture to serve your turne. He that runs may read, that in the twelfth, thirtenth, and fourtenth Chapters of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle speakes of the same pro­phets and prophecying, yet you tell us, that the 1 Cor. 14.1, 24.31. 1 Cor. 13.9, 14, 3. are meant of ordinary gifted brethrens expounding: p. 42. but 1 Cor. 1 [...].28. 1 Cor. 13.2. you tell us, p. 36. are to be understood of revealing secrets; and extraordinary prophecying, p. 42. you tell us, that perhaps, 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8, 9. 1 Cor. 14, 24, 31. are to be understood of ordinary and extraordinary prophecyings: Give me leave here to argue, Sir, ex con­cessis.

The same prophets and prophecying rationally, must be meant in 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8. that are meant 1 Cor. 12.28. [Page 129] and in 1 Cor. 14.1. that are meant 1 Cor. 14.31. or else you must shew us some reason in the Text against it.

But according to your own confession, 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Cor. 14.31. are to be understood of extraordinary pro­phets.—Ergo.

Answer me this riddle, keeping your own rule p. 29. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum.

But (Sir) now the superfluities of your discourse are pared off; the whole amounts to this, that the prophecy­ing spoken of, 1 Cor. 14.1. &c. is an ordinary gift still continuing. This you might have said in fewer words: we deny it, you go to prove it, p. 42. 43.

1. You say it was promised: Joel. 2.18.

To that place I answered before I deny it, that the gift there prophecyed of, was the ordinary gift of ex­pounding Scripture.

1. I have the Apostle Peter on my side, who sayes it was meant of those gifts given in the dayes of Pentecost.

2. Then dreames and visions must be ordinary too.

3. Then daughters must also prophecy, contrary to the Apostles rule, relating to the order of Gospell Chur­ches.

But you adde four Reasons to prove it, let us weigh them in the ballance of the Sanctuary.

Your first reason is this: ‘It is reckoned you say a­mongst ordinary and continuing gifts, Ro. 12.6. 1 Cor. 14 1.’

Your Argument is this: That gift which is reckoned a­mongst ordinary and continuing gifts, is also an ordinary and continuing gift.

But the gift of prophecy is so reckoned, 1 Cor. 14.1. Ro. 12.6.

By the same medium I will prove it an extraordinary and not continuing gift, thus: That gift which is reckoned amongst extraordinary and not continuing gifts, is also an extraordinary and not continuing gift.

But this gift of prophecy is reckoned amongst extraordinary and not continuing gifts. Ergo.

It is reckoned with the gifts of healing miracles, di­verse Tongues, 1 Cor. 12.9, 10, 28. 1 Cor. 13.1. 1 Cor. 14.1, [...].

So that this argument Sir is too weak, it serves as well for me, as you.

Secondly, ‘You say all Gods people of all sorts, and in all times and places are earnestly to labour for it, and earnestly desire it; now if it were an extraordinary gift it were not to be desired, nor could it be attain'd by industry, 1 Cor. 14.39.’

Your Logick is this: That gift that is to be desired and laboured for by all Saints of all sorts in all times, is an ordina­ry gift. This is true.

But the gift of propheey mentioned by the Apostle, is to be la­boured for, and desired by all Saints of all sorts, in all places. Ergo. This is denied, you prove it.

What the Corinthians were exhorted to covet and labour for, that all Saints in all times are to labour.

But the Corinthians are commanded to Covet and labour for this gift. Ergo.

I deny the Major: the Corinthians were to desire that extraordinary gift. (I read of no labouring commanded) because that gift was then in date, but this command doth not reach us, because it is ceased. 2. They were to desire tongues and miracles and the gift of healing as well, v. 1. v. 5. they are all comprehended under the Notion of spirituall gifts: yet surely these are not ordinary gifts.

Your third reason is this: ‘What is commanded by a stan­ding rule of the Gospell not to be despised, is a standing Ordi­nance.’

‘But prophecying is so commanded, not to be despised, 1 Thes. 5.20. Ergo.’

I deny that private expounding Scripture by men or­dinarily gifted, is the prophecying here meant, by pro­phecyings is meant the Ordinances of God, of which [Page 131] prophecying was then one, or those expoundings of the mysteries of Scripture, which were then usually made by such as had received an infallible Spirit.

Fourthly, you tell us, there are many at this day that have it.

That there are many this day can expound Scripture, we deny not; but we question whether there be any can expound it infallibly, as those prophecyers mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. could; being doubtlesse inspired and guided by an infallible spirit; or that can expound it extempore without study, as doubtlesse they could; and till you prove those two you cannot prove that there are any now have that gift of prophecy there spoken of, which if you doe not prove, you say nothing to the purpose.

For your other Reasons, p. 43. you doe but repeat what you said before, and I have already answered them.

You see (Sir) what weake proofes you have served us with, to prove that the prophecying spoken of 1 Cor. 12: ch. 13. ch. 14. this is a common gift. Now you come to answer our objections.

1. We say those prophets were extraordinary officers, and good reason we have to say, for they are reckoned a­mongst such. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. and if Eph. 4.11. will prove that Apostles, Evangelists, pastors and Tea­chers are officers, it will prove as much for prophets too sure.

‘But you deny it at adventures and think that they were onely some choice men that had a gift above others in expoun­ding Scriptures.’

That they had a gift above others in expounding Scripture is questionlesse true, for doubtlesse they ex­pounded by revelation, 1 Cor. 14.26. and infallibly. But that they were not extraordinary officers, I cannot grant you, you offer us severall reasons.

1. There were such in the primitive times, as the 70. Lu. "10.1. and those, 1 Pet. 4.10.

I doe not know how to expound this terme such: if you meane such as could expound Scripture extempore, and by an infallible spirit, I yeild it, but that these were not in office you have not proved.V. Chemnit. ad loc. Surely the seventy were, for Lu. 10.1. Jesus Christ appointed them and sent them away, [...], if Christ could put them in office, they were in office. It is gratis dictum to say those, 1 Cor. 12.31, 14, 1. were not in office. But you say.

‘2. If they should be officers of that Church only, then did Paul write that Epistle confusedly: not distinguishing be­twixt officers and people.’

1. I know none say that Prophets were officers of this or that Church, onely I believe their office was larger.

2. Saint Paul (Sir) is of age, let him answer for him­selfe. But indeed:

3. The confusion is only in your own head and Judg­ment, for St. Paul speakes plaine enough to distinguish, 1 Cor. 12.7, 8, 28.

‘3. You say this prophecying is distinguished from the Church officer, and his gifts.—Rom. 12.6, 7, 8 and it is there called a gift.’

1. I answer the Apostle there makes a distribution of Church officers; some are extraordinary, these are com­prehended under prophecying; some ordinary, these are comprehended under Ministring.

2. Secondly it is no more call'd a gift; then exhorting and ministring, ruling, and giving and shewing mercy is, but surely some of these were officers.

3. Though the Apostle doth call it [...], yet it doth not follow that prophecying is not an office, no more then that Timothy was not in office, because the Apostle calls his office [...] by the same name, 1 Tim. 4.14.

4. You tell us the Officers of the Church were but few, how doth that appeare? persons extraordinarily gifted and in office, might be many, though officers in our Church that are standing be not.

But you say, admit the Prophets mentioned be not such as our guifted brethren, yet the prophecying you plead for is.

Surely (Sir) if you quit the name and the officer, you must also quit the act too. But let us heare what you say.

"1. You tell us, those that were no Prophets might prophecy.

1. Suppose this were true, yet the question is, whether the prophecying mentioned, 1 Cor. 14.23 24. &c. be not the act of those Prophets mentioned 1 Cor. 12.28. if it be, you have lost your cause, except you can prove the brethren such Prophets.

2. You have not proved that any prophecyed but Prophets. That is, such as were by divine exordinary inspiration enlightned; or by mission sent and obliged to doe it. So the high Priest prophecyed, Io. 11.51. and Agur, Pro. 30.1. it is only said that Bathsheba taught her son a Prophecy, Pro. 31.1.

‘2. You tell us that those that were Prophets in Office might know it, yea and must needs know it: but the Apostle speaks of such prophecying as they might but think they had. 1 Cor. 14.37. therefore not of extraordinary prophecying.’

1. This is, Sir, but a playing with the English word (Think) the originall word is [...], [...]. which doth not al­waies signifie a bare conjecturall opinion, Acts 15.28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, &c. Did the holy Ghost but conjecture (thinke you?) You may as well translate it judge, if you please; and then your criticisme is worth little.

2. What though true Prophets might know it? might not some that were not so think themselves so too? now (saith the Apostle) if they doe think so truly, they must acknowledge what I say.

But thirdly you tell us, the Chapter and the coherence "thereof is clearly against this restrained sense. How, I pray?

1. You say, ‘This Epistle was directed onely to this Church of Corinth—and then the ordinary teaching Officers were [Page 134] but two, and this discourse of the Apostle cannot intend so few.’

1. How doe you prove sir, that the ordinary teaching officers in this Church were so many as two?

2. But suppose they were but two: who sayes these Prophets were ordinary Officers. Now extraordinary officers might be many. All that you say besides hath been by me answered again and again.

You tell us, Many learned and godly men have taken this "to be the sense of the place.

We can tell you, that many more learned and godly men have thought otherwise, and so we are even with you: yea we have the odds.

I told you that All must be restrained in that passage, You may all prophecy. You tell me no: for it is contrary to the tenor of the words. Yet in the very next words you restrain it to your selfe: to all that have the guift of prophecy. I ask no more.

There is nothing more in your seventh Argument, but what is repeated over and over again, and hath already received its answer. I come to your eighth.

CHAP. XVI. Wherein the 47, 48, 49, 50 p. of Mr. Sheppards book are examined, and his two last Arguments found—Non sequiturs.

THe substance of it brought into form, is this: Those men that are fitted and furnished with abilities from God to open and apply Scriptures in a constituted Church pub­liquely, those may doe it. For you say, God hath done nothing in vaine.

But there are many private persons whom God hath fitted [Page 135] and furnished with abilities to this worke, who are not called and set apart: Ergo they may doe it.

