The Preacher sent: OR, A VINDICATION Of the Liberty of PUBLICK PREACHING, By some men not Ordained.

In Answer to two Books:

  • 1. Jus Divinum Ministerii Euangelici. By the Provincial Assembly of LONDON.
  • 2. Vindiciae Ministerii Euangelici. By Mr. John Collings of Norwich.

Published by

  • Iohn Martin, Minister of the Gospel at Edgfield in Nor­folk.
  • Sam. Petto, Minister of the Gospel at Sand-croft in Suffolk.
  • Frederick Woodal, Minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk.

LONDON. Printed for Livewel Chapman and are to be sold at the Crown in Popes-Head-ally. 1658

To all faithful Ministers, and true­ly Christian People, professing the Order of Church-fellowship and Government, called Pres­byterian.

Beloved Brethren:

IT's surely an error in practise, when upon a plea of error in judgment, men write actually and effectually one against ano­ther, discharging themselves as guns loa­den with prejudice, wrath, and discontent; giving out but little light, yet roaring and wounding exceeding much. We desire to be found innocent from this transgression, and do present what we have writ­ten as for you, and not against you; having had it in our hearts to design, if possible, some communication of light, however some provocation of Love: whilst you see our help, from the (seeming at least, but to us) real countenance of the Scripture, you may finde reason to beleeve, we are nes presumptuously wilful, though extremely weak.

We may not conceal two things as heavy weights upon our spirits, when the Lord was calling us out to minister unto him in the publication of this work; which though we have been inabled to cast from us, yet we are jealous lest they may lie as stones of stumbling in your way, and obtain sen­tence of condemnation to pass upon us as criminals, before you have heard us plead our cause.

1. The exceeding great abuse of that liberty we plead [Page] for, whereupon we had almost said, Let us not do good, lest evil come thereof. But in this we were satisfied con­sidering, 1. That the having and reading the Scriptures in our tongue, is the first occasion of the manifold errors and divisions found amongst us; yet the loss of that liberty would be an intolerable loss. 2. Did Ordination pass up­on every Preacher, there is no such virtue in it to make pure, or to keep pure: as some vessels under that mark bring us gold and silver, so some are loaden with little else, but apes and peacocks. 3. The allowableness of an act is founded in the authority by which it is performed, when attend­ed with dueness of circumstance, not in issue, success, or uncertain event: the active humiliation of our blessed Lord was the greatest-stumbling block, and an occasion of the saddest blasphemy to the Nation of the Jews, that ever any people were acquainted with; yet therein he was obedient, and therefore honored. Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. 4. Such men as are through Grace [...], taught of God, and through gift [...]. apt to teach. are as vines and fig- [...]es, where the cursed fruit of error and division with obstinacy persisted in, is not found; and for such only we plead.

2. That we hereby keep open bleeding wounds, which had need be healed: the answer whereunto we trust also of a good conscience, is this: It is a duty to contend, Jude 3. although to be conte [...]tious is sin: a contending Spirit may be healing, a contentious spirit is w [...]unding evermore. We profess our selves bound for peace, as far as the shooes of the Gospel will carry us; and say with Calvin, Opranda quidem est pax, summoque Caivin de v [...]ra Christianae pacifi­ [...]is, & [...]c­clesiae reforman­dera [...]ione. studio querenda: sed p [...]tius quam redi­matur ulla pietati [...] au [...] veritatis jactu­ra, Coelumterra si [...]pus est misceatur.

And because the many controversies concerning Officers issue from a diverse apprehension of the nature of the Church it self, we shall crave leave in a few [Page] words to give an account of our perswasion thereabout, with the grounds and reasons thereof.

It is unto us clear as the shining light, That a Church formed unto fellowship in New-Testament-Ordinances (we would not found a controversie upon a word) a Church ca­pable of Officers, immediately to be set in it, and over it, who may take heed to all the flock, o­versee and feed it, which also must know Act 20. 28. 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7, 17. them, obey and submit unto them, as to such as watch for their souls; is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual fellowship in the means of worship appointed by Christ, for the glory of God, the edification of their own souls, and the good of others.

1. It's a company; one cannot be a Church. Tell the Church, is not, Tell the Bishop; though some have had it, and still would have it so.

2. It's a particular company: indeed there never was, never will be a company existing in rerum naturâ, any other then a particular company: we grant an Universal company of Saints in a reformed sense, comprehending ever indivi­dual Saint-member thereof, whether formed unto fellowship, or unformed; but as Saints, not as Churches of Saints: as the world is universal, of which all Creatures are a part, yet did a man stand where he might see all Countreys and all Creatures, he should see but a particular world, really par­ticular, but intellectually Universal: so when all Saints shall be gathered together at the right hand of the Lord, ther shall be seen a particular company of Saints, really particular, though intellectually universal; this being apprehended, viz. here are all, there are no more: it's otherwise with Compa­nies of Saints formed into fellowship; did a manstand where he might see all Corporations; all particular civil Societies of men, he might acknowledge the general nature of Corpora­tions existing in either of them, and yet deny an universal Corporation consisting of them as parts thereof: So were all [Page] the particular Churches represented to his view at once, he might grant that the uni­versal Universalis natura est una in multis. nature of a Church, is in either of them, yet deny an universal Church consist­ing of them as parts thereof.

Neither can we understand how that Scripture, 1 Cor. 12. 28. so often pressed into the service of the Catholick Church, can be found really a friend thereunto: for God hath set some in the Church, is equivalent to that which is written, ver. 18. God hath set the members every one in [the] Body; now if this hath no strength, God hath set the members in the Body, Ergo, There is a Catholick, Body; then this is weak: God hath set some in the Church, Ergo, There is a Catholick Church. And let not our Brethren impute it to a spirit of faction and division in us, that we renounce the name and thing of a Church, of Churches, or of such a visible Catholick Church: for,

1. Every part is incompleat, not having the power of a whole in it: but every particular Church rightly constitu­ted, hath in it the power of a whole Church, therefore 'tis not a part: & whatever our Brethren deny us in our Congregati­ons, yet may they obtain a concession for a National Church­constitution, we doubt not but they would be therein Inde­pendent, and not allow the Authority of any Nation, or of all the Nations in the Christian world, to impose a form of or­der or Government upon them, wherein they are not satisfi­ed; acting in all Church-work, not as a part, but a whole: which they could not regularly doe, if but a part of a Catho­lick Church.

2. Every whole is really distinct from every part, and from all its parts collectively considered: they are constituting that is constituted; but where that Church is, which is re­ally distinct from all particular Churches, or wherefore it is, we profess we know not.

3. There is no Universal visible meeting to worship God, Ergo, no Universal visible Church. The Synagogical [Page] meetings of the Jews were the meetings of several parts of that Church, and there never was in them the power of the whole Church; and we know not how it can be stiled, a Na­tional Church (unless it be from a national meeting, Statis temporibus) the word [...] being never used, either in a civil sense, as Act. 19. 32, 41. or a Sacred sense, but propter Conventum, either in fieri or in facto esse, because the persons were met, or under engagement to meet toge­ther: yea the Church of the first-born, however dispersed and scattered upon the Earth, yet doth as an invisible Church meet invisibly and in Spsrit to perform the acts of worship re­quired of such a Church: we are confident, whatever it be is called [...], assembling together is the formal reason of that denomination, which is Coetus con­vocatus, or the Congregation, as 'tis every where Coetus à Coeundo. translated by Mr. Tindal in his translation of the New Testament.

4. There are no distinct Officers appointed for such a distinct Church, ergo there is no such Church: Diocesan Bishops, Provincial Arch-Bishops, National [...]atriarchs, universal Popes, would surely have been found in the Scrip­ture, had a Diocesan, Provincial, National, or Uni­versal Church been found there.

5. There is no Church greater then that which hath the power to hear and determine upon offences committed in the Church; but that Church is particular, Mat. 18. 17. We know dissenting parties lay claim to this Text on both sides: we say but this, If it means the Congregation, it excludes all other; if it means the any other, it excludes the Congregation; which is unscriptural, irrational, ab­surd.

Obj. If notwithstanding all this, some may judge, that although Churches do not meet in their members actually, yet they may meet in their representatives, which being met, may be called, The Classical, Provincial, National, Universal Church.

[Page] Answ. We answer each of us in the words of Zuingli­us, to a like argument, Representativam credo veram esse non credo: i. e. That such a Church is a repre­sentative I believe, but I believe not that it is a true Church.

3. It's a holy company, a company of Saints, Rom 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. said therefore to be in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, 1 Thes. 1. 1.—

1. It's the Kingdom of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Church of Christ, yea Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 12. implying neerness of relation unto him; but none visibly related unto Satan, as the visibly uncalled are, can be respected as vi­sibly related unto the Lord Jesus; therefore not of his King­dome, Body, Church, &c.

2. The visibility of that which constitutes a member of the invisible Church, declares a man meet to be received unto Communion in the visible; but the Heavenly Call constituteth a member of the invisible Church, ergo the visibility of that Call declares a man meet to be received un­to Communion in the visible, the members whereof are Saints by calling: no Churches of Christ by institution, but are Churches of Saints by constitution, 1 Cor. 14. 33.

3. Every Body is to be considered, first in its essential state, before it can be determined such a body in its inte­gral, or organical state: as man is compounded of soul and body, and so constituted an essential whole, who hath fur­ther more eyes and ears, hands and feet, parts and mem­bers, which put him under another notion; yet cannot all his parts and members which are integral, compleat him in the being of a man Univocally, if he be deficient in any part which is essential: so is every aggregate in forming a flock of sheep; 'tis necessary to consider the nature of the creatures to be formed; and none, not sheep, can be numbred to such a flock: in forming a Church of Saints, 'tis necessary to consider the nature of the members to be form­ed; and [...] Saints visibly, can be numbred to such a [Page] Church: Invisible unbelievers may as well belong to the invi­sible Church, as visible unbelievers to that which is visible.