Heark a little, and tell me how this kind of arguing sounds in your eares: Those who are fitted with abilities to be Generals of an Army, or Parliament men, or pleaders at the bar, may doe the work of Generals and Parliament men, and plead at the bar:

But many Colonels in the Army are fitted with abili­ties to execute the office of a Generall: And there be many Gen­tlemen have abilities to doe the work of Parliament men; and many Lawyers have the abilities to doe the work of Iudges; and many that are not called to the bar have abilities to plead: Ergo they may doe all these.

In earnest (Sir) if my Lord Generall hath you to dis­pute for him, or the honourable house of Parliament set you to dispute for them, or the Judges or Lawyers for them, I will undertake in an houre you will dispute them all out of their places; Iohn Lilburne could not make a better argument against them.

To answer you directly: Preaching (Sir) is an office, and he that may do it, must besides inward abilities have an outward call, and setting apart; as Paul and Barnabas had, as Timothy had, &c.

I will proceed to your ninth Argument. ‘You say, There have been, and are many learned and godly men who have held the lawfulnesse of the thing.’ You instance in Dr. Ames, Mr. Cotton, and the five Apologists.

Logically thus, What some learned and godly men "have held lawfull, that is lawfull:

‘But some learned and godly men have held it law­full for persons meerly gifted, not called and set apart to the work of the Ministry, nor intending it, to expound and apply Scripture ordinarily; Ergo it is lawfull.’

1. I deny your major. Surely we doe not deny infal­libility to the Church of Rome, and give it some few single persons.

[Page 136]2. I will retort your argument:

What some learned and godly men have judged unlawfull, that is so.

Asserimus.) Nec parentum nec majorum errorem sequen­dum esse sed authoritatem Scripturae & verbum Dei docent [...]s. Tertul. Quandoque bo­nus dormitat Homerus. Cyp [...]in ep. 63. ad Caecilium. But some learned and godly men, as Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gillespy, Mr. Ferriby, Mr. Hall, Dr. Seaman, &c. have judged it unlawfull, Ergo.

I believe you will not grant my argument: yet I take some of these to be as learned and holy as those you in­stance in.

(Sir) Dr. Ames and Mr. Cotton, and the five Apologists are learned and reverent men, but not without their mistakes; and they are all parties in that case; we are as ready to argue it against them as you: their placet is no­thing to us. Cyprian saith right, that it is onely to be considered, Quid Christus qui ante omnes fuit faciendum putavit, what Christ who is before and above all saith.

Your last Argument is this, That which may have very good ends and fruits is lawfull.

But this practice may have very good ends and fruits, Ergo.

I deny your major. We must not doe evill (saith the Apostle) that good may come of it. The meanes must be good, as well as the end.

An Argument is as good against you thus:

P. 48, 49. Quemadmodum inauspicatus est medicus qui oc­cidendo homines discit mederi, ita non est optanda prudentia quae laedendo discit prodesse. Erasm. That which may have very ill and pernicious ends, is un­lawfull.

But this practice may have so, 2 Pet. 3.16.

Yea, how many are led into errours, and heresies, and blasphemies thus, let this age witnesse. You reckon eight good ends and fruits of this: I doe not think it a pro­bable means to any one of them ends.

1. You say the Church may be edified by it, and unbelievers converted. And (Sir) may not the Church be thus destroy­ed and perverted? Consider experience a little: shew us where God hath laid this prophecying (as you call it) under a divine appointment to this end.

2. You say hereby men may be fitted and tried for the Mi­nistery. [Page 137] How (Sir) by preaching publiquely and ordina­rily; or rather by studying the Scriptures, and preaching once or twice, or more, before Timothy, who is able to judge.

3. You say hereby the Doctrine of the Gospell will be kept pure, contrary to 2 Pet. 3.16.

In short, it were easie to answer all you pretend to say in this thing: But, 1. Experience answers it sufficiently that it would have no such fruit. 2. If in reason we might hope for such an issue, yet Gods ends must be prosecuted and attained by his owne waies.

You shut up this Chapter, by telling us what Argu­ments you doe not stand upon: I hope I have shewed you as much reason (Sir) to quit these you have insisted upon, which I am sure conclude not what you would have, any more then those Arguments you have quitted doe.

I come now to see if you be better at answering our Arguments, then making any for your selfe.

CHAP. XVII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 pages are examined, and his Answers to two of our Arguments against guifted brethrens ordinary preaching, are examined, and found too short.

THe first objection you pretend to answer is partly mine and partly some of my other reverend brethrens.

We had charged you with this Argument:

‘What things must (by Scripture-warrant) onely be com­municated to others in publique assemblies by faithfull men, who shall be able to teach others, and to whom such things shall be committed by Timothies and Pauls; those things [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 138] private persons to whom such things are so committed, accor­ding to Scripture-warrant,Vindiciae mi­nisterii, p. 38. ought not in publique so to com­municate.’

‘But the truths of the Gospell are such as according to Scripture-warrant are onely to be communicated to others by such as being faithfull and able to teach others, and have those things committed to them by Timothies; and private persons are not such to whom these things are so committed.’ Ergo.

To prove the Major I instanced in 2 Tim. 2.2. and shewed the force of it p. 40. I alluded to that place, Mal. 2.7. but not as a proofe on which I much insisted.

My brother Hall hath not instanced this Argument in his first Edition of his Pulpit-guard. The other Editions I have not.

Now let us see if you have sufficiently answered this Argument, which is chiefly founded on 1 Tim. 2.2. though 1 Tim. 1.11.18.6.20. Titus 1.3. prove a part of it.

1. You answer by way of concession, telling us, that you grant such an officer as a preaching Minister, and tell us that they are more eminent preachers. ‘And something is undoubtedly committed to, and required of them, as to the preservation and promulgation of the Word of God, over and above what is required of and committed to men out of office.’

1. They are bound to it ex officio by their office, others not.

2. They are bound to doe it more lively and vigorously then others. Ro. 10.14. Es. 40.9. Es. 48.1. Ro. 9.27. Mat. 3.3. Jo. 7.37, 38.

3. They may preach with authority. Titus 2.15. 2 Thes. 3.6. 1 Tim. 5.2.

4. They may doe it with continuance, they may make it their calling and whole worke, 2 Tim. 4.2. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Thes. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3 4.

5. They are to assume the whole office to administer the seales also.

But you say secondly, that the Texts are not exclusive but private men may doe it too.

Thirdly, you spend a great deale of time and paper to vindicate that text. Mal. 2.7. p. 54, 55. and those places Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.

Having thus analysed your answer, in the next place let me come to examine the strength of it.

1. From what you have granted us, I gather:

1. That there are to be some Preachers in office, and to these onely it belongs to administer the Sacraments, and these are onely to preach authoritatively, vigorously, ex officio, constantly, making it their work. This is all a great truth then it seems.

2. That for guifted brethren, they may doe it, or they may let it alone, it is but an act of liberty in them; yet you told us before it was their duty.

3. They may doe it coldly, and poorly, and lazily: for the preacher is onely bound to doe it vigorously and lively, p. 52. and earnestly.

4. They can onely preach precariously, for they have no authority, and cannot do it authoritatively, Titus 2.15.

5. They must not make it their whole work.

1. Surely our guifted brethren will give you little thanks for your concessions.

2. Surely all people that are in their right wits will take heed of hearing these guifted brethren, that at the most can but preach coldly and lazily, without authority or any vigour, without due meditation and study. Surely the countenance and blessing of God is most likely to fol­low those that come in the name of God, and with his authority, and can command in the Lords name.

But you say that the Texts are not exclusive, though they doe plainly hint that those that preach the Gospell should have it committed to them: yet you think that some may preach that have it not committed, and so you would make my argument a fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum fimpliciter. But sir, I reply upon you:

1. Neither are any Scriptures exclusive in so many [Page 140] words that you bring to prove that they may not admi­nister the Sacraments, and that they may not preach with authority, nor make it their work; yet this you grant us, and upon good grounds.

2. What the Scriptures doe not say, that none may doe in the worship of God: for we must not adde to Scriptures.

But the Scriptures (although they say preachers in office may and ought to preach to others) yet no where say that the guifted brethren may doe it. Ergo.

The Scripture plainely sayes, that those that teach o­thers must not onely be able and faithfull, but must have the Scriptures committed to them: See your own rule, p. 45. Generaliter dictum, genera­liter intelligen­dum. this (Sir) is exclusive ex­cept you can bring another Scripture that proves they may teach others, though they have not those things commit­ted to them: And besides the Apostle plainely speakes de re of the thing, not de modo of the manner of perfor­mance, the Apostle sayes teach others, you put in authori­tatively, vigorously, &c. Bring us a Scripture that sayes that gifted brethren may teach others publikely, for that is plainly meant there, if you cannot, this Text is proofe enough against you. Your similitudes prove nothing.

By your answer I would infer, that all the Acts of Church officers may be done by private persons, because the Scriptures, that say they ought to doe them, doe not say, others ought not.

The third part of your answer lies in a vindication of that Text, Mal. 2.7. The Priests lips should preserve know­ledge, and the people should require the Law at his mouth.

To this you answer:

1. Critically telling us the words are better read, the Priests lips did preserve knowledge, &c. and so some read them.

2. That it is not exclusive.

3. That the case of people under the Law and Gospell differ. For my own part I was aware of your last answer, and therefore did not insist upon that place; yet now you [Page 141] have brought it upon the stage, let me take its part a lit­tle, and see if you have done it no wrong.

Whereas you say that those words, Mal. 2.7. which we translate. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge, are read by some, The Priests lips did preserve knowledge, and this reading best agrees with the coherence of the words antecedent and subsequent, I answer:

1. It is true Piscator doth so translate it, and make the sense what you say, but he is the onely man I finde doing it: Tremellius, and Calvin, and Gualter, and Ribera, and Oecolampadius, the Septuagint, St. Hierom. Our late An­notations, &c. Translate it shall or should, and this is a­greeable to Haggai 2.12. (which St. Hierome quotes as paralell.) Thus saith the Lord of hosts, aske the Priests con­cerning the Law, &c. So that you see for one authority, for you, we have found seven against you. But let us en­quire the Hebrew.

2. [...]. The word is there in the future tence, and properly to be translated, shall, or will, or should, and although it be a truth that the Hebrewes doe sometimes confound tenses and we often translate their future tense by the preterperfect, yet (with submission to those more learned and criticall in that language) I conceive it should not be so translated, except the sense in­forceth it, the primary and proper signification being o­therwise.

3. Neither doe I see such a necessity for the coherence sake so to translate it there;V. Our Annot. for might not the Prophet as well set out their impiety by their declination from their duty, as well as from the piety of the Priests formerly.

4. Nay under favour (Sir) the coherence is both a­gainst you and Piscator too, the very next words are,— for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts; now let any judi­cious man judge whether the sense be better as you would have it thus.

For the Priests lips did keep knowledge, and they did seeke [Page 142] the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angell of the Lord of hosts, or as we read it,

For the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seeke the Law at his mouth. For he is the Angell of the Lord of hosts: or the messenger of the Lord of hosts for the same word signifies both: this is the reason gi­ven why the people should enquire the interpretation of the Law at his mouth, because he is the Messenger▪ he is one authorized and sent and appointed by God to open the Law.

5. But Fifthly, suppose we admit your reading, it al­ters not the case at all, for you grant that the Priests lips did keep knowledge, and the people did require the Law at his mouth: and this in the purer state of the Jewish Church, and this was a piece of their sinne that they were deviated from this practise, this is as much as we desire, surely the Jewish Church order was not altered, but by their corruption in Malachies time, if we take your sense it amounts to this.

In the old time, The Priests lips did preserve knowledge, and they did require the law at his mouth, who was the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But now the Priests are ignorant, and the people profane, they care for no Priests▪ but thinke them­selves best able to interpret the Law of the Lord, (for they were deviated as well as the Priests.) v. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Have not you warded this Text well think you (Sir?) It is as if we should say of England.

In the Prelates times the Ministers of the Lord Jesus preached plainely and powerfully and constantly, they preached Law and Gospell reproofes, and exhortations, and the people heard the word of God diligently and re­verently, and were content to teach their families, and to repeat Sermons, and then the power of godlinesse en­creased, and Christians kept in the Vnity of the spirit and the bond of peace, and walkt humbly with God, and hated Arminian and Socinian, and familisticall Errors [Page 143] and Blasphemies, and were kept under an aw of Ordi­nances.

But now many Ministers are come to preach notions, and allegories, and whimzies, to read Sermons instead of preaching, to lay aside preaching duty and reproofe, and to preach nothing but priviledges and mysteries and nonsensicall notions, and to preach once a fortnight. And the people they are come to neglect and despise Or­dinances, to thinke themselves as much preachers as the Ministers, and to know as much as they can tell them, and hence they are puft up with pride, and are taken in the snare of the Devill, and are continually rending and dividing one from another, and running into error and blasphemies; and the whole Nation of professors almost is turn'd Arminian, Socinian, or Familisticall.

You have put the interpretation (Sir) upon the Pro­phets words, I have to strengthen our argument helpt you with a parallell, Quam bene conveniunt.

To your second answer in which you point us to Deodate for a note, but you have abused him, for he hath never a note upon the words you quote. I grant you the words onely held to us, Analogically; but where is the A­nalogy, if not here? as the Priests were the onely ordinary persons that had the knowledge of the Law, betrusted to them to communicate it to others, and the people were not to go to seeke it at an ordinary Jewes mouth, but at the publike officers mouth, so the Ministers of the Gos­pell are the only ordinary persons under the Gospell, that have the Gospell committed to them to teach others out of it, and Gospell Christians are not to require the opening of those Mysteries at one anothers mouthes, but at theirs.

But you tell us thirdly, the Case is otherwise under the Law and Gospell. I grant you all you say there, onely I do not finde that Is. 61.8. the people of God are called Priests, nor doe I believe that all people generally come [Page 144] under those promises: you mention onely Saints, and I turne your argument upon your selfe thus.

If under the Gospell people be generally more full of knowledge then under the Law, then they had need have more eminent able teachers, that should give them strong meat.

And these, Sir, had need be such as are able to search the deeps of Scripture, to dive into the hidden mysteries.

Besides, as knowledge encreaseth, so in some wanton­nesse will encrease, and the Gospell preachers had need be such as shall be able to oppose those that gainesay their do­ctrine, in opposing those that contradict a truth.

Those that maintaine a dispute either for a truth, or for an errour, had need have some more abilities then unlearned gifted brethren.

A late experience of this I could tell you in the gathe­red company at Bury, where were many thought them­selves able enough to Preach, but being challenged by the Reverend pastor of the Presbyterian Church, to dispute a point, which they might have beene well versed in (for I believe the persons have been studying it, and practising it these seven years) whether the Ministers of England be true Ministers: they were glad to send for some of their Norfolk Brethren for helpe, and some of the gifted brethren went, and when they returned (being miserably bafled) by their owne confession they said they wanted a Scholler, yet I suppose they thought they had the spirit of God, but God will convince men, learning is his Ordinance to enable men both to expound Scripture and defend his truth.

In the last place you come to the Commission, Math. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.

From which both my Brother Hall and my selfe urged you to say:

"1. That the word may be read, go make disciples, Jo. 4.1.

"2. There is no negative Clause in it.

"3. In common reason it doth not exclude others: and to the last purpose, you serve us with our usuall fare, Simi­litudes [Page 145] instead of proofes, it is for want of better Argu­ments sure Sir.

4. You tell us the people have a commission to teach.

‘5. That the native sense of the place seems only an enlarge­ment of the former commission. Mat. 10.1, 2. Lu 10.1, 2.’

‘6. That the force of the word lieth not so much in enabling them to the act which they might have done before, &c.’

1. To your first cavill,Ʋ. Novar. ad loc. that the word may be translated Goe make Disciples: I answer, and it may be read Goe preach: it may be translated, Go be Disciples, Ʋ. Scapulam ad loc. But because a word hath many significations, doth it follow that any of them may be the sense of that place where it is used?

2. But suppose it should be translated so: how is one made a Disciple, but by conversion? and when is a man converted, but when he is brought to believe, and faith comes by hearing; then from hence will follow that the same thing is meant, yea and something more. That those that the Lord intends ordinarily to honour with the conversion of soules to himselfe, must be commission-officers in the businesse of the Gospell.

To your second cavill, that the Commission is not literally exclusive.

If it excludes them from baptizing, it excludes them for preaching; but you grant the former.

To your third, that in common reason they are not exclu­ded. What you meane (Sir) by common Reason, I cannot tell. Socinian and Erastian reason wil not exclude them: but sanctified reason that teacheth the soule to take heed of thrusting its name into a commission, and doing any thing for which is not plain ground in Scripture, this will exclude them. But you tell us,

‘Though a Commission be given to some to be Justices of the peace, yet doth not this exclude others from keeping the peace.’

1. Your similitude is no proofe.

2. It halts shamefully. Preaching is a piece of instituted [Page 146] worship, where the rules of institution must be kept; but keeping the peace is not.

3. It is false, and the fallacy lies in keeping the peace. Every one is bound to keep the peace, as to his own private practice, not to be riotous: but every one is not to command o­thers to keep the peace.

4. Constables (Sir) are officers, and so bound by office to keep the peace, and see it kept, and may doe something more then Justices. But your guifted brethren are no officers at all.

‘Christ (you say) gave his Apostles commission to heale the sicke, Mat. 10 8. might not others therefore that had this guift heale them?’

1. It is not proper to say, healing the sick was an office, and the Apostles had a commission, it was a rare guift to which they had a power.

2. Supponis quod non supponendum est. No other had that guift.

3. If any other should have gone to a sick person and pretended to heale miraculously, saying as Peter, Act. 3.6. In the name of the Lord Iesus Christ arise and walk, he should have sinn'd against God.

I am sick of your similitudes: to goe on therefore to your third Cavill, viz.

"That the people have a commission to teach, &c.

What then Sir? The commission 1 Tim. 22. to teach o­thers. Matth. 28.20. to teach all Nations. Shew us where they have such a Commission. They may teach by private exhortations, by an holy life; not by publique expositi­ons and doctrines: shew us where their commission to this lies.

To your fourth cavill. Suppose it were but an enlarge­ment of the Apostles Commission, yet it was the first commission that authorized them to preach the Gospell to all Nations, or to any but Jews; and the originall copy of the Gospell preachers commission. Thus much your selfe confesse, we ask no more.

To your fifth cavill I answer: That the force of that word lies in enabling them to preach the Gospell to any sort and condition of people, & in establishing a perpetu­all standing office of Gospel-Preachers, with whom Christ promiseth to be to the end of the world; not as you would seem to hint, onely in laying it upon them as a duty, which yet was the liberty of all besides them. Your places, 1 Cor. 9.16, 17. Ezek. 3.17, 18. serve to prove what none denies you, that we must preach; but they will not prove that all may preach, nor that the force of that word Mat. 28.20. is no more then you would have it, for they have no reference at all to that place, warranted by Scripture.

‘But you tell us, That Ministers must attend to preaching, and make it their work; which guifted brethren are not bound to doe.’

They are beholding to you for justifying their lazy preaching; but God and his word are not much behol­ding to you for this patronage of lazy, idle, unwarranted extempore preachers.

Thus (Sir) you may see how slight an answer you think to stop the mouth of our first Argument with.

Our second objection as you say is, ‘That men that have not skill in the originall Tongues cannot understand, much lesse interpret the Scriptures, much lesse can they divide the word of God aright.’

To this you answer: 1. ‘That we grant, that although they be not skilled in School-learning, if called, they may preach.’

‘2. That many of the Preachers in office this day doe not understand the Tongues.’

‘3. That something in the Scripture may be understood without the knowledge of the Tongues.’

"4. That many great Schollers see little of Gods mind in them.

‘5. That the knowledge of heavenly truths is attainable [Page 148] only by the Spirit of God, not by any humane power or strength 1 Cor. 2.14. Upon which you enlarge,’

‘6. That many that have little of this learning, yet have much divine Learning, and a large understanding of the Word of God.’

‘7. That to divide the word of God aright, is to divide to every one their portion from the word, and to fit it to the seve­rall estates and conditions of people that heare it: and this may be done without much humane learning.’

To all this I answer, 1. Generally. 2. Particularly.

Nunquam quis rectius assiqui­tur alterius mentem & ger­manam senten­tiam, quam qui ips [...] loquent [...] voces & propri­um sermonem audit intelligit­que. Hyperius in rat. studii theol. l. 1. c. 9.1. Generally. This is none of my Argument. My bro­ther Hall doth hint it, p. 19. but Sir, (if you mean him) you wrong him, for his proposition is this: Those that want learning, both humane and divine, cannot be sound in­terpreters, nor solid disputants. You have set up a man of straw, and then fall to pushing of him. I know none that say, that it is simply unlawfull for those that understand not the originall Tongues to interpret Scriptures.