We forbear multiplying arguments for further proof, be­cause we have the consent of our Brethren in the general: as to the necessity of Saintship, the whole strife being at the door of visibility, and about the rule for the judgement thereof; which some mistaking, have their charity so large, as to embosome nations of men, Separatim & conjunctim, as Saints, upon the account of a bare dogmatical faith, espe­cially if it be not contradicted with enormous scandals; reckoning it among the errours of Jus Divi­num Regim. Eccles. pre­face. the Independents, that they affirme, the matter of the visible Church must be (to the utmost judgement of discerning) such as have true grace, real Saints. Concerning therefore a judgment of visible Saintship, we are thus minded according to rule.

1. Errours of judgement overturning the foundations of faith, are inconsistent with grace & Saintship, Tit. 3. 10, 11.

2. Errours of life everturning the foundations of holiness, are inconsistent with grace and Saintship Gal. 5 19, 20, 21, 24. and thus far we suppose our Brethren will walk with us.

3. Total ignorance of the way and working of Christ in the heart, is inconsistent with grace and Saintship, 1 Pet. 3. 15. We ask our Brethren, what rule they would walk by, in applying comfort to particular souls? if they would not enquire after truth of grace, what experience of sins burthen? what experience of Christs relief? yea further we would know, what reason they have to justifie a practise of enquiring after truth of grace in order to Communion in the Lords Supper, and yet condemn us for the same practise in order to the Communion of Vindication of the Presbyteri­al Govern­ment, and Mi­nistry, printed 1650. Saints, who write thus: He that would come to the Sacrament must examine himself: 1. In general, whether he be worthy to come, &c. 2. In particular, whether he have true faith in Christ, with­out [Page] which he cannot worthily eat this bread, nor drink this cup. 2. Whether be truly repent, &c. 3. Whe­ther he be truly united by love to Jesus Christ & his members &c. Vind. p, 52. 53. They further say, that such as are grosly ignorant (and such they intimate them to be, that cannot examine themselves, their faith, re­pentance, &c.) should be kept from the Sacrament by Church-Officers, upon diverse reason: else, 1. Church-Governors should be very unfaithful Stewards, 2. They should be guilty of polluting and prophaning the Sacra­ment. 3. They should express much cruelty to the Soul of him to whom they give the Sacrament, because they give it to one who will eat and drink his own dam­nation. 4. They make themselves accessary to his sin of unworthy receiving. 5. They grieve the Godly mem­bers of the same congregation; and as much as in them lieth, defile the whole Congregation, For know you not (saith the Apostle) that a little leaven doth leaven the whole lump? 6. They bring down the judgments of God upon the Congregation, pag. 54 55. 56. Upon this they build a third proposition, viz. It is the will of Christ, that Church-Governors have some way suffici­ent to discover who are ignorant, &c. page 57. What they would do at the table, we would do at the door, and entrance into the house, receiving thereinto all those whom the Lord hath received (to the best of our di­scerning) and no more; knowing no rule for an ordina­ry suspension of compleat and owned members of the bo­dy, from the priviledges given, and by our Lord be­queathed thereunto.

Let not any stumble at the corruption found in some of the Gospel-Churches: an incestuous person was a member in that of Corinth; and more disorder may be found in it: to which we say, filthy matter may be found in a Church rightly constituted, which is not fit mat­ter in the constitution thereof. It were absurd to affirm, [Page] an unclean person may de jure be a Church-member, be­cause a Church-member de facto was unclean. As for the National body of the Jewes, we respect it as a typi­cal president: purge out the leaven, remove the leper, him that hath an issue, that is unclean by touching of the dead, &c. and we are satisfied concerning the matter of the Church.

4. It's an united Company. A Company however qualified, are not a Church, except an united Company: Member-hood speaks relation: relation, if Political, is founded in consent: my brother indeed is my brother whether I will or no, this relation is natural; so beleev­ers are brethren without consent: but my companion not so, the mutual relation found in Companies and So­cieties of men, is not so. We would not quarrel about a word, expressing the meaning of union; may we obtain a grant of the thing it self, call it consent. agreement, covenant, or joyning, Act. 5. 13. Thus we argue, That whereby a number of fit persons are joyned together, to walk and worship God together in the same Ordinan­ces, is the form of a particular Church. But by Cove­nant, consent, or agreement, a number of fit persons are so joyned: Ergo. The Minor we prove thus: That which giveth being of Member-hood, distinction of Churches, and power of Ecclesiastical operation, is that, by which a number of fit persons are joyned together, &c. But Covenant, consent, or agreement, giveth being of mem­ber-hood in a particular Church, distinction of Church­es, and power of operation: Ergo.

1. The being of Member-hood is conveyed in Cove­nant: not in profession or baptism, Ergo, in Covenant: the excommunicate Corinthian was a visible beleever, and also under baptism, before he was received into the Church again by consent; yet till then, he was no mem­ber.

2. The distinction of every member, and so of the [Page] whole Church, from other members and other Churches is by Covenant. The members of Smyrna are not mem­bers of Ephesus, nor è contra: the distinction is not in place: Phebe is a member and servant of the Church at Cenchrea, when she is at Rome. Did the Church of Smyrna convene at Ephesus, and do an act there, it were the act of the Church of Smyrne, asmuch as if it had been done in Smyrna, where ordinarily they meet and walk to­gether: nor is the destinction from profession: what is common to the Members of every Church cannot be the form of any Church; but the destenction is from mutu­al ingagement. The power of acting as Members one towards another is hereby; when a way is solitary, work solitary, a man may walk alone work alone; not so where social: how can two walk together except they be a­greed? The Associated Pastors and Churches in Wor­cestershire upon their debate about consent, conclude: We have reason to require, as things now stand, a more express signification of our peoples consent to our Ministery, and Ministerial actions, and their Membership of our particular Churches: Christian Concore, pag 11. Which conclu­sion is strengthned with many reasons, wherein they urge Antiquity, Reason 11. Conveniency, Reason 12. and speaking of the Primitive Churches to that Question, Whether express consent were required then, among other things they (or M. B [...]xter for them) affirm, that without the peoples express consent none could then have ruled them by meet Ecclesiastical rule. pag. 15. Who have there­fore the form of a covenant drawn up and added to the profession of faith to be taken by the Members of every particular Church respectively.

And the late Assembly in their answer to the reasons of the dissenting Brethren, against the instance of the Church of Jerusalem, attribute so much to consent in a Church organical that although they say Elders receive their power and commission for the whole Church of [Page] Christ. yet they may not exercise that without a Call; and the mutual assent and agreement of the persons a­mong whom and to whom they should exercise it is pro­ximum fundamentum exercitii, pag. 10. So it is of every act of special duty, by one man in reference to another, according to Mat. 18. 15. that should a man proceed upon that rule in dealing with one not in special covenant in­gaged, he would soon see his error, and that he had no call, because no consent.

Our Brethren need not be so much offended, that we make consent the form of a congregational Church, when themselves, as it seemeth unto us, make it the form of a Presbyterial: For granting that the Elders of a borde­ring Presbytery (though Neighbors) may not intermed­dle with the congregations under, another Presbytery, they say, They take themselves bound in a special relation to those Congregations, who are associated in that Pres­bytery, in those things for which they are as­scciated; and their mutual consent and agree­ment Assemblies Answer. gives them that relation and calling to those things. pag. 11.

Moreover, considering how far our Brethren are a­greed in this matter, we much wonder at their offence at our Covenant or Agreement: for they will grant,

1. That the members of particular Churches are under special engagement, to special duty in taking the care of, and in watching ever one another; so that the Church neglecting duty herein is guilty of the sin of every member, as the Church of Corinth of the sin of the incestuons persons, 1 Cor. 5. and the seven Churches of Asia of the sin of their several members respectively: and not otherwise.

2. That members of a particular Church ought by the institution of Christ to walk together in Ordinances; and that walking in Ordinances with another Church, and not with the same Church, is sinful separation.

[Page] 3. The obligation upon a member to walk with a parti­cular Church cannot be dissolved by the private will of that member, nor by the consent of any other Church, but that of which he is a member; according to the known Rule, Ejusdem est destituere cujus constituere: onely in this they are contrary unto us, That they judge the remov­ing of an habitation a disanulling of former relation: but if cohabitation gives not member-hood. though that cease, member-hood is not taken away; but co-habitation, giv­eth not member-hood, no, although joyned with profession and baptism: the incestuous Corinth excommunicate had all these, but no member-hood, until by consent received again into the Church.

These things considered, we plead but the way of com­ing under an acknowledged institution, whereby members in their private personal capacites altogether free, be­come engaged to fellow members; which we apprehend to be by mutual Combination, Consociation, Consent or Co­venant; and know not what rock of offence is herein for any to stumble at; b [...] believe, as white Wine, put into a blew-coloured Glass, is in appearance blew and not white; so the innocent Truth observed in a glass of Prejudice, appeareth prejudicial, and not Truth.

5. A company united unto fellowship in means of wor­ship, appointed by Jesus Christ: all worship is either natural, i. e. founded in the nature of God, and know­able by the light of Nature, as Faith, Love, &c. which are invisible: and hearing what God doth speak calling upon God, Singing praises unto God; which are visible parts of worship: Or instituted, i. e. founded in the will of God, and knowable by the Scriptures, as Baptism by Water, breaking of Bread in the Lords Supper, &c. No worship is founded in the will of man, but Will-Wor­ship.

The Papists whose Church is so full of power as to make Decrees of equal authority with the ten Command­ments, [Page] yet are modest in the reason of this power which they plead, because say they, The Church hath the Spirit to guide her, and the Decrees thereof are from the same Spirit whence the ten Commands were; but we are sa­tisfied concerning Revelations, and shall expect none, re­gard none, in nova materia, in new matters to be revealed, yet shall plead them, and pray for them in novo actu, in new acts of discoverie of that which in Scripture is revealed; being perswaded that hee which hath entred into his rest hath ceased from his work, as God did from his; from his Priestly work, in bearing ini­quity; Heb. 4. 10. his Regal work in destroying Satan, Death, and the Grave; from his Prophetical work, in gi­ving Laws and Ordinances, to his holy Church; the Sabbath-work of the Son (as the Fathers also) being a­nother kind of work then that which was antecedent to his Sabbath.

But we shall say no more of this, our Brethren being not baptized into a belief of the same truth, asserting Presbyterial Government to be from heaven, in the Jus Divinum of Church-Government: although the confidence of our late Assembly could speak no more but this: The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congregations The third Pro­position in the Assemb. present­ed to the Parlia­ment. may be under one Pesbyterial Govern­ment: may be they would have said. Must be, had they seen the stamp of Jus Divinum upon it.

6. The end of this fellowship is the glory of God. Edification of members, good of others; in this also we are agreed: and truly Brethren, we desire to end in agreement; but we are jealous lest the displeasure of some may be provoked against us, not onely for our judg­ment, but for our p [...]actice; declaring it in contra­diction to men of such eminency, engaged against it: As therefore we have gaven an account of the reason of [Page] our Judgement, suffer us also, in a few words to give an account of our practise, which is this: A pit hath been dig­ed, & layes uncovered some time, divers have fallen there­into, crying up the Arguments to which we reply as un­answerable probably because not answered: whilst o­thers cry down the Congregational men for their silence, as more Papistico, because they now cease replying unto Books extant against their practice: the pit must be fil­led up or covered; in which attempt let us not be smit­ten for speaking, and also for holding of our peace.

But why do we come so late into this service? Ans. We waited to have seen it done by others before this time, supposing the next of the kin, viz. some principal man, would have espoused this truth, and raised up a seed to his elder Brether. We acknowledge our selves in the relation; if none else will we must raise up the name of the dead upon his inheri­tance. Ruth. 4. 4, 6.

We are threatned (as We hear) with an Answer: we fear it not, onely let it be the answer of a good Consci­ence; and let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away. Brethren, Grase be with your spirits.

So pray the unworthiest of the Lords Servants, who yet desire to love Christ in his, and his in him.

To the judicious Reader.

Reader,

IT's matter of Lamentation, that Errors and errone­ous Opinions do so abound in our days, which be­ing baptized into the name of Truth, and coming with specious pretences, obtain, get entrance, and take possession of the Heads and Hearts of many; who being influenced thereby, become unfriendly unto Truth; making her a sufferer like Princes Children, who oft­times smart because they are of the Blood Royal. But however Truth appears to the purblinde eyes of men, and be oppressed; yet she is lovely; beautiful, glorious, and shall not always lie amongst the pots. Truth is of such esteem with the Lord, that he magnifies it above all his Name, and loveth Truth more then all his Saints: for it's Truth which sanctifies them, and makes them lovely; and in case they make Truth to suffer, he will make them sufferers for it. There is nothing in this World more dear unto Iehovah, then his Truth, Hence these injunctions are laid upon men: Buy Pro. 23. 23. 2 Tim. 1. 19. Jude 3. the Truth, and sell it not: hold fast the form of sound words, and contend for the Faith. Thus should the Children of Truth do: but such is the un­happiness of our times, that some deny Truth, others corrupt Truth, many question Truth, and most are so contentious against Truth, that if the Lord did not raise up some Worthies to plead for, and rescue her, she would be carried away Captive, or lie fallen and oppres­sed in our Streets. The learned and judicious Authors of this Treatise; hath the Lord stirred up at last to vindi­care [Page] some Truths, which seemed to them to suffer wrong: therefore are they come into the Field; and whether they quit themselves like men, the ensuing Discourse will declare. It's of a Polemical Nature; and Con­troversies are seldom managed without heat: in such engagements men are apt to offend persons, whilst they defend Truth; and proceed too far upon the account of their own interest; minding not so much what's to be said for Truth opposed, as what's to be laid upon the Opposers. These Brethren, and Friends to Truth, have no such Spirit in them: they contend for the Truth, yet are not contentious; like Moses and Michael, they are milde and meek, having nothing provocative in their Lips or Pens: their Moderation will appear to all men: more love, sweetness and candor, in a work of this na­ture, can hardly be found or expected.

Reader, wouldst thou know whether men unordained may warrantably preach; whether Election or Ordina­tion do give the Essentials to a Minister or Church-Of­ficer; whether such an Officer relate to the Church universal, or to a particular Church, which are things of great concernment: consult this Tractate, read it with­out prejudice, weigh things seriously, and doubtless thou wilt finde much satisfaction, and see cause to bless the Lord for the labours of these his Servants. That the God of Truth would give us all hearts to love the Truth, and receive the love of the Truth, is the prayer of

Thy Friend in the Truth, M. L.

A Catalogue of Books, printed for, and sold by Livewel Chapman, at the Crown in Popes-head-Alley.

AN Exposition of the nineteen first chapters of Ezekiel, in three volumes, quarto. By William Greenhil.

Sermons on Christ's last discovery of himself, octavo. By William Greenhill.

An Exposition of the 13 chap. of the Revela­tions. quar. By John Cotton.

Jacob's Ladder, &c. octav. By Fr. Raworth.

Truth with time: proving none of the 7 last Vials are yet poured out. quar. By J. Canne.

The time of the end: A treatise of the last Apostacy, the little Horn, and the Beast that slayeth the Witnesses. octav. By J. Canne.

The holiness of Church-members. quart. By John Cotton.

Singing of Psalms a Gospel-Ordinance. quar. By J. Cotton.

An explicite Declaration of the testimony of Christ, according to the plain sayings of the Go­spel. quar. By Tho. Moor, Senior.

A Treatise of the Person of Christ, &c. quar. By Tho. Moor, Senior.

An Antidote against the spreading Infections of the Spirit of Antichrist in these last days un­der many Wizards: being a Discovery of a ly­ing and antichristian Spirit in some of those cal­led Quakers. quart. By Tho. Moor, Junior.

The Knowledge of Christ, &c. wherein the Types, Prophecies, Genealogies, Miracles, Hu­miliation, [Page] Exaltation, and the Mediatorial Of­fice of Christ are opened and applied. quarto. By John Davenport of Newhaven in New-England.

The legislative power Christs peculiar prero­gative. quar. By William Aspinewal.

A presage of sundry sad calamities yet to come. quar. By William Aspinwal.

The abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the Sabbath of the 7th day of the week. quar. By William Aspinwal.

Arrows against Babylon. By John Pendarves.

Sighs for Sion. By John Pendarves.

The Fear of God, what it is, and exhorted to: a Sermon preached by John Pendarves.

The Voice of the Spirit: A discovery what the witnessing-work of the Spirit is: how the Spirit witnesseth; who are capable of at­taining the witnessings of the Spirit; how a Soul may know its enjoyment of them; by what means a Soul may attain them. octav. By S. Petto.

A Voice from Heaven: a testimony against the remainders of antichrist yet in England. octav. By Gaulter Postlethwait.

Christ and Moses excellency: a triplex Treatise, distinguishing the 2 Covenants. octav. By V. Powel.

Saving Faith, set forth in three Dialogues. octav. By Vavasor Power.

Generation-Work in three parts: 1. part, shewing what Generation-work is; that Saints in their several generations have the peculiar works of their generations: that its of great concern­ment for a Saint to attend to, and be industrious [Page] in it: wherein the work of the present genera­tion lies: how a man may finde out that part of it, which is properly his work: how it may be so carried on as God may be served. 2. part, be­ing an exposition of the 7 Vials, Rev. 16. 3. part, an exposition of the 7 Vials, Rev. 16. 3. part, an exposition of the prophesie of the 2 witnesses, from the 11, 12, & 14 ch. of Rev. to which is ad­ded, a Key to unlock the mystical numbers of Da­niel and the Revelations. By John Tillinghast.

Mr. Tillinghasts 8 last Sermons, viz. The fifth kingdom founded on the new covenant: the signs of the times: Christ the only Foundation: the promise of the Father: the evil of the times: look to your aims and ends: the idols abolished. oct.

6 several Treatises, viz. the promises made and fulfilled in Christ: absolute promises made to sinners as sinners: the life of Faith, in justificati­on, sanctification, expectation: the Saints an­chor rightly cast: Christs new command: of offences. octav. By John Tillinghast.

Knowledge of the times, or a resolution of the question, how long it shall be to the end of the wonders. By J. T. Elijah's Mantle, or the remains of that late worthy and faithful servant of Jesus Crhist, M. Joh. Tillingh. viz. 1. the conformity of a Saint to the will of God. 2. the will of God and Christ concerning sinners. 3. no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 4. Christs love to his own. 5. true Gospel-humiliation. 6. the most effectual means to kill and subdue sin. 7. the advocateship of Jesus Christ, a great ground of Saints comfort and sup­port under sins & infirmities. 8. the only way for Saints to be deliver'd from the errors and evils of the times. 9. of the old covenant, being so far as the Author had pro­ceeded in a Treatise of the two coven. before his death.

The Contents of the CHAPTERS.

  • Chap. 1. WHerein is shewn, that Office is not a relation to the work or employ­ment of the Minstery, but a relation to a Church.
  • Chap. 2. Wherein is proved, that Officers stand in relation to a particular Church onely, and that they are no Officers to a Church Universal.
  • Chap. 3. Wherein is given a Description of Office, and the several parts of it are proved from Scrip­ture, and some conclusions drawn from the whole pre­cedent discourse.
  • Chap. 4. Wherein the question is stated about the preaching of gifted men, and several things pro­pounded for the cleering the state of it.
  • Chap. 5. Wherein two Arguments are urged, proving the lawfulness of the preaching of gifted Brethren, though not Ordained.
  • Chap. 6. Wherein the third, fourth and fifth Argu­ments are urged for the proving the lawfulnes of gif­ted Brethrens preaching, though not Ordained.
  • Chap. 7. Answering the first Argument brought a­gainst the preaching of men unordained to Office.
  • Chap. 8. Answering divers Arguments brought a­gainst the preaching of men unordained to Office.
  • Chap. 9. Answering such arguments as are brought to prove that none may do the work of the Ministry, without Ordination.
  • [Page] Chap. 10. Answering several arguments brought by Mr. Collings, to prove gifted persons may not ordi­narily preach; without a solemn setting apart to Of­fice.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning Election, as belonging to a parti­cular Church.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Election, as Essential to a Call to Office.
  • Chap. 13. Wherein many arguments are answered, which are brought against Election, as giving the Essence to the call to Office.
  • Chap. 14. Wherein is shewn, that the Essence of the Ministerial Call doth not consist in Ordination.
  • Chap. 15. Wherein is proved, that Ordination doth not so belong to a Presbytery, but that a Church or, the people may in some cases lawfully act in it.