2. But secondly, this we say, That the extraordinary and miraculous Revelation of the Spirit now ceasing, no man can so soundly and well interpret Scriptures, as he that knows the Languages; without doubt it is no despi­cable means.

The Papists partly to justifie their ignorant Priests, and the authority of their vulgar translation, and to justifie the Churches authority,Ʋ. Calv. in 1. ep. ad Co­rinth. c. 14. as the pillar and ground of truth, are much of your mind, that the knowledge of the Tongues is not necessary, and therefore have blotted out a passage in Erasmus his Adages out of the late Editions, which I finde in Froben Edition fol. the passage will let you know his mind.

Aut se divinas literas interpretari conetur Graecae Latinae & Hebraicae linguae, denique & omnis antiquitatis rudis & imperitus fine quibus non stultum modo, verum impium est Theologiae mysteria tractanda suscipere. Quod tamen heu nefas jam passim plerique faciunt qui frigidis aliquot instructi [Page 149] syllogismis & puerilibus sophismatis deum immortalem? quid non auderit? quid non praecipiunt? quid non decernunt? Qui si possent cernere quos risus vel potius quem dolorem mo­veant linguarum, & antiquitatis peritis quae porienta profe­rant, in quam pudendos errores subinde prolabantur, nimirum puderet illos tantae temeritatis & vel senes ad primae literarum elementa redirent. —Nullus unquam sententiam alicujus intellexit ignarus Sermonis quo sententiam suam explicavit, proinde Divus Hieronymus, cum constituisset arcanas inter­pretari literas, ne illotis ut aiunt pedibus rem tantum aggre­deretur, quaeso num sophisticis nugis instruxit ingenium? Erasmi Adagia edit. Bafileae. 1526. p. 298. Cent. 9. Chilia­das 1. Adagio 55. tit. Illotis manibus. Num Aristotelicis decretis? Num his etiam Nugationibus? nugis minime. Quid igitur? in aestimabili sudore trium lin­guarum peritiam sibi comparavit. Quas qui ignorat non Theo­logus est sed sacrae theologiae violator, ac vere manibus paeriter ac pedibus illotis rem omnium maxime sacram non tractat, sed prophanaet conspurcat, violat.

I shall not English it, supposing you understand Latine, I could furnish you with many more of his minde. But I say, I cannot say that a knowledge in the Tongues is absolutely necessary to me to interpret any Scriptures, but thus much we say.

1. He that hath not skill in the Tongues must take the credit of expositors and translators, and if they quarrell, he will scarce know which side to take.

2. He will never know the full Emphasis of Scripture, many sweet notions of truth lie in the various significati­ons of the originall words, which Translators could not hint us being to give the word only one translation: v. Hyperium de studio theol: c. 9.

3. There are many mistakes in translations and expo­sitors.

4. There are many proper idiomes of Languages: which translators cannot expresse. But for an absolute necessity in all cases I doe not hold it. Though I could heartily wish that all preachers might be able to under­stand [Page 150] the Originall Languages, and I thinke something this way is hinted us by Gods furnishing the first prea­chers of the Gospell with the gift of Tongues.

And as light as you make Sir of humane learning, if you come to argue a Scripture against an opposer, that is learned, he will make you believe you had need of the Tongues, and of Logick too, and that preacher is worth little that durst not appeare, or is not able to defend his own doctrine: nor doe I think such for constant ordinary preachers are Gods Ordinance: indeed cases of necessity have no Law. Better have one onely to read Scriptures then none either to read or preach, and so better have preachers that can but preach other mens Sermons and Expositions, then no preachers at all: This I answer ge­nerally: now to your Cavills.

To your first I answer:

1. We onely say, it may be in cases of necessity, when such as are more fit cannot be had, then let such be ordai­ned as have not such skill in School-learning. But let even these labour for it, and the more they preach, the more they will see the need of it.

2. To your second I onely answer.

It is a shame to England that it hath so many such prea­chers, those that ordaine now, ordaine onely such as have a knowledge or solemnly engage to study the Tongues: get a statute to enjoyne all Ministers to be skilled in the Languages after some certaine time, (for it is fitting the present necessity should be supplied) we will thanke you for it.

To your Third cavill I answer two things:

1. I know not one Scripture can be understood with­out understanding the Language it was wrote in, but he that expounds it must take the credit of the Translator, and we know Translations are not [...]; suppose it be the plai­nest [Page 151] Scripture how shall he know whether the words be rightly Translated,Non omne quod verum est Scri­bentis mentis consonat. Tolet. in Johan. 1. and so consequently the minde of God, by comparing it with the Analogy of Faith; thus indeed the thing may be knowne to be true, but not a Truth in that Text; shall he know it by the coherence? and how shall he understand that without a skill in the Languages, except he takes it upon trust, suppose there be no coherence, as in the Proverbs.

2. Surely a preacher should be able to open the whole counsell of God, not this or that single Text.

To your fourth cavill. viz. ‘If humane learning be such an helpe to the knowledge of Scriptures, what is the reason that some yea many great Schollers look in­to Scripture and see little of Gods mind in it, and how comes it to passe that many who are without humane learning have so large a knowledge and understanding hereof.’

I answer, for great Schollers knowing so little of the minde of God in Scripture, you mistake non causam pro causa.

1. Their learning and knowing of the Tongues in which they are written is not the cause, but there may be many reasons.

1. Their lazinesse or negligence, Ex eruditis igi­tur labi contin­git alium qua­dam oscitantia & supinitate, &c. V. Hyperium de rat. studii theol. c. 9. l. 4. Alius errat ob verborum, aliu [...] ob rerum imperitiam; — Aliqui in errorem incidunt quadam animi perturbatione aut vitioso affectu impulsi.—Quidam errorem amplectuntur magis authoritate & reverentia aliorum, quam judicio & veritatis inquisitione promoti &c. V. pluta, Hyperius de ratione studii theol. l. 4. c. 9. Fiunt subtilia ingenia postquam à verbo se patiuntur abduci & minu­ [...]tur suo sensu. Lutherus c. 4. tit. 767. not making it their busi­nesse to improve their learning and knowledge this way.

2. Their crotchicall fancies bringing to their interpre­tations not discendi pietatem, a pious heart to learne, but only discutiendi acumen, a criticall humour.

3. Their unsanctified undertaking their worke with­out prayer, and seeking of God by prayer that his spirit may guide them in the use of their learning, ut nec deci­piant [Page 152] nec decipiantu [...], that they may neither deceive them­selves nor deceive others.

For the second part of your cavill, I answer:

1. I know very few men that want humane learning that can expound Scriptures.

2. They may have a large understanding and know­ledge in the Truth of God revealed in Scriptures necessa­ry to salvation, by considering the scope of Scripture, hearing the Scriptures preached and expounded, and the Spirit of God perswading their hearts of the truth of what they heare.

Fifthly you tell us: ‘That the preachers will grant you what is so clearely, and plainly held forth that the knowledge of heavenly truthes in Gods word is the gift of God attaina­ble onely by the spirit of God, and not by any humane power and strength, 1 Cor. 2.14. Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 7.15, 16 Jo. 6.44, 45 Acts 13.48. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Mat. 13.11. Jo. 16.13, Lu. 12.12. Jo. 14.26. Is. 50.4 5 Psal. 25 14. Jo. 7.17. Gal. 1.2, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 2.1, 2, 10. Math. 16.17.11 25, 27. Rev. 3.18. Lu. 24 45. 1 Cor. 1.19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27. Jo. 7.47, 48. Phil. 3 7. 1 Cor. 3.18, 19, 20.’

Here are many Scriptures brought, I wish they be not wrested. But this is usuall▪ I saw a Pamphlet lately had ten times more to prove a man might lawfully beat his wife.

To answer therefore, I will tell you how farre we grant you.

1. We grant you that a saving practicall experimentall and a comfortable reflex knowledge of God, and of the truthes of God can only be from the spirit, that is the spirit can only teach the soule to come to Christ, and lay hold up­on him, the spirit can onely teach the soule experimen­tally and effectually, that its condition is an undone con­dition, that there is a sweetnesse and excellency in Christ above ten thousand worlds, this those Scriptures you [Page 153] bring, 1 Cor. 2.14. Jo 6.44, 45. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Math. 13.11.

2. We grant you that the Spirit can onely teach the Soul reflexively, Reflexivè. V. D. August. t. 1. confes. l. 11. c. 3. the Minister teacheth that God hath promised that whosoever commeth unto Christ shall not be cast away, but is elected, justified, sanctified, &c. This some other Scriptures prove, Psal. 25.14. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11, 12.

3. Thirdly,Persuasivè. we grant you that the Spirit only can teach perswasively, we may beseech, God alone can perswade Iaphet to come and dwell in the Tents of Sem, we may teach people that it is Gods will they should come to Christ, but the Spirit alone can perswade them to come, Jo. 6.44, 45.

4. Fourthly, we grant you that the Spirit doth guide us in the interpretation of Scripture, upon earnest seeking,Ego fateor cha­ritati tuae solis iis Scriptura­rum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc ho­norem timorem­que deferre, ut nullum eorum authorem scri­bendo aliquid errâsse firmissi­mè credam, &c. Aug. t. 2. ep. 19. cap. 1. Spiritum San­ctum esse sum­mum Scripturae interpretem di­cimus, quia ut nos certo simus persuasi de vero Scripturae sensu, oportet nos per Spiritum San­ctum illuminari: alioqui nunquam illam, quae fidelium mentibus inest, [...] asseque­mur, etsi omnibus mediis utamur. Sed haec est interna tantum persuasio & nos ipsos tantum attingit, alios enim hoc modo non cogimus. Quod vero ad externam persuasionem attinet: di­cimus ipsam Scripturam esse sui ipsius interpretem ac proinde ad externum ipsius judicium veniendum esse ut aliis persuadeamu [...]: in quo utendum est mediis. Whitakerus de Interpret. Scrip q. 5 c 3 ad finem. cap. but this may be but a common work, and is in the use of meanes but he did infallibly guide the pen men of Scripture and the first planters of his Gospell, Jo. 16.13. and still he doth guide humble hearts, yet not all Saints that under­take the expounding of Scripture publikely, for then all their exposition should be infallible, and so no preachers exposition is, though never so holy, never so learned, in­deed St. Hierom thought his was, as it seemes by one pas­sage in Apolog contra Iovianum, Vbicunque scripturas non in­terpretor, sed libere de meo seosu loquor, arguat me quilibet, but St. Austine otherwise in Ep. 19. ad Hieron. c. 1. Learned Whitaker in q. 5. de Interp. Scrip. c. 3. doth determine against the Papists, that the holy Ghost is the highest in­terpreter of Scripture, because saith he, we must be en­lightned by the Spirit of God, that we may be perswaded of [Page 154] the true sense of Scripture; for without this, saith he, though we should use all meanes, yet we shall never at­taine to that full perswasion which is in the Saints hearts; but this saith he is but an inward perswasion, and onely respecting our selves, for we doe not thus perswade o­thers. But now for the outward perswasion, the Scrip­ture is its own interpreter, and we must go to the Scrip­ture to judge, if we will perswade others, and in that we must use meanes.