ERRATA.

Page 15. line 24. for the, read their. or else after intervention, add of some acts put forth by these p. 18. 1. 8. r. ex officio p. 37. 1. 2. add and the preaching of a gifted person. p. 40. 1. 12. r. undoubted. p. 41. l. 3 r. r. privately. p. 44. l. 28. r. private. p. 54. l. II. after about, add it. p. 67. l. 20. r. mentioning. p. 92. make a parenthesis before else, l. 6. to end after assert l. 10. p. 92. l. 11. after if, add it be said. p. 94. l. 19, 20. 21. r. secondarily, thirdly, &c. p. 94. l. 25. r. offices. sol. 27. p. 114. l. 12. r. tongues. p. 123. l. 27. r. party. p. 203. l. 17 r. ingenious. p. 208. l. 4. r. name argueth. p. 208. l. 15. r. if. p. 210. l. 9. r. teacheth. p. 211. l. 15. r. re­strain. p. 212. l. 31. r. restriction of. p. 225. l. 12. r. firstly. p. 231. r. l. 17. r. it. p. 243. l. 21, 22. r. chose. p. 252. l. 13. r. firstly. p. 23. 1. l. 17. r. it. p. 243. l. 21, 22. r. chose. p. 252. l. 13. r. was ordinary. p. 256. l. 9. blot out to, also l. 10. p. 258. l. 9. blot out Act. 6. 2, 4. and put it in l. 8. after the word prayer. p. 260. l. 14. r. promise. p. 264. l. 6. r. subse­quent. so l. 9. p. 270. l. 13. r. there.

Of Preaching without Ordination.

CHAP. I.

Wherein is shewn, that Office is not a Relation to the work or employment of the Ministery, but a Relation to a Church.

AMongst the many Books lately published against the preaching of Gifted men, and for Ordiantion as that which gives the Call unto that work of the Mini­stery, there are two, which (we sup­pose) have the strength of all the rest in them; the title of the one is, Jus Divinum Ministerii Enangelici or, The Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministe­ry: published by the Provincial Assembly of London. The title of the other is, Vindiciae Ministerii Enan­gelici; by Mr. Collings of Norwich.

In these we finde some positions which we can free­ly subscribe unto; but there are other assertions, where­in we profess our dissent. And though we intend not to reply to every particular, yet we shall give such A­nimadversions upon the most considerable things, as will leave it unnecessary to speak to the rest.

We freely acknowledge, That Officers are necessa­ry in the Churches of Christ by Divine Institution; [Page 2] and also, that they are to continue untill the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And therefore we shall not put in exceptions against the Arguments brought by our Brethren in their Jus Divinum, for the proof of these Propositions.

Only we shall except against part of their explicati­on of their first Proposition.

The Proposition is, ‘That the Office of the Mini­stery of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church by Divine Institution.’ For the understanding of this, they undertake to shew,

  • 1. What is meant by Ministery.
  • 2. What by Office.

Quest. What is meant by Ministery?

Answ. Ministery (as our Brethren well observe) standeth in opposition to Lordly Domination or Prin­cipality; as Matth. 20. v. 25, 26, 27. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise Authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be chief a­mong you, let him be your servant.

Ministery is not Dominion, but service. Officers in a speciall sence are called Ministers, yet (we conceive) that others may properly be called Ministers also, ac­cording to the service they do for Christ. Both the words in the Original which our Brethren here menti­on to express the Office of the Ministery, viz. [...] and [...], are frequently in Scripture applyed to Saints that are no officers; as 2 Cor. 9. 1. For as touch­ing the Ministring to the Saints. Act. 24. 23. Forbid none of his acquaintance [to Minister] or come unto him. In these and other places, Christians who are no officers are said to Minister, in giving Alms, &c. and therefore let none thinke that the name Minister is appropriated only to officers. It is the office of Deacons to Mini­ster [Page 3] about carnal things, and yet other Christians doe Minister about such things also; as the forecited Scrip­tures shew. So Officers, Pastors or Teachers doe Mi­nister in the Gospel, and yet gifted men may be said to Minister in the Gospel also: for there is ministration or service in their preaching; and therefore gifted bre­thren, whose ordinary work or calling it is to Preach, may properly be called Ministers of the Gospel, as well as those who are officers; for ordinary Ministration denominates the person a Minister. Occasional acts of preaching may be called Ministring, and the persons therein do Minister in the Gospel; but because they do not addict and give up themselves to that as their work, hence they cannot properly be called Ministers of the Gospel: for such a denomination followeth an ordina­ry, and nor an occasional acting in any work.

A general course of acting is necessary to the making a general title proper to any person. As a man is not deno­minated a Brewer or a Baker, that doth but occasionally brew or bake; but he that doth it ordinarily or constant­ly, and maketh it his work to do it. So here. This we have added the rather, because some call gifted men Speak­ers, and their preaching, speaking, and that to distin­guish them and their actings from officers and their acts: they are afraid to call gifted men preachers or Ministers; or their actings preaching or Ministring.

Quest. 2. What is meant by the word Office?

Our Brethren give us a description of Office, and it is this: ‘The Office of the Ministery, is a spiritual re­lation to the whole employment of the Ministry in a person qualified, founded upon a special and regular call.’ This description we apprehend to be very faul­ty: and because a right understanding of this, What Office is, doth much conduce to the clearing this whole controversie, we shall declare wherein we do dissent in this matter, and upon what grounds.

[Page 4] Answ. That Office is a Relation which respects employment as its end, we grant: that it is a Relation to the employment, or whole employment of the Mi­nistry, as its correlate, we deny. Unto all Relations, there is a Relate and a Correlate absolutely necessary, so as no Relation can have a being without these two. Now office is a Relation, and so must be between two: and there is,

1. The Relate, viz. the Officer, as is undenya­ble.

2. The Correlate, viz. the Church. Our Bre­thren in their definition of Office, seem to make [the whole employment of the Ministry] the Correlate; and in the same page they assert, That Office is better defined by Relation to the work, then by relation to a particular people, who may easily out him of his work, but (they say) not of his Office.

Afterward in their Jus Divinum (pag. 151.) say they, ‘That every Minister hath a double Relation, one to the particular Church of which he is a Mini­ster; the other to the Church Universal.’

In their definition they would have [the whole em­ployment of the Ministry] the Correlate; and else­where they grant a Church to be the Correlate, both a particular and the Universal. So that there will arise two questions.

Quest. 1. Whether Office be a Relation to the worke and imployment of the Ministry, or to a Church?

Quest. 2. What Church hath Office Relation to? Or, Whether Officers stand in Relation to, or be Officers of an Universal Church, or of a particular Church only?

Quest. 1. Whether Office be a Relation to the worke and imployment of the Ministry, or to a Church?

Answ. We affirme Office to be a Relation to a Church, and we deny it to be a Relation to the work [Page 5] and imployment of the Ministry, as its Correlate; and that upon these grounds.

Argum. 1. From that certain rule of Relations, Relatum & Correlatum quâ talia, sunt simul natura, ade­o (que) se mutuò ponunt & tollunt. The Relate and Corre­late as such, are together in nature, and so do mutual­ly put and take away themselves. One Relate giveth being to the other; one cannot be in act, or actually, without the other. Relatorum uno posi to, ponitur & alte­rum. If one be in being, the other is in being also: If there be a father, then there is a childe; if there be a Master, then there is a servant; and so in all real Re­lations. The Relation is destroyed or denyed, if both be not in being. It is no Relate, unless there be som­thing that it is related to: Now our Brethren grant, page 2. [the work] of the Ministry is separable from the Office, by sickness, imprisonment, banishment, re­jection of the people. And they say, page 3. ‘That the people may easily out him of his work, &c.’ By all which it is evident, that according to the own principles, Office doth continue and remain, when the work and imployment of the Ministry doth cease, and is at an end: And thence we infer, that it is impossible, that Office should be a Relation to the imployment of the Ministry; for Office must cease, as often as the work or imployment of the Ministry ceaseth; if imploy­ment be the Correlate: for Relatorum uno sublato, tolli­tur & alterum; Take away one of the Relatives, and the other is taken away also. Take away the imploy­ment of the Ministry, and Office must cease, if the im­ployment and Office be Relatives. As well you may affirm a man to be a father who hath no childe, or a ma­ster, who hath no servant, or a husband, who hath no wife; as you may affirm a man to be an officer, who hath no imployment, if Office and imployment be Re­latives.

[Page 6] So that instead of avoyding that supposed inconveni­ency of a mans being outed of his Office, by a peoples outing him of his work, they doe unavoydably bring themselves into it, by asserting Office to be a Relation unto the imployment of the Ministery.

Argum. 2. From the necessity of a praeexistence of the means unto the end, of the cause unto the effect; the means must have a being in order, before the execu­tion of the end; the cause must have existence, before the production of the effect. The Relation must be an­tecedent unto that action which is peculiar to that Re­lation. Now (according to our Brethrens principles) the imployment of the Ministery, is the end of Office. page 39. They interpret Ephes. 4. 12. of the ends for which those gifts were given, which are mentioned ver. 11. He gave some Apostles and some Prophets, &c. and the work of the Ministry is mentioned ver. 11. and so that is one end of those Offices. Yea, our Brethren say, (Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 81.) ‘God hath designed spe­cial Officers of his own for the preaching of the word; therefore none ought, or may preach the word, but such as are designed unto this Office.’