Lectio inquirit meditatio inve­nit oratio postulat contemplatio de­gustat; quaerite legendo & in­venietis medi­tando, pulsate orando & ape­rietur vobis con­templando. Aug. Ʋ. Whitake­rum. ib.Thus, Sir, the spirit guides into truth: 1. Perswading us infallibly sometimes of those truthes of God necessary to salvation: 2. Guiding his people in the search and enquiry of truth, yet not giving them such a speciall infallible assi­stance in expounding Scripture alwayes that they cannot erre. 3. Nor doing of it extraordinarily, but in the use of meanes, what those meanes are, Dr. Whitaker tells us excellently c. 9. of the same question. 1. Prayer. 2. The understanding the Tongues. 3. A consideration of the words, whether they be proper or figurative, limited or not limited. 4. A consideration of the scope of the place, the matter, the pen man, the time of writing, &c. 5. Com­paring Scripture with Scripture, like with like, and un­like with like.Qui his mediis sic uti valet & opinionis sue perversitatem ac praejudicium partiumque stu­dium deponet (quo multi in omni causa utun­tur) poterit ille quidem Scrip­turas si non in omnibus locis et in plerisque, si non statim ac tandem aliquan­do intelligere. Whitakerus ib. 6. A consideration of the Analogy of faith. Lastly saith he:

‘Because the unlearned cannot use these meanes right: they should goe to the learned, read their books, consult their common lawes and expositions, argue with them, thus, saith he, St. Hierom, and St. Augusti [...]e and the Fathers did, and (saith he) they must take heed they doe not give too much to them, and thinke the exposition is true, because theirs, but because it stands upon the authority of Scripture and sanctified reason; he concludes.’

‘He that will thus use these meanes and lay aside the perverse opinion and prejudice of his own wit and parts, which many use upon all occasions, he may un­derstand [Page 155] the Scripture, if not in all places, yet in most, though not presently, yet in some time.’

Thus, Sir, the spirit doth guide into the knowledge of all truth, yet not so,

1. That any one may or ought to take any exposition as in­fallible.

2. But so as, that it oft works in me an infallible perswasion of this or that truth.

3. But this the Spirit doth upon the use of meanes, not without humane power and strength.

4. The Spirit doth helpe us to the knowledge of much truth, by bringing to remembrance what we have heard, Jo. 14.26.

5. We grant you, none are so fit to preach and expound Scriptures, as those that have the Spirit of God: if they also have a capacity to use all other meanes which God hath appointed, and that humane learning meeting with a conceited proud soule, may prejudice a Christian in understanding and seeking the will of God.

All this some of your Scriptures prove, though let me tell you some of your Scriptures prove neither what you would have nor this neither, nor any thing like it, as Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 17.15, 16. Acts 13.48. But what is all this to prove the two great things.

1. That the Spirit of God dwelling in us onely can teach the soule the proper and literall meaning of the Scrip­ture and capacitate one to expound it to another, though indeed to that there must be a common work of the spi­rit, as a spirit of illumination. Or Secondly:

2. That the spirit doth this without meanes, without hu­mane power and strength.

Not a Scripture of all you bring, prove either of these, and so you have said a great deale to little purpose, your sixth cavill is the very same with your fourth.

To your seventh I answer: It is indeed part of the mea­ning of that phrase dividing the word of God aright, to [Page 156] give every one their portion, but how shall the unlearned doe this, if they doe not know what portion the word hath for them, and how shall they know that, if they doe not know the sense of the words.

2. Surely the understanding the parts of the Chapter, and severall things contained in the Text, must goe to dividing the word of God aright. I have done with this; I come to your reply to the Third objection.

CHAP. XVIII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 p. are examined, and his Answers to our third, fourth and fifth Arguments are proved very weak and insufficient.

OUr Argument is this, who so preacheth or prophecyeth must be a Prophet or a Preacher.

But all are not prophets nor preachers, 1 Cor. 12.30. 1 Cor. 12.9. Ergo. all must not preach and prophecy.

To this you make a tedious reply, p. 59 60. Had you been a little more skill'd in humane learning, you might have said in very few words what you say in many lines; This is all.

You thinke that it is that fallacy which Logicians call Fallacia aequivocationis.

That there is a preaching as an act of office, and an or­dinary preaching of others, so though it be true that who­soever preacheth or prophecieth is a preacher or prophet, that is one that doth the act of a preacher and of a pro­phet, yet it doth not follow, in the sense we understand it, that he must be by office a preacher or a prophet, this is the substance of all you say, your similitudes from Tay­lors, Bakers, Watchmen, Schoolmasters, Iudges, Lawyers, a­mount [Page 157] to no more then this poore notion; and if I should run after them, they would all halt and lye downe, and confesse they came for nothing but a shew. But (Sir) you are not like to escape us thus. Give us a Scripture com­mand for, or example of any that had not the extraordi­nary gifts of the holy Ghost, or were not in office, that ordinarily preached & expounded Scriptures in a settled constituted Church. If the law of God doth not menti­on these same out of office preachers, your distinction is worth little, the Scripture knowes no preaching by or­dinary persons, ordinarily gifted and out of office, except in cases of necessity, persecution or the like, they are A­pocryphall preachers (Sir.) But you tell us againe, that all have the gift of prophecy spoken of by the Apostle; but in re­gard you say no more to prove it then we had again and again before, I shall refer you to my former answer.

In your 61 page you come to another objection of ours, but indeed it is the same.

In my Vindiciae, p. 33. I charged you with this argu­ment.

For any being officers to take upon them acts of office is sin­full.

But for private persons how well gifted and qualified soever to take upon them in publike assemblies where a Church is con­stituted to preach, interpret, & apply Scripture, is for them that are no officers to take upon them Acts of Office, Ergo. The Major I proved, 1 Cor. 7.20. 1 Cor. 12 14. Rom. 12.4. My Brother Hall hits upon the same thing in severall pla­ces, and makes use of the instances you quote, I shall med­dle with your answer onely so farre as it concernes me: for although I thinke an argument might be brought and managed from those instances of Ʋzzab, Corah, Da­than, and Abiram, Saul, &c. yet I desire to make no fur­ther use of them then this, to prove that proper Acts of office may not be done by persons out of office, which I suppose you grant, yet let me tell you not one of your Scriptures proves plainely.

[Page 158]1. That the burning of Incense upon the altar was for­bidden, all the Iewes except the Priests, though indeed the thing be true, it was forbidden because the worke was as­signed to others; and the like we say for preaching. In one or two of the places, strangers are forbidden, but the Jewes are no where in those places in so many words forbidden to offer incense; if you say by consequence they are, we grant it: so are you forbidden publike prea­ching by as good rationall consequence.

But Sir if we could not shew it were forbidden to warrant your practice, you must shew it us allowed and commanded, if it be a piece of worship.

But in the next place you will undertake to set out our office, telling us.

• 1. What it is to be in office.
• 2. Wherein our office lies.
• 3. What it is to be in the Preachers office.
• 4. What is an usurpation upon the office.

All this is towards the proving that preaching is not a proper act of office.

1. You tell us what it is to be in office, and in this des­cription I agree with you, and so shall not repeat your words having nothing against them.

2. You tell us what are the parts of the preachers of­fice.

• "1. Publike praying for the people.
• "2. Publike reading of the word.
• "3. Writing of Bookes and Epistles.
• "4. Publike Preachings.
• "5. Administring Sacraments.
• "6. Church government.

‘Some of those you say are incommunicable, and to be done by none else: some communicable.’

To all this I answer, we onely speake of Proper acts of office, and those are such as belong to him and none else, and so Prayer, Reading, Writing, and Church governe­ment [Page 159] are not, Christ never said, go Read and Baptize, or Write and Baptize, or Rule and Baptize, though we grant all those to belong to him, yet they are not proper Acts of his office quà a Gospell Preacher, so he hath but two proper Acts that I know, viz 1. Publike preaching. 2. Ad­ministring the Seales, those that are for Episcopacy adde a third, but we conceive that belongs not to him alone (except other officers be wanting.)

Thirdly, you come to tell us what it is to be in office as a Preacher: so you say.

"1. He must be lawfully called and authorized thereto.

‘2. He must be over some people being duly called to them, for if Minister and people be Correlatives, then can there be no Minister in office untill he be engaged to some people. And till then he seemes to be onely in the Nature of a gifted man.’

To this I answer, that it is true that Minister and peo­ple are correlates, but to what people is a Minister a Cor­relate? what to this or that Church onely? I deny that: he is in office as a Gospell preacher, to any people in the world; pastors and teachers are in office, for the whole body of Christ, Eph. 4.11.12. when he is engaged to a particular people, he is but appropriated, not by that constituted a Minister, for if a minister be onely in office to his own Church,

1: He can administer the Sacrament to no single person that is not a fixt member of his Church.

2. He can Baptize none but such.

3. He can preach by authority to none but such.

See Mr. Firmins and Mr. Hudsons arguments for this novell fancy.See Mr. Firmin against separa­tion, p. 61, 62, 63. Mr. Hudsons vindication. 138, 139, &c. Baronius t. 4. l. 26. D. Hieron. ep. 61: It is true there is thus much said for it from antiquity, that Bishops were not usually ordained fine ti­tulo, but,

1. This was not to shew, that they were onely in of­fice to this or that Church, but to prevent vagrant itine­rary preachers.