They make Preaching an act peculiar to Office, & say, a man must be an Officer, before he may do the work, and so (according to their principles) there must be the Relation (which cannot be without a Correlate) before the imployment of the Ministry; and therefore the imployment cannot be the Correlate, because that cometh after the Relation is compleated. This must be an argument to them, whether it be sutable to our prin­ciples or not. And thus far we assert it, That men must be Officers, Pastors or Teachers, before the imploy­ment of the Ministry, Office-wise; and therefore of ne­cessity there must be a Correlate in being, before that which is the work of the relation is performed, and therefore work cannot be the Correlate. We say [Of­fice-wise] [Page 7] for we shall shew afterward, that some part of the same work which Officers perform, may be done by such as are no Officers; the matter is alike, but the manner is different.

Argum. 3. From the Gospels owning a Church as the Correlate. Act. 20. 17. The Elders of the Church. Here the Holy-Ghost declareth, that Church and Elder are the Relatives: and ver. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the flock, over the which the Ho­ly-Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God. The Flock, the Church of God, and Elders, or Overseers, are declared to be those between whom the Relation is. Officers are related to Churches, not to the imployment of the Ministry. The Relation layeth obligations upon Officers to doe the work of the Mini­stry, but the Relation must be before imployment Office-wise, and is between Officers and Churches.

Argum. 4. From the Titles given in Scripture to Officers: It is observed by Logicians, that Relatorum uno cognito, cognoscitur alterum. Of Relations, if one be known, the other is known also. We call no man a father or master, unless we know he hath a childe or a servant. The very names of Relatives doe decalre be­tween whom the Relation is. The name of a father in­timateth a child to be the other Relative, & è contra; the name of a son doth imply a father to be the other Relative: and so for other Relations.

Now the names and titles which the Gospel giveth unto Officers, have such reference unto a Church, as they do aloud proclaim that Officer and Church are the Relatives, and not Officer and imployment. If the question be asked, To whom are they Officers? the an­swer must be, To a Church. Officers are called Pa­stors; and that intimateth, that they are related to some flocks. They are called Teachers, and that speaketh them to be related to some who are Learners. There­fore [Page 8] we conclude, that Office is not a Relation to the imployment of the Ministry, but to a Church; one spe­cial end of which Relation is, the work of the Ministry therein.

CHAP. II.

Wherein is proved, that Officers stand in Relation to a particular Church only, and that they are no Of­ficers to a Church universal.

Quest. 2. WHat Church hath Office Relation to? or whether Officers stand in Relation to a Particular Church only, or whether they be Officers of an universal Church?

Answ. We affirm, That Officers stand in relation (as Officers) to a particular Church onely: and we deny that they are Officers to a Church Universal. Our Bre­thren at last grant a Relation between Officers and a particular Church, page 143. and 151. and it's proved from Act. 20. 28. We shall here hint a few words, chiefly to shew, that they are not Officers to an Univer­sal Church; and then it will necessarily follow, that the Relation is between the Officer and a particular Church only. We deny Pastors or Teachers to be Officers to an Universal Church.

Argum. 1. Because we can finde no Scripture­warrant, for any Universal-visible-Political-Church. The Gospel knoweth no such Catholick or Universal Church, that we can any where finde.

Argum. 2. Because the Titles given unto Officers, doe speak their office to be limited unto a particular Church, and do forbid or deny their bearing any office­relation to a Church Universal. In those Scriptures where (our Brethren say) there is an enumeration of [Page 9] Officers, and so where it is most needful that their pro­perest Names and Titles should be given them; yet there those Officers which are still continuing, are called Pastors and Teachers. 1. Cor. 12. ver. 28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets thirdly [Teachers.] And Ephes. 4. ver. 11. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists and some [Pastors and Teachers.] And also where the qualifications of such Officers are layd down, and so the properest Titles are necessary, that it might ever be known, what Officer ought to be so qualified; there they are called [Bishops] which is no more but [O­verseers] as Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the flock. over which the Holy-Ghost hath made you [...] Bishops or, Overseers. 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. [A Bishop] must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vi­gilant, sober. Tit. 1. v. 7. For [a Bishop] must be blame­less, &c. These Titles being given upon such special occasions unto Officers, they must undenyably be such Names and Titles as are proper to them so long as they are Officers. It were an impeachment to the wisdome of the Holy-Spirit, to say, that then it did impose such names upon them, as they might lose before they lost their Office. We suppose our Brethren will not say, that any are Preaching-Officers, who are neither Pa­stors, Teachers, nor Bishops, or Overseers.

Now we argue thus:

Major Proposit. That Church only that is a mans flock, doth or can he bear the Relation or Office of a Pastor to. That Church only that is committed to ones charge for teaching, doth or can he bear the Relation or Office of a teacher to. That Church only that is committed to a mans oversight, doth or can he bear the Relation or Office of a Bishop or Overseer to. All this appeareth from those Relative names. You may as well say, a man is a father to that which is none of his [Page 10] childe, or a master to him who is none of his servant, as you may say, a man is a Pastor to any that are not of his flock, or a Teacher to those that are not committed to him to be taught, or a Bishop and Overseer to those that are not under his oversight. So that if a man cea­seth to have a flock, then he must needs cease to be a Pastor: if he ceaseth to have a Church to be taught by him, then he ceaseth to be a reacher by office: if he ceaseth to have any to be overseen by him, then he cea­seth to be a Bishop or Overseer.

Minor propos. But only a particular Church is a mans flock, or is committed to a man for teaching and oversight, and not the Universal Church.

Concl. Ergo, A man beareth the relation or office of a Pastor, a Teacher, or a Bishop or Overseer, only to a particular, and not to an Universal Church.

That only a particular Church is a mans flock, or is committed to a man for teaching and oversight, and not the Universal Church; We suppose our Brethren can­not deny: for in their Jus Divinum, page 143. they have these words. ‘Though we beleeve that every Minister is a Minister of the Universal Church, yet we are far from thinking, that he is actually an Uni­versal Minister. The Apostles had the actual care of the Church Universal committed unto them, and they were not fixed to any particular charge, but were Ministers alike of all the Churches of Christ. But it is far otherwise with ordinary Ministers, they are fix­ed to their particular congregations, where they are bound by Divine right to reside, &c.’ So that accor­ding to the judgment of our Brethren, ordinary offi­cers, such as Pastors and Teachers are, have onely the care of particular Churches committed to them; their actual power is limited by Divine right to these, and not extended to the Universal Church: they have no actual power to perform Ministerial offices, or admini­ster [Page 11] the Ordinances of Christ in any Churches without a special call, but only in those particular Churches, where they are fixed.

And that it is only a particular Church, that is a mans flock, or is committed to him, for teaching and over­sight, and not the Universal Church, we prove thus:

Because every Pastor, Teacher, or Overseer, is ex­presly commanded by Christ, actually to feed, teach, and oversee [all] the flock that is committed to him or them. Act. 20. vers. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to (not only some, but) all the flock over the which the Holy-Spirit hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God. All that flock or Church, over which the Holy-Spirit hath made any man a Bishop or Over­seer, he is commanded actually to feed and take heed to all the Universal Church, so as he sinneth if he doth not. Ergo, The Universal Church is not that flock or Church, over which the Holy-Spirit hath made any man a Bishop or Overseer. If they were to feed and take care of all the Universal Church, then their power were as extensive and large as the Apostles; and then they must not fix and abide with any particular Church, for that would hinder the feeding all the Universal Church; but they must travel all the world over, that they may feed all the flock. And it's impossible that a­ny particular Officer should feed his particular Church, and all the rest of the Universal Church also; and there­fore all were under a necessity of sinning against this command, if that were the flock intended.

The same Argument holdeth as well for Pastors and Teachers, for they are the same Officers under different names. The Pastors work is to feed all the flock, and he is plainly intended in that Text. And all that Church which is committed to any man for Teaching, he is com­manded [Page 12] to Teach, and he is unfaithful in his trust, if he doth it not. And seeing it cannot be the Universal Church, hence undenyably, its only a particular Church that is a mans flock, or that is committed to him for Teaching and oversight.

The Argument may run thus: That Church onely that a man is a Pastor, or Teacher, a Bishop or Overseer to, doth he stand in the relation of an officer to: the Names and Titles of Officers do evidence this.

But it is only a particular Church that a man is a Pa­stor or Teacher, a Bishop or Overseer to. Act. 20. 28. and not an Universal Church:

Ergo, It is only a particular Church that a man doth stand in the relation of an officer to, und not an Univer­sal Church.

Object. If any should object and say, If a man for a time be destitute of a place, or be fixed to no particu­lar Church, yet preacheth constantly in one place or o­ther, may not that name of office [a Teacher] be pro­perly applyed to him, seeing he doth reach, and some are taught by him?

Ans. 1. In a general sense he may be called a Teach­er, if any be taught by him; but if the word Teacher be taken in a special sense, to express Office, in that sense we deny he may be called a Teacher. Men are not Teachers by Office, to all that are taught by them. As for example, Our Brethren often urge it, that ordina­ry teachers by office must be [sent] Rom. 10. 15. How shall they preach except they be [sont?] & the word for sent, is [...]. and therefore in a general sense they must say, that ordinary Officers, as Pastors and Teachers, are [Apostles] because Apostle signifieth one sent. Yet Pastors and Teachers are not Apostles by office; the Office of the Apostles, is distinct from the office of Pa­stors and Teachers; and in this special sense the name of Apostles is to be denyed them.