2. St. Hierom contested with Paulinus the Bishop of [Page 160] Antioch when he was ordained, and would not be ordai­ned to any particular Church: if we may either believe Baronius or Hierom himselfe in his 61 Epistle ad Pamma­chium.

But to make hast, p. 63. you tell us five things which you conceive usurpations of the Gospell preachers office. I agree with you in all of them, onely I must still main­taine:

That preaching is the proper Act of a Preachers office, and so incommunicable, and if I make good what I have said to this purpose, you are condemned out of your own mouth.

To this purpose, in my Vindiciae I produced three Ar­guments, p. 34 35, 36, 37. you have answered not one of them; onely you say,

We say that it is as much his proper act as Baptisme; Truth, I did so, and proved it, because the same commission authori­zeth to both. 2. Saint Paul seemeth to lay more upon it then upon Baptizing, 1 Cor. 1.17. to neither of these doe you say a word.

A second argument I urged you with was this, The pro­per acts of Elders, Bishops, Stewards of the mysteries of God, Heralds, Embassadours, Watchmen, extraordinary Deacons, Pastors, Teachers, are acts of office,

But this is their proper act, see Scriptures, p. 24.

Third Argument, Either this is their proper act, or they have no proper act. But God did not ordaine an office with no act proper.

You have nothing to say against this, unlesse you say Baptizing and giving the Supper is their proper act, and then I require one Scripture to prove either of these a more proper act then preaching, see Vindiciae, p. 37. To none of these you answer.

So that for all that you have said, our argument stands strong, and will do so till you bring us a plaine Scrip­ture, or a good argument from Scripture to prove that [Page 161] God hath appointed Gospell preachers, some acts that are more proper to them then preaching.

CHAP. XIX. In which Mr. Sheppards 65, 66, 67 pages are an­swered, and his answers to our sixth and seventh Argument found too short.

THe next argument you pretend to answer is my 1 ar­gument, and the substance of my Brothers Halls se­cond, eighth, and ninth.

‘You say, we say you may not doe it because you are not called and sent by the Presbytery, as Ro. 10.15. 1 Tim. 3.10.4, 14.5.22, 2.2, 3.’ It is the Scripture saith so. (Sir) not we onely. To this you answer,

‘1. That you will not now dispute the Presbytery, nor thus call to the Ministry, no (Sir) it is not your best course, believe it, Swords and Pistols, will serve you better in that worke then Scripture and Reason.’

2. You agree that preachers in office must be duly called, none of them Scriptures say (Sir) preachers in office, but those that preach must be sent, Ro. 10. those that teach o­others must be not onely faithfull and able, but have the Gospell committed to them, 1 Tim. 2.2.

But you hold it convenient if not necessary; Jesus Christ (Sir) is beholden to you for drawing out duties into conveniences, I suppose you hold it convenient too, that the Gospell should be Preached and people heare and be sa­ved, it will be found necessary one day (Sir) Jesus Christ will make you ashamed of that same if not.

‘But the places onely speak of a call from God: and then a man is sent of God when he is fit and able to teach. 2. hath a willingnesse in his minde to give himselfe to the worke. 3 when providence disposeth him to a call to exer­cise his gift.’

I professe I tremble to read and heare men professing to the feare of God so boldly contradicting his word, trampling upon his plaine precepts, and all to exalt car­nall corrupt reason. But to answer a little.

1. If that be a call from God which you instance in, I beseech you Sir, with what face of a Christian can you say, most of the Scriptures quoted speak of no more? there are but five Scriptures in all, 1 Tim. 3.10. And let these also be proved? who should prove them, good Sir?) 1 Tim. 4.14. With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, is there no call from men thinke you? The third is 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly on no man▪ what is that meant of Gods immediate sending, thinke you, doth he lay hands on any? the fourth is 1 Tim. 2.2.—the same com­mit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others, is God meant by that thou thinke you (Sir?) the fifth place quoted first is Rom. 10.15. that indeed is not so plaine, but carnall reason hath more roome to cavill; but I have spoke enough before to cleare that from the Socinian glosse of providentiall sending: you tell us p. 66. you have cleared that Text, and shall adde no more. But truly (Sir) except you had spake more to the purpose before, you might have added your pleasure: but you say,

‘If these places be admitted in the sense we would have them, then it would follow that none might preach in any case but such as are examined and approved by the Pres­bytery, and that we dare not affirm, for we admit it in diverse cases.’

In none but in cases of necessity (Sir) and in such cases your note is false, for though believing actually be the ordinary meanes of salvation, yet infants may be saved without it.

Your answer to our argument, that it is forbidden, is not worth taking notice of, what is not commanded in divine worship in any essentiall part of it, is forbidden, especially there being rules set downe for some doing of it, and none for o­thers.

But (Sir) if you will doe any thing, answer my argu­ment formally, as you have it in my Vindiciae, p. 23, 24, 25 26, 27.

You come to answer one of my arguments,Page 67. to prove preaching a proper act of the preachers office, viz.

If they may preach they may baptize, &c. I gave two rea­sons for it, Math. 18.19. It is in the same commission. 2. The Apostle maketh it rather the greater act.

To this now you pretend to answer and say, 1. ‘You deny the consequence and collection, nor will that Text, 1 Cor. 1.17. make it out, but seemes rather to hold forth the contrary.’ Very well answered Sir, and with abundance of Reason: Secondly you say.

‘2. The words Math. 18.19. I will be with you to the end, may as well be applyed to the doctrine as the persons of the Apostles, and to those who shall be wrought upon by that doctrine as the Apostles.’

What's this to the purpose, I plead the Commission, you expound the promise. By this argument you prove they should Baptize too, if the whole commission extends to all Saints. You say,

3. You agree, that such as teach by office may Baptize, but gifted brethren doe not teach by office.

You adde to the Scripture (Sir,) by office is not in the Text, so that this is nothing to the purpose. You say,

‘4. You deny gifted Brethren have power to Baptize, be­cause they never did, but they have power to preach, because they ever did it and were never forbidden, but in effect com­manded.’

Your base affirmings and denyings it are but poore emp­ty words, that come to no more then wind.

1. Though they never did it, yet if they be comman­ded to doe it, they ought to take up their power.

2. Neither did any of them not called to office, or extraordinarily gifted with the gifts of the holy Ghost now ceased in ordinary times, when the Church was not under persecution, ever doe it.

[Page 164]3. I have proved before they are forbidden, and nei­ther commanded directly nor by consequence. You tell us.

‘5. That you cannot agree, that preaching in a greater worke then baptisme rightly done with preaching and prayer.’

No matter whether you agree it, or no, you should doe well to prove that it is necessary that all Baptisme follow or immediately goe before preaching; we grant it conve­nient, not necessary that Baptisme be administred with Preaching, though you read of the Gospell being Prea­ched, Acts 2. Acts 8. before the Baptizing of the 3000. and the Eunuch, yet you cannot prove I suppose that those Sermons were intentionally preached in order to Baptisme.

I cannot tell how you will prove what you say here, that praying is a more spirituall worke then preaching, I am sure neither in respect of the Subject, object, matter, or end, nor in respect of the right manner of perfor­mance. You say,

‘6. Grant it be the greater worke, it doth not follow, that because the people may doe that, they may doe the lesse, which is Baptisme, for — if a commission be granted to Commissioners to heare and determine lesser offences.’

1. But Sir the people have no commission granted them to preach.

2. If there be a Commission granted to persons to heare and determine Treasons and Felonies, I suppose it is a good argument to prove they may heare and determine the Felonies; because they may heare and determine the Treasons, and they are both in the same commission. This is the case (Sir) Christ Jesus hath granted commission to certaine persons to preach his Gospell and Baptize, if you say and prove they may Preach. I will prove they may Baptize; why? they are both in the same Commis­sion.

3. I observe that you say nothing to 1 Cor. 1.17. [Page 165] where the Apostle saith, Christ sent him not to preach, but baptize. The words cannot be understood absolutely, for St. Paul did baptize the houshold of Stephanas, by his own confession. The meaning must be, that he lookt upon preaching as his chiefe act as a Gospel Officer. This you are not willing to take notice of.

CHAP. XX. In which Mr. Sheppards 68, 69, 70 pages are exa­mined, and his answer to our eighth and eleventh objections found too short.

IN the next place you answer our Argument drawn from the inconveniencies and evils will come of it.

This you have up p. 68, 70, 71. You divide it and make two objections. I will reply to your answers in both places together.

It is my brother Halls twelfth Argument, p. 26. edit. 1. and it is a good Argument, thus formd.

The tree which constantly and naturally brings forth cor­rupt fruit, is a corrupt root. This is our Saviours Logicke, Mat. 7. not to be denied.

But this principle and practice brings forth naturally very corrupt fruit. 1 Pet. 3.16.

Ergo, It is a corrupt root, a plant not of our fathers plan­ting.

The Minor is proved by an induction of particulars:

1. It confounds offices. 2. It breeds disorder. 3. It opens a doore to errour. 4 It destroyes preaching in office, Vindiciae mi­nisterii, p. 35. 36. and makes it contemptible. The first of these I u [...]ge, p. 33, 36. 5. Many of these Lay preachers deny Scriptures, Ordinances, Duties, Magistrates, Sabbaths, fastings.

I am sure the Argument is good enough, if we prove those two things.

[Page 166]1. That naturally, and ordinarily, and necessarily those are the fruits.

2. That constantly they have been.

The Apostle proves the first plainly, 1 Pet. 3.16. That the unlearned wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Experience proves the latter. Let us heare your cavils.

1. We say, Offices are usurped and confounded by it.

To this you say nothing more then you said before: that they doe not preach as officers; thats the substance of all, and the drift of your similitudes from Bakers and Brewers comes to no more. We answer:

1. That you cannot prove any preaching in Scripture, but what was an act of office.

2. If a man bake his own bread, or brew his own beere, I know none hath any thing to say to him; but sup­pose he bakes for all will buy, what becomes of the bakers office then Sir? this is our case. But your similitudes are generally miserably lame.

3. We told you before, Reading was no proper act of the Preachers office; and therefore you argue miserably to say, because peoples reading the Scripture doth not confound offices, therefore their preaching will not.