[Page 13] So they are not Teachers by Office to all that they may preach to, and may be taught by them. If a man preacheth to Heathens and Indians, though they retain heathenish principles still, and will not receive instru­ction, yet in respect of his teaching, they are said to be taught; and such as stumble at the word are said to be taught, Matth. 13. ver. 54. He (i. e. Jesus) taught them: and yet ver. 57. They were offended in him. But a man is not a teacher by office unto such Hearhens, Indians, and opposers: for without some knowledge or profession of Christ, our Brethren will not account them members of the Universal Church; and if they will say they stand in the relation of officers to such, then they must assert that they have a treble relation as officers; one to a particular Church, another to an Universal Church, and a third to the World, or to Heathens and Indians, who are of no Church of Christ; or else they must say, that they preach as officers to those they are no officers to: and it will hardly be proved, that they are officers to the world, or to any out of the Church.

2. Onely that Church which a man is set over, hath taken the charge of, is committed to him for teaching, is he a teacher by office unto: if he preacheth in an hun­dred places, and thousands receive instruction, and in that sense are taught by him, yet we deny that he stan­deth in relation to any of these as a teacher by office, unless as a Church they be committed to him for teach­ing.

For it is [setting over, taking the charge of, and the committing a Church to the care of such a person, for such and such ends] which giveth being to office, or maketh one an officer. It's the committing of a flock to such a person for feeding, or his taking charge of it, that onely maketh him a [Pastor.] It is the setting one over a flock, or Church for oversight, that onely maketh him [a Bishop or Overseer:] and hence Act. [Page 14] 20. ver. 28. The flock [over which] the Holy-Ghost hath made you Overseers. They are limited in their o­versight unto the particular flock, and the nature of their of their office is expressed, by their being over the flock for that end.

For this, see more in our description of office, in the formal cause of it; and in our Arguments to prove that election giveth the Essence to the call to Office.

CHAP. III.

Wherein is given a description of Office, and the se­veral parts of it are proved from Scripture, and some Conclusions drawn from the whole precedent discourse.

FRom all which hath been layd down, we may gather this description of Office.

Office, is a spiritual Relation between a par­ticular Church of Christ, and a person right­ly what Of­fice is. qualified, founded upon a special and re­gular call.

Or more particularly.

Office, is a spiritual Relation, arising upon a regu­lar Election on the Churches part, and Acceptation on his part who is Elected, by which the Lord committeth a particular Church to his charge, or setteth him over it, for the work of the Gospel, or imployment of the Ministry.

In these Descriptions there is,

1. The general Nature of Office: It is a Relation; and for its property, it is a spiritual Relation, to di­stinguish it from natural and civil Relations. The re­lative names by which the Gospel expresseth office, as Pastor and Teacher, doe prove it to be a Relation.

[Page 15] 2. The terms of the Relation, the Relate and the Correlate. The Relate is a person rightly qualified, i. e. qualified according to Gospel rules. 1 Tim. 3. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A Bishop must blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospi­tallity, apt to teach, &c. Tit. 1. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. The Correlate is a particular Church of Christ. Act. 20. 17. The Elders of the Church. Act. 14. 23. Rev. 2. 1. Unto the Angel [of the Church.] And ver. 8, 12, 18. Rev. 3. ver. 1, 7, 14. They are Officers to the Churches of Christ, not to the world, nor to civil Societies or As­semblies; and to particular Churches, as the distin­guishing each from other sheweth. Rev. 2. and 3.

3. The efficient causes. The principal efficient cause is the Lord, he instituted and appointed officers to be in the Churches: It is the Lord that giveth qua­lifications sutable to office. It is the Lord that giveth in his word rules and directions to be observed in the constitution of officers. 1 Tim. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3. &c. Act. 6. And when there is a due observation of those Divine rules, then the Lord maketh the officer. Act. 20. 28. The instrumental causes are [the flock or Church, and the person qualified:] It is by the inter­vention, that the relation is introduced. The Lord maketh use of them in the making officers, or the Lord doth make officers by some acts put forth by these. Act. 6. 5. Act. 14. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 1.

4. The formal cause of office, [a special and regu­lar call; or, the Lords committing of a flock, or Church of Christ to a mans charge, and setting him o­ver, by election on the Churches part, and acceptati­on on his part who is elected.] We term it [a spe­cial call] to difference it from the call which officers may have to lay out their gifts occasionally amongst those that are no Church, or they no officers to; and to distinguish it from the call that gifted Brethren may [Page 16] have to preach; which cals are common, we term it [a regular call] because it is to be made according to Gospel-rules.

The external or outward call (which is to be so regu­lated) consisteth in election with acceptation. A Church is to chuse its officers. Act. 6. ver. 5. They chose Stephen. An inferior officer, a Deacon, must be chosen; much more is a free choyce necessary to a high­er officer, who is to take care of Souls. Act. 14. 23. In every Church they chose them Elders. Let any prove that the Gospel alloweth any man to take the charge of a Church by compulsion, or whether the people will or no. And a Church cannot compel or force a man to be over it, or to be a Pastor to it, without his free consent; and therefore acceptation on his part is ne­cessary to the introduction of the Relation. 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man [desire] the Office of a Bishop. An inclination or disposition to the office, is to accompany an entrance upon it. The doing the work of office would be by constraint, and not willingly; contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 2. if the undertaking that work were not with free con­sent. By election the Church offereth to commit it self unto his charge who is elected: By his acceptati­on, he actually taketh the charge of that Church. I Gospel-rules be observed in both, then the Lord doth set him over it. The Lords committing of a flock or Church to a mans charge, or setting him over it for the work of the Ministry, is the formal cause of office, or that which giveth being to it: this is the specifica­ting distinguishing thing of an officer from no officer. For duty is commanded from a man upon such a setting over a flock, as from an officer, he is to feed and take heed to all the flock or Church that he is over. Act. 20. 28. Take heed—to all the flock over the which the Holy-Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, &c. And that Church is commanded duty towards [Page 17] him that is over it, as towards an officer. Hebr. 13 ver. 7, 17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your Souls, as they that must give account, &c. That which is not com­mitted to a mans charge, he is not to give an account for; and therefore it is here intimated, that he which is over a flock, hath the charge of it committed to him; the flock ought to obey and submit to him as an officer: which could not be, if setting over or giving the charge of a flock, did not give being to the Rela­tion or office. That the setting over is by Election with acceptation, we shall afterwards demonstrate more fully.

5. The final cause, or the end of office, [the work of the Gospel, or imployment of the Ministry] i. e. in that Church he is set over, for he doth not act as an of­ficer to any other. The Apostle giveth this as the end of office-gifts, Ephes. 4. ver. 11. He gave some Apo­stles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for what end? ver. 12. For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Mini­stry, for the edisying of the body of Christ, &c. And thus we have shewn what office is.

From what hath been already cleared, we might draw many conclusions; take two.

Conclus. 1. Hence it followeth, That there is no difference between that which maketh a man [a Mi­nister, a Pastor, a Shepheard] and that which makes a man [their Minister, their Pastor, their Shepherd;] and so that distinction so often repeated by our Bre­thren, and so often called in for their relief, will lend them no help at all, being a distinction without a diffe­rence. For we have proved, that a man is an officer to a particular Church only, and therefore that which maketh him an officer, a Pastor, maketh him their Offi­cer, their Pastor, as the same that maketh a man [Page 18] an husband, or a woman a wife, doth make him her husband, and make her his wife. We would not over­stretch the similitude, to say that the Relation between an officer and a Church, doth in all things agree to that between man and wife; but in this it may agree, and doth illustrate very fitly.

Conclus. 2. Hence it followeth undenyably, That the distinction between preaching and office, and ex do­no, by office and by gift, is Scriptural, or founded on Scripture: for if a man be a Pastor or officer only to a particular Church, then if he preacheth to any other Church but that he is an officer to, or to any other persons but of that Church, he preacheth to them but ex dono, by gift, not as an officer to them. Now our Brethren cannot deny the lawfulness of preaching to those that are not of a mans particular Church; preach­ing is a special means for the conversion of Heathens, and Indians, &c. 1 Corin. 14. 24. If all Prophesie, and there come in one that beleeveth not.—So that unbelee­vers, and such as are no Church-Members may be per­mitted to come into Church-meetings, to hear the Gospel preached. And it is lawful in some cases, to go and Preach to unbeleevers, when they do not come to Church-meetings. Act 16. 13, 16. & 11. ver. 19, 20, 21. Yet they are no officers to such unbeleevers, they have not the charge of such unbeleevers souls committed to them, they are not over them in the Lord; they cannot as officers exercise Church-Go­vernment towards unbeleevers, that are no Church-Members: they are not their flock, for then they might do it: and therefore in preaching to Heathens, Indi­ans,—they do not act as officers, but meerly as in the capacity of gifted brethren; and this leadeth us unto that great question, about the preaching of gifted Bre­thren.

CHAP. IV.

Wherein the Question is stated about the Preaching of Gifted-men, and several things propounded for the clearing the state of it.

The Question is this,

WHether some men who are not ordained Quest. Officers may preach? Or, whether per­sons who have preaching gifts and graces, or are apt to teach, may ordinarily exercise those gifts in Publick Assemblies, though they be not ordained Officers?

Before we come to the determination of this questi­on, we shall premise four things.

1. That the question is not, Whether every Chri­stian may publickly preach? But, whether some not in office, who have such eminent gifts and graces, as ren­der them apt to teach, may not exercise those gifts in a way of Preaching? That objection which our Bre­thren bring from 1 Corin. 12. 29. toucheth not us; for many Christians have not such gifts, and so all are not Prophets, all are not Teachers: Our inquiry is not, whether every beleever, but whether those beleevers who have such gifts and qualifications as the Gospel (1 Tim. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3.) requireth preachers should have, may preach?

2. Neither is the question, Whether Ordination be necessary for an officer. We grant that when a man undertaketh to be an officer to, or taketh the charge of a Church of Christ, there ought to be ordi­nation, before the exercise of his Office. Act. 6. 6.

Our question is, Whether a man who hath grace and such gifts as render him apt to teach, may exercise [Page 20] those gifts ordinarily or frequently without Ordinati­on, he being no Officer to any Church of Christ?