4. To what you say, that these Ordinances rightly used may stand together, we answer, that we desire you to prove their preaching publiquely to be an Ordinance, and then produce the Scriptures directing to the right use of it.

5. For the Tryall you say is made, and no such inconve­niences appeare. We answer you in severall places, such hath appeared: aske the Churches in New England and Holland, &c. I remember Sir, the Fable in Esop, that the Snake did not presently sting him that took it into his bosome. Tell me some seven yeers hence.

Our second ill consequence we charged it with, was "That all would then preach, and there would be disorder, and God is the God of order.

To this you say, That all never had, nor will have this [Page 167] guift. Yet you told us before, that all the Saints having the spirit dwelling in them, and this spirit being a spirit of Scripture interpretation, all have this guift, more or lesse.

2. All are bound to exhort one another privately, and you lay much strength upon that Argument.

3. If all doe but think they have it, it is enough, who shall judge? You tell us,

"Order must be taken to regulate the exercise of it. By what Scrip [...]ure rule? there is a rule indeed for Church officers being proved, but as you have exempted gifted men from the other rules given to Gospell preachers, viz. Medita­ting, giving themselves wholly to it, making it their worke, so surely they are exempted from this too; except you produce your rule, the rules about prophecying were applicable in this case, which they are not, there is no re­striction, onely that they shall not all doe it together, as if the Bells rung auke.

Besides (Sir) is not order broke, when one body hath ten or twenty tongues, yea as many as Argus had eyes? the Apostle compares the Church to a body naturall; truly it should not be all tongue.

The third ill fruit mentioned was,

That it would be a ready way to let in all Errours and blasphemies.

To this you reply:

1. You doe not believe it.

Doe you believe Scripture? 2 Pet. 3.16.Superbia ut Augustinus ve­rissime ait [...]st mater omnium haeresium. Lutherus. Ne [...]esse enim est ut prius sit judicium quam eloquium prius sapere quam dicere. Erasmus. Nisi enim verba intelligamus quomodo sensam reperiemus? Whitake. de Scrip. q. 5. c. 9 Ʋ. illum ib. shewing many pieces of Scripture translated, that according to the tran­slation we cannot answer Hereticks. that sayes the unlearned will wrest Scriptures; prove it is meant of pra­cticall learning. Do you believe Reason? Reason will tell you and so doth Scripture too. 2 Tim. 6.4. that there are two fathers of Heresie, Pride, and Ignorance, Pride is a [Page 168] great cause of learned mens errours, when men are of crotchicall heads, and then of proud spirits, conceited of their own fancies. 2. Ignorance, when men cannot under­stand the Originall or weigh parallell Scriptures, &c. but either wrest in the lesser or run mad in Allegories and fi­gures; but you tell us,

"The greatest learn'd men have been the greatest hereticks.

It is true many learned men have through pride beene dangerous heretickes, Arrius, Apollinaris, Pelagius, and Socinus were all learned men: but Sir what thinke you of Iohn a Leyden, Knipperdolling, Becold, and many others, and what thinke you in our times of Collier and others?

Will you believe experience? enquire where you heare of any nests of Ranters, Antinomians, Familists, &c. whence they came first? so that there are others of that opinion besides Papists.

‘But errours the more publike they are, the lesse harme they will doe.’

Pretty Religion! and a pretty argument for an Vni­versall toleration, let Christs face be spit upon, as much as it will, that his friends may wipe it off; is the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ no more pretious in your eyes Sir?

'But the Preachers give all leave to Print.

No such matter (Sir) Mr. Batchelor indeed was wont to doe it, but Presbyterian preachers have learn'd Christ better, and tender his glory more.

"But the abuses may be prevented and the right use retain'd.

1. That which you call right use (Sir) is an abuse.

Zanchius in quartum prae­ceptum.2. Zanchy in quartum preceptum gives a good rule, In rebus non necessariis si modo abutantur, tollendus et usus & abusus, e­very body can say as much as this comes to for a Popish holiday. There is no necessity any should preach without a due call.

‘But you tell us, p. 70. that to avoid an errour on the left hand, we must not run into one on the Right.’

First prove it an errour (Sir) to hold, that onely per­sons duly called and set apart to the office may ordinarily and publikely interpret and apply Scriptures in a constituted Church.

You tell us, ‘That we are not to believe and take up all the Evill reports we heare of the people of God, many have been branded for Hereticks who are now in Hea­ven, &c.’

What's this to the purpose? (Sir) you dare not deny but there are errours and heresies, Gal. 5.20 What if Papists and heretickes brand the Saints with those names? are therefore none rightly so called? what thinke you (Sir) of Pelagians and Socinians and Antitrinitarians, of such as thinke, we are Godded, and there is no Angells, no Devills, no Heaven, no hell, read Jerrard Winstanly his platforme of Freedome, dedicated to his Excellency, à p. 55. ad. p. 63. and tell me if you thinke him a Saint of God? yet there are not one or two, but one or two thousand (rather) such in England, most of which, if you enquire, you will I believe find either have been Preaching Brethren, or their hearers, and where ever they are met they have a Brother to preach to them; and defie a Mi­nister of the Gospell, &c.

I have heard of some that would never believe there were any witches till they or some of their friends were bewitched; (Sir) I trust (If you have any) you have a more vertuous yoke fellow, but if you had a wife that with hearing a Cobler preach for the Community of all things, had beene so convinced as to have made her selfe common, and have gone from you and joyn'd with a par­ty of those principles, and two or three yeares after come home with a Child or two more then you had seene be­fore, (as some I could tell you of in the world this day have beene served) you might then possibly believe there were Heretickes, and yet these persons were high profes­sors and pretended much to the Spirit.

In the next place, p. 72. you tell us, God will discover Hypocrites in [...]he last dayes.

What then? must we therefore permit heresies? or meanes directly tending to them, or would you infer from hence, that in order to this discovery gifted men should be permitted to preach.

‘You say, we might as well have reproach'd Christ and the Apostles, for Judas, Peter, Ananias, and Sapphira, Demas.’

You are very unhappy (Sir) at making parallells, you tell us here of a Saint of God under a temptation, and a son of perdition and three profane wretches. 2. Nor are Heretickes so thin amongst us as amongst the Apostles. 3. Nor did Christ and the Apostles use a direct meanes to propagate errours, as we argue this would be.

This is truth (Sir) but to what purpose? hence I con­clude therefore, they that are led by the spirit neither lead others into errours, nor are led themselves, but unlearned preachers doe both, 2 Pet. 3.16.

2. The evill spirit may sometimes lead those into er­rour in whom the spirit dwells, this is a temptation Saints may be under, and it is one ready way to be brought into it, to usurpe acts of office, and run before they are sent, when they run out of Gods way the spirit of God leaves them.

The fourth ill consequence we urged was,

That by this means Preachers and preaching in office would he uselesse and contemptible.

To the latter you answer:

1. The same might have beene said of the Priests under the law.

Right; and was it not so? see Num. 16.3. what Corah, Dathan and Abiram say, you take too much upon you, seeing all the Congregation are holy every one of them, and the Lord [Page 171] is amongst them, wherefore then lift up your selves aboue the Congregation of the Lord.

2. You say you doe not believe it, because you have seene the "contrary in your own experience.

None so blind as they that will not see (Sir) I durst undertake for one that you can shew me, that being a private person gifted, and a publike preacher, that yet continues with an humble sober heart under the aw of Gods ordinances, and honouring the Lords publike of­ficer, I will shew you twenty that are either above Ordi­nances, or slighters and contemners of the Ministers of the Gospell.

3. You tell us, This is certaine, Those that honour God, God will honour, that's our comfort (Sir) and we doubt not but God will doe it here or hereafter, Dan 12.3. but that is no warrant for our spitting on them.

‘You say, This will not make the preachers office less use [...] full and necessary: for God in his wisdom and mercy will have some, whose office it shall be to take care of the soules of his people, &c.’

Right (Sir) God will, but man would not, and what you have here said will be an argument against you.

If this be Gods Ordinance and will, surely he would not have all usurp the peculiar acts of his office, as this doth. See my Vindiciae Ministerii, p. 96 37.

CHAP. XXI. In which Mr. Sheppards 70, 71, 72, 73 pages are examined and answered, and his answers to ele­ven objections scann'd and found very weake.Pulpit guard. p. 25, 26.

YOu are now come to answer my brother Halls ele­venth Argument, which was this:

‘They which have no promise from God of divine assistance, cannot comfortably or succesfully undertake the work.’

‘But private persons turning preachers without a call, have no such promise: Ergo.’

To this you answer, 1. By denying the Minor; and you tell us there is a promise to a right hearing. Truth sir, but this is not a right hearing, for how shall they heare without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent, Ro. 10.15.

2. You say, There was a blessing followed the preaching of "those scattered upon the persecution of Stephen, Acts 8.1, 4. Act. 11.21. I answer:

1. You are to prove, 1. That they were not in office.

2. That they had not the extraordinary guifts of the holy Ghost.

3. That they preached in a constituted Church ordinarily, when the people might heare such as were in office. You will come short in this proofe.

3. It is false that you say; we may as well say, there is no promise made to private teachings, and exhortings of one ano­ther. They are commanded duties, which when rightly performed, have promises annexed constantly.

In the next place you come to my brother Halls 17 Argument, p. 48. and my seventh, p. 46.

My Argument was this:

It is likely that that tenet which the Churches of Christ have in all ages rejected; and that practice which the Chur­ches of Christ in all ages have decried and avoyded, is not a truth of Christ.

But the Churches of Christ in all ages have rejected and decried this opinion and practice. Ergo.

Now let us heare what you say against this.

1. You say, You are to live by Rule, not by example.

1. Truth sir, but you can shew us no Rule for you.

2. Neither is there any Rule that hath not been put in practice by some of the Churches of Christ.

[Page 173]3. Where you can onely say, It is not directly forbid­den, not that it is absolutely necessary. Example (Sir) if generall, or of the most, is not to be despised.

4. Surely the Apostle said something, when he said, we have no such customs, nor have the Churches of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.16.

You say it was not so in the primitive times. Prove that; "Nor so every where this day. What's that to the purpose? we have generally sad examples in this age.

We told you, That many of these Lay-preachers were such "as denied Scripture ordinances, Duties, Obedience to Magi­strates, Sabbaths, Fastings.