3. Neither is the question, Whether any man that thinketh himself gifted may preach? If some think themselves gifted who are not, and thereupon preach, we plead not for them. But if a man be really gifted as the Lord requireth officers should be, 1 Tim. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3. If really he be apt to teach, &c. Our question is, Whether he may not publickly do it, though he be not ordained?

It is another question, Who shall judge of his gifts? Yet if a man be judged able by those who are able to judge, or by those that are appointed by Christ to judg of his gifts, we apprehend he may preach. And the Apostles referred it to the Church to judge of their gifts and qualifications who were to be Deacons, Act. 6. ver. 3. Look yee out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy-Ghost and wisdom. There is not a fillable about any other proving of them after; & the Church was re­quired to look out men so qualified; and therefore a Church of Christ is to judge of the gifts of its Members. Deacons are to be proved, 1 Tim. 3. ver. 10. and it is by the Church, Act. 6. ver. 2, 3. And though one that is really gifted for such a work (for ought we know) may lawfully (especially in some cases) preach with­out such approbation from a Church, or others who are able to judge of gifts; yet it may be inexpedient, and sometimes it proveth of ill consequence to others, and uncomfortable to himself.

4. By preaching we understand, any publishing or decla­ring, opening or applying Gospel truths to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to. Sometimes the word for preaching is, [...], which signifies to tell good news, or bring or publish glad tidings. Luk. 16. ver. 16. The Kingdom of God [is preached, [...]] Heb. 4. 2. Unto us was the Gospel preached.—1 Cor. [Page 21] 9. ver. 16. Though [I preach the Gospel] [...]. And the same word is used for preaching in many other Scriptures, and denoteth a declaring or publishing Gospel-truths; and hence it is so translated often, and that necessarily. Act. 13. ver. 32. We de­clare unto you glad tidings. The word for [declare, is [...]. Rom. 10. ver. 15. How beautiful are the feet [of them that preach the Gospel] [...], and bring glad tidings of good, [...]. Here the same word is used, and signifieth to bring glad ti­dings. In the beginning of that verse another word is used for preaching. Rom. 10. ver. 15. How shall they preach, [...]; and this word signifieth, to pub­lish as Heralds or cryers do; it is explained twice in the latter end of the same verse, why he is called a herald or cryer, because he publisheth or telleth glad tidings. So that to preach, is to declare or publish, to open or apply Gospel-truths to any persons, whether publickly or privately. Though a Herald or cryer doth deliver a matter in an open place, yet that Metaphor may be u­used, because preaching is by lively voyce, and fre­quently in a publick place; yet it may be properly cal­led preaching, though it be in private. Act. 5. ver 42. Daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Here is preaching not on­ly publickly in the Temple, but also privately in every house. Yea, Philip is said to preach to one man. Act. 8. ver. 35. So that it is preaching, if the Scriptures be opened or expounded to a particular person, as well as if it be to a publick Assembly. And therefore our Brethrens description of preaching is faulty: They say, (Jus Divinum page 77.) ‘By preaching they under­stand an authoritative explication and application of Scripture, for exhortation, edification and comfort, to a Congregation met together for the solemn wor­ship of God, in the stead and place of Christ.’ They [Page 22] say, The subject is the word, the work the explication and application of this word. Nehem. 8. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 15. The end is, the exhortation, edification and com­fort of the Church; for which they alledge, 1 Corin. 14. 3. 2 Tim. 3. 16. The object, a Congregation met together for the solemn worship of God; for which they alledge, 1 Corin. 14. ver. 23. They say, The word is to be preached to infidels. Matth. 28. Mar. 16. But the principal object of this work is the Church. 1 Corin. 14. 22. 1 Corin. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 12. The manner of doing this work,

1. Authoritatively, not Magisterially, as lords of faith; but Ministerially, as being over the Church in the Lord. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Tit. 2. 15.

1. In the stead and place of Christ. 2 Corin. 5. 20. Luk. 10. 16.

From this description, they give us five distinctions, wherein they grant us several things. We say,

1. That place, 1 Corin. 14. will serve for us to prove a gift of prophesying to be still continuing, as well as it wil serve to prove their description of preach­ing. If prophesying were an extraordinary gift, as they say (pag. 97. 98.) it was, why then doe they alledge it to prove the way of that standing ordinance of preaching?

2. It is properly preaching, to publish, declare, and open Gospel-truths, though there be not a Church or congregation for the object of it; or though the con­gregation be not met for the solemn worship of God. Act. 8. ver. 35. Philip preached unto [him] Jesus. Here is preaching, and yet no congregation, but only a sin­gle person for the object of it. So Act. 5. ver. 42. And it is properly preaching, when Gospel-truths are published, opened, and declared to a Congregation, though it be not met for the solemn worship of God, but for other, even contrary ends. Act. 14. 15. We [Page 23] also are men of like passions with you, [and preach unto you] that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God. Paul and Barnabas are said to preach unto those that met for Idolatrous ends, not for the solemn worship of God. So Act. 17. ver. 16, 18, 22, 23, &c. While Paul waited—at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the City wholly given to idolatry. & v. 18. [He preach­ed] unto them Jesus.—And his sermon we have epi­tomized, ver. 22, 23, &c. Here was preaching, and yet it was to an idolatrous Assembly; so that if the work be performed (which our Brethren say, is the explica­tion and application of the word) whoever be the ob­jects of it, yet it is preaching; and therefore their third, fourth, and fifth distinctions (Jus Divin. page 79.) will make against them. They grant that a General may give an exhortation in the head of an Army, and a Judg on a Bench, from the examples of Joab, 2 Sam. 10. Of Abijah, 2 Chron. 13. Of Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 19. 20. Joshua, Chap. 23. 24. But they say, there is a vast dif­ference between this action and the work of the Mini­stry; for neither is the object of it a Congregation sa­cred, but meerly civil; neither is the authority Ecclesi­astical and from Christ, but meerly political. We have proved, that it is properly preaching, if the work be done for its proper end, though it be not a congregation that is the object of it, nor a congregation sacred, but pro­fane and idolatrous. A Church is a proper object of preaching, but not the peculiar or only object thereof: for by their own grant, Infidels are to be preached to, Matth. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15. And such a good end of meeting together, viz. solemnly to worship God, may help to render the action of the hearer good; but it doth not make the action of the Speaker, Preaching. As for a Judge on a Bench, it is but a political-civil action that he is about; and if he mentioneth some Scriptures, it is but to qualify a natural or civil action Christianly; and [Page 24] this may hinder that from being preached, not the ob­jects being a congregation meerly civil. But if a Ge­neral of an Army or any other man doth take an oppor­tunity to open and apply Scriptures, or declare Gospel­truths, not for a civil end chiefly, but for the instructi­on and edification of those he speaketh to, or to ac­quaint them with the mind and wil of Christ; and this not in an intermixed way, to qualify civil actions; how this can be denyed to be preaching, we know not: And therefore let our Brethren consider, whether their own grant from those Scriptures, will not speak for the preaching of gifted men?

The same we say to their fourth distinction; (Jus Divin. page 79.) they distinguish between Divinity-ex­ercises in the Schooles and University, and the preach­ing of the word: they say, these are not performed to a congregation met together for the solemn worship of God, they are rather reducible to the work of School­masters instructing their Scholars, and Scholars ren­dring account to their Masters, then Ministerial preach­ing.

We have proved that if such a solemn action, as the declaring, opening and applying of Gospel-truths be performed for its proper ends; it is preaching, though the congregation be met together for irreligious and wicked ends, and did not meet for the solemn worship of God. Act. 14. 15. Act. 17. ver. 16, 18, &c. and therefore it must needs be preaching, when the object is, an assem­bly met for lawful ends; and though the tryal of gifts, and the persons rendring an account of their proficiency in such studies, may be subordinate ends of such actions in the University, yet the edification of the hearers ought to be the main and principal end of Divinity-Le­ctutes, or common placing. We know no Gospel-rule for such actions, without this as the chief end.

3. By our Brethrens grant (we suppose) it will be [Page 25] lawful for gifted men to preach charitatively. They distinguish (Jus Divin. page 78, 80.) between a private brotherly teaching, admonition, exhortation of one a­nother; and an authoritative publick teaching. The first (they say) is grounded on charity, and is the common duty of all Christians, by the royal Law of Love, and prescribed to all, even to women, by the law of God, under pain of sin.—Also they distinguish between the teaching of Parents and Masters in their families, and Schoolmasters, and Ministerial Preaching; the former they exhort even Mothers unto; but the Ministerial teaching they deny them. They also distin­guish between the act of Members in any sacred or civil Assembly, debating, counselling, and admonishing one another out of the word of God; and the preaching of the word: because (they say) this action of theirs to­words one another is not authoritative, but meerly bro­therly; is rather [...], a Christian conference, then Preaching, and no other then private Christians met together by mutual consent may perform.

By all this it appeareth, that it is only an authorita­tive publick Ministerial teaching that their arguments are brought to deny unto men not ordained: for (Jus Divinum, page 78.) they use these words, [It is au­thoritative teaching only which we deny.] Ministe­rial actings, themselves oppose to Magisterial; Ministry is no more but service: but here they seem to oppose Ministerial teaching, unto parental domestical teach­ing; and yet they know there is Ministration in a pa­rents teaching his children, or a Master his servants; this is service to Christ, as well as more publick preach­ing. But take Ministerial teaching in a special sense, for the publick dispensation of the word. The Questi­on is, What they intend by Authoritative Teaching?

1 [Authority] is taken somtimes for a right or lawful power, enabling to doe some publick work; as [Page 26] Luk. 20. ver. 2. Tell us by what [authority] do'st thou these things? or, who is he that gave thee this [Autho­rity;] i. e. by what right, or lawful power, do'st thou these things? In this sense we think they cannot take it here, because in their description, they reduce it unto the manner of performing the work, and that presuppo­seth a person authorized, and so doth the Scripture they alledge for it. Tit. 2. 15. The person was impowred before he was injoyned to rebuke in this manner; viz. with all command, or as they call it Authoritatively. And they need not prove it; for it's granted, that none may preach, but those that have a right and lawful pow­er to doe it; but then the question is, Who hath that right and lawful power to preach? We conclude there­fore, that this is not that which they intend by Autho­ritative teaching.

2. [Authority] is taken for that Majesty, gravity, fervor, and efficacy that is to attend the dispensation of the Gospel in him that speaketh; as Mark 1. ver. 22. He taught them as one that had [authority] and not as the Scribes. Here the manner of Christs teaching is set forth, it was with [authority] i. e. with such gravity, life, and zeal, as it did penetrate and come home to the consciences of the hearers: and [not as the Scribes] i. e. not coldly, slightly, or doubtingly. That place which they alledge for authoritative teaching, partly intendeth this. Tit. 2. ver. 15. These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority, or command, i. e. such as are refractory, rebuke them with such severity, gravity, zeal and fervency, as if it be possible may render the word convincing to their consciences. We suppose our Bre­thren do not take [authoritative-teaching] in this sense neither; for undoubtedly all that preach, are to doe it with life and zeal, and to use utmost endeavors that the Gospel may come in power to the hearts of those they speak to, that so they may not labor in vain. [Page 27] They will not allow gifted Brethren to Preach in a con­trary manner to this.

3. But [Authority] is taken by some for that power which an Officer hath over those that he beareth Office to; and because our Brethren in their afore­mentioned distinctions do oppose it unto, and difference it from Brotherly Charitative Teaching, therefore we judge that they take Authoritative teaching, in this sense, viz. for the preaching as Officers, and the exercise of Office-power therein. And those two Scriptures which they alledge to prove Authoritative teaching, do both of them speak of preaching Office-wise; as 1 Thes. 5. 12. Only Officers were over the Church of the Thes­salonians in the Lord; and therefore none but Officers could so admonish the Church: but we assert that gif­ted Members may admonish a Church in a Brotherly way, though not as over it in the Lord. So Titus 2. 15. This is not only a direction given to Titus an Of­ficer, but also about a special act, wherein he was to put forth Office-power, viz. in the case of rebukes, When any Church-members were obstinate, he is di­rected how to exercise his Office then, [Rebuke] not only in a Brotherly way, but as over them in the Lord [with command] yea, [with all command.] Church­members are obliged to hearken unto admonitions or just rebukes from the mouth of any brother. Matth. 18. 15. But they are under special and double obligations to hearken unto admonition and just rebukes from the mouth of their Officers, because else they are guilty of contemning another Ordinance of Christ, viz. Office­relation; it becometh a sin, not only against him as a Brother, but as an Officer; it is an offence not only a­gainst the relation of Brotherhood, but against a higher relation, of Office. There is a breaking of their own engagements which they made in committing themselves to his charge; it's against that command, Hebr. 13. 17. [Page 28] Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit your selves. So that Officers may give special Commands in the name of Christ, to those they bear Office unto, that they obey the will of Christ; and may rebuke them with all command for disobedience.

An Officer of one Congregation cannot (by any Gospel-rule that yet we finde) either give such com­mands or rebukes, to the Members of another Church. He may in a Brotherly way, or Charitatively preach on Lecture-dayes, or Lords dayes to another Congregati­on, and tell the Members of it, what Christ hath com­manded from them, and urge duty upon the penalty of sinning against God, tell them of the danger of neglect­ing duty, or rebuke them in a Brotherly way; but not with all command, not Office-wise, because he is not o­ver them in the Lord, for he cannot orderly be an Offi­cer to many Churches: as a man may tell his neighbors childe of its disobedience to the parents, or his servant of disobedience to his Master; and a gifted man may for a time, upon request, or charitatively, teach all the Scho­lars, in the School-Masters absence; yet not as being o­ver the childe, or servant, or Schoole, not as having the charge of them; only the Parents, or Master, or School­master doe command, or rebuke authoritatively, as be­ing set over them.

Now, if our Brethren take Authoritative Preaching in the sense of the Scriptures they alledge to prove it by, as we suppose they doe; then their third Proposition, viz. That none may take upon him the Office of the Ministry without a call, and that none may do the work of the Ministry (authoritatively, i. e. Office-wise) with­out Ordination; and all their Arguments to prove it (if they prove no more then they bring them for) may be granted, and yet they have gained nothing against the preaching of gifted men without Ordination. For we may say, though gifted men may not preach in publick [Page 29] Assemblies, or Churches authoritatively, i. e. Office­wise, as being over them in the Lord; yet they have authority, i. e. a right and lawful power from Christ, Charitatively to preach in publick Assemblies. In a Bro­therly way, they may with life, fervor, and zeal exhort to duty, and shew the danger of neglecting it; and re­buke for sin, not as being over them, but as being desi­rous of their eternal good; and Officers out of their own Churches can do no more.

Yet because our Brethren would (as by some expres­sions we gather) be understood to speak against all preaching of gifted men (in ordinary cases) without Ordination, therefore we shall give some grounds for it, and answer such Arguments as they bring against it.

CHAP. V.

Wherein two Arguments are urged, proving the law­fulness of the Preaching of Gifted Brethren, though not ordained.

Our assertion is,

THat some men, who are not Ordained Officers, may preach: Or,

That persons who have Preaching gifts and Graces, or are apt to teach, may ordinarily exercise those gifts in publick Assemblies, though they be not ordained Of­ficers.

This appears by these Arguments.

Argum. 1. From the Antecedaneousness of Ele­ction to Ordination.

If Election from a Church ought by Gospel-order to precede, or go before Ordination of Officers; then per­sons not ordained may ordinarily preach.

[Page 30] But Election ought by Gospel-order to precede, or go before Ordination of Officers:

Ergo, Persons not ordained may ordinarily preach.

The consequence of the Major is cleared thus: Be­cause good experience that a man is gifted for Office, and that his gifts are sutable to that Church, is so neces­sary as antecedent to Election, that it cannot be groun­ded or regular without it. A Church cannot in faith, elect or chuse a man, and commit their souls to his charge for teaching and oversight, if they have not grounds to perswade them that he is gifted, and qualified as Christ requireth Officers should be. 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2, &c. and that his gifts are sutable, and so like to be very profita­ble and advantageous to their souls which chose him. A knowledge of their having sutable qualifications, is pre­required unto a Churches chusing of Deacons, Act. 6. v. 3. much more is it necessary unto a Churches chusing one unto a higher Office, to take care of, and feed their souls. And because many that are otherwise eminent­ly gifted, yet are not found able to speak publickly unto edification; hence it is impossible to gain a knowledge of a mans being endued with sutable qualifications, without a frequent and ordinary exercise of gifts in a way of preaching: a little time will not discover it. Therefore an ordinary preaching is pre-requisite unto Election; and so if Election must go before Ordination, then it necessarily followeth, that some men not ordai­ned may preach.

The Minor is proved, Act. 6. ver. 5, 6. They chose Stephen,—ver. 6. Whom they set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed, they layd their hands on them. The Church first chuseth, before they are ordained. Now it is Mr. Collings Argument, (Vind. pag. 77.) As the Apostles ordained Gospel-preachers, so they ought to be ordained. But they used ordination after Electi­on; and therefore so it must be used. And it's granted [Page 31] by Mr. Collings and others (Vind. pag. 18) that Ordi­nation is, but Actus ultimus, the last and perfective Act. And we desire one Scripture to prove Ordinati­on to Office, as antecedent to Election, or without it. If in any case Ordination might go before Election, then either a man might be an Officer to some particular Church without their chusing him; whereas them­selves grant, (pag. 155.) that it is their choice, that maketh one their Minister, their Pastor, their Shep­herd: Or else he might be an Officer, and yet have no particular Church that he beareth Office to; and how absurd is it to say, that a man is a Church-Officer to no Church: Or that a man is an Officer to an Universal Church, when yet he is no Officer to any particular Church!

Neither will their distinction of habitual and actual Officers, salve this sore; for if a man preacheth to the Heathen people, as now in New-England (which case themselves put, Jus Divin. pag. 149.) either he preach­eth not as an Officer, but as a gifted Brother, impowr­ed by Christ to doe such a work; or else he must be an actual Officer to no Church; for he actually preacheth to them, though they remain all of them unconverted and no Church.

Argum. 2. From Gospel-Commands.

All that are required by Gospel-commands to Preach, they may and ought to preach; because else they sin in breaking those Gospel-Commands that require it of them. But some men who are not ordained Officers, are required by Gospel-Commands to preach.

Ergo, Some men who are not ordained Officers, may and ought to preach.

The Major is undenyable; for no man may sin, or disobey any Gospel-Commands.

The Minor we prove thus.

All that have preaching gifts and Graces, or are apt [Page 32] to teach, are required by Gospel-commands to preach. But some men who are not ordained Officers, have preaching gifts and graces, or are apt to Teach. Ergo, Some men who are not ordained Officers, are required by Gospel-Commands to preach. The Minor is unde­nyable, viz. That some men who are not ordained Of­ficers, have preaching gifts, or are apt to Teach. For it is a qualification pre-required to a mans being an Officer, that he be apt to Teach. 1 Tim. 3. ver. 2. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vi­gilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality [apt to Teach.] Tit. 1. ver. 9. None have a ground to Elect and Ordain any, unless they be apt to Teach, before they chuse or ordain them; and therefore many not ordained have preaching gifts. And for Grace, it's as unquestionable.

The Major, viz. That all who have preaching gifts and Graces, or are apt to teach, are required by Gospel-Commands to preach, we shall prove from 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. Heb. 10. ver. 25. The former we shall insist upon most, viz. 1 Pet. 4. ver. 10, 11. As every man hath received a gift, even so Minister the same one to ano­ther, as good Stewards of the manifold Grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God. If any man Minister, let him do it as of the ability which God gi­veth, &c. Where observe,

1. Gods communication of gifts to the Saints. As every man hath