To this you answer:

1 None that are led by the Spirit doe so. They doe, it may be, "speak against the abuse of duties, and peoples resting on them, and performing them carnall.

Sir, (notwithstanding this shamelesse insinuation) we would have you know we are as much against, and preach as much against resting in duties (that high idola­try) and carnall performance of them, as any others can or doe.

2. You say, None that are led by the Spirit doe so. But many guifted brethren doe so.—Ergo.

‘Again we say, For Magistracy, you appeale to all the world, who more alienate the peoples affections from our pre­sent governers, the preachers, or the guifted brethren.’

1. Whats this to the purpose? doe preachers in Office preach down Magistracy?

2. Any one is good when he is pleased. Suppose our Parliament should forbid private persons preaching; or severely punish errours and heresie; what would you do then? we can tell you when the guifted brethren were not such friends to the Magistrates or Magistracy of Eng­land.

3. What if some Ministers (not all, Sir) were for a while unsatisfied in the late change? was there nothing [Page 174] in it (Sir) that might startle a tender conscience?

4. We believe that our Parliament doth, and in seven yeers time will more thinke them like to be best subjects who most feare an oath, and are most tender of doing any thing which might make an appearance of the breach of it.

Another Objection you say we make is,

"It is against Gospel precepts and order. 1 Tim. 5.1, 22. Act. 13.3.

You aime here I believe at my first Argument, p. 23. But you are so wise as not to put it in the forme I put it. To this you answer nothing, but Magisterially deny it.

A 13 Objection which you pretend to answer, is drawn from 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every one abide in his cal­ling.

This I think is one of my brother Halls Arguments.

You answer, That guifted brethrens preaching is a piece of their generall calling. But (Sir) I have already proved, that publique preaching is a proper act of a particular cal­ling, and no such act can be an act of our generall cal­ling.

A 14 Objection. This was to be committed to others, 2 Tim. 2.2. This is now a bit of my fourth Argument. (Sir) you are a shamefull disputant. You should re­peat my Argument, and then deny a proposition. But you tell us,

"That place is meant of the office of the Ministery, which you contend not for.

Truth (Sir) but you contend for a proper and chiefe Act of that office, as I have already proved. Whereas you say that the word is committed to the whole Church, 1 Tim. 3.15. I have answered that place before.

In the next place you pretend to answer a fifteenth ob­jection, which is my fifth Argument, p. 40. of my Vin­diciae.

Whosoever may lawfully preach the Gospell and interpret [Page 175] Scriptures ordinarily, &c. may warrantably require a maintenance competent for them, of those to whom they so preach.

But this guifted persons cannot &c.

You grant the Minor, and tell me the Major is a Non sequitur.

You deny the plain words of the Apostle (Sir) 1 Tim. 5.18. They that rule well, are worthy of double honour, (coun­tenance and maintenance, viz.) especially such as labour in the Word and Doctrine. Matth. 10 10. 1 Tim. 5.18. Gal. 6.6. He that is taught in the Word is bound to communicate to him that teacheth in all good things.

1. Prove this is meant onely of such as are in office.

And then 2. That any are to preach that are not in office, or else you tell the holy Apostle his words are false.

A 16 objection you pretend to answer is drawn from that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12 ‘Where the Apostle to shew that there should be order kept in the Cburch of Christ, that one should not be dissatisfied at the excelling gift or office of ano­ther, compares the Church to a Naturall body, wherein are se­verall Members, and all have their severall offices, &c. some eyes, some eares, &c. and hence proves, that in the Church all should not be eares, eyes, &c. they should not usurpe one ano­thers places, nor envy one another for them.’

To this you answer, Who denies this, or what have we "said against this?

You deny it (Sir) when you say God hath ordained all to be Tongues.

A 17. Objection: Then women and boyes may preach.

You tell us: 1. Women might if they were not forbidden. I deny it, they must be commanded, or else they might not; this was the old Popish plea for ceremonies, they were lawfull because not forbidden.

2. You say women did it, 1 Cor. 11.3. That place (Sir) is to be understood of being present at prophecying, or of [Page 176] extraordinary prophecying, or else the Apostle contradicts himselfe in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 14.34. which I hope you dare not say.

3. You say, Boyes may if they have a gift, and to prove it you tell us Christ did, Lu. 2.46, and Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.42.

1. You have put a pretty uncivill terme upon our Savi­our and upon Timothy, surely they were no ordinary boyes (Sir) I perceive you have not read Aristotle, he would tell you there is a Juvenis aetate & Moribus, young men in re­spect of age, or manners and abilities. You come to an

18. Object. This gift of opening and applying Scripture, "especially hard places, was onely temporary and now ceased.

‘This you say (if true) were something, but many have it at this day.’

You say right (Sir) this is something, and before you condemne it for false, answer the Reasons to prove it extraordinary, which I have gathered out of severall lear­ned and holy men, and presented you with in my Vindiciae Ministerii, p. 50. 51. and when you have done that well, tell me what you thinke of men having that gift in these dayes.

19. Object. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sinne.

This is one of my Brother Halls arguments, and all you can say can never answer it, for it will not serve your turne to prove it is of faith, because it is not specially forbid­den.

But you tell us, it is warranted by Scripture, where (Sir?) this is all you will say to this argument, I believe it sca­red you, and you made hast to quit your hands of it.

20. Object. There are two ordinances of Parliament in force against it.

In answer to this you grant

"1. That it is a practice restrainable by Authority.

Now see (Sir) how obedient our gifted Brethren are to Magistrates.

[Page 177]2. You say Authority doth connive at it.

Connivence (Sir) doth not frustrate publike acts nor warrant disobedience to them.

3. But you hope in time the Parliament will repeale them.

It is possible, but if they doe not doe it till they finde them inconsistent with the lawes of Christ, they will be in force long enough.

4. You grant it irregular and inconvenient for them to preach till authority doth command or allow it, then I see our Brethren though they may have the Spirit are not infallible, in their principles and practices they may be irregular.

But I cannot but observe how upon all occasions, our brethren are more beholden to you then our God is: you grant Magistrates in this case, have power to command and re­straine, Ro. 13.1. Let every soule (saith the Apostle) be sub­ject to the higher powers.—v. 2. Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God, and receiveth to himselfe damnation, this is undoubtedly true of resisting true and lawfull powers in things which they may command and re­straine, yet you mince it prettily, not sinfull and unlawful, but irregular and inconvenient when it concerns the gifted brethren.

I have now done to the doctrinall part of your Booke, and have proved your doctrine false.

The Application (if such as it should be) must onely be the conclusion from these premises. I have denyed the premises, I need not deny the conclusion, I will only in one Chapter note a note or two.

CHAP. XXII. Containing some short notes upon Mr. Sheppards fourth Chatper, p. 73. to the end of his Booke; Concluding with a short application unto him.

1. YOu chide the preachers, p. 74. that they never presse upon the people their duty to interpret Scriptures, we must (Sir) first know it is their duty and not their sinne, you goe on, p. 74. 75, 76. in some things scandalously aspersing, in other things unwarrantably reproving the Ministers, impertinently applying and shamefully wre­sting Scriptures, and lastly calling away our people from us as from Babylon, Rev 18.34 —Bona verba quaeso. As is a man,P. 78. so is his tongue, Causa infirma est semper querula, here's hard language enough (Sir) but your arguments before, and your sense here, is as soft as a bulfist; Sir we hate Popish superstitions with as full an hatred as your selfe.

Then you turne to the gifted brethren, and give them eight wholesome rules, against which I have nothing to say, but onely thinke there is one wanting, viz.

That they submit themselves to Examination and Ordi­nation, much else there is of good in the latter pages of your booke, but nothing argumentative.

I shall here close; I have not Sir (I thinke) aspersed your person, you are a stranger to me, and (if I may judge by some things in your booke) one that professeth much to the feare of God and the honour of Jesus Christ, whom I desire to feare, and in whom alone is my hope, and whom I desire to serve in my spirit; If I have made my selfe merry with your Logicke sometimes.—Hanc veniam damus petimusque vicissim.

Now I beseech you (Sir) by the Love of God, and by the [Page 179] Lord Jesus Christ, seriously to weigh this thing, and to consider,

1. Whether there be any Gospell precept or plaine president for this practise?

2. Whether there is not ground enough in Scripture to thinke this act of preaching a proper and restrained act, when as it is plainely betrusted to officers in so many Texts?

3. Whether, these things considered, it can be an act of Faith in them to preach who are not so called?

4. Whether usually such preachers be not puft up with an opinion of their own parts?

5. Whether most of the heresies and blasphemies by which the precious name of our God is dishonoured this day, be not branches from this root and still maintained by it.

And (Sir) let us not contend for Masteries but for Truth. Can you thinke Sir that (as the polluted state of Englands professors now is) this is a way to reforme us? can a gifted brother convince a gainesaying Socinian or Anabaptist, or Arminian thinke you? are not some of these in every corner of the Nation? Is not a gifted bro­ther more likely to be seduced by their subtilities, then to convince and oppose or answer? shall not the Gospell of the Lord Jesus Christ suffer when a publike preacher of it shall turne his back upon an adversary? (Deare Sir) I beseech you by the Lord Jesus Christ consider these things, and take heed of pleading for Baal, no, let him plead for himselfe; I beseech you to peruse Dr. Seamans Booke: Mr. Halls Pulpits guarded, Mr. Ferribies answer to Collier, the Booke called Church Members set in j [...]ynt, and that called Lay preaching unmask't, and (if you will stoop so low as to read my Vindiciae) you will finde there collected what Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Rutherford (those two holy and learned men) have said in answer to all ar­guments. For my part I am resolved to take up pen no [Page 180] more, except I find something more objected that these Reverend Fathers and Brethren have not answered, but if you say any thing that one of them hath not answered, or invalidate their answers. I will promise you a sober reply. But (Deare Sir) strive not for Masteries Magna est veritas & praevalebit, the great God and his truth shall one day conquer all. Believe it (Sir) I could heartily wish all the Lords people were Prophets, O that their knowledge might be doubled if conjoyned with Sobriety and humility and the feare of God, let me be accursed that day that I desire any thing that my conscience tells me should tend to Ecclipse divine light, no let it Triumph till the Prince of darkenesse be driven out of every corner, till our un­derstandings be fully enlightned: thus far Sir, I hope we agree. The Lord guide us into all truth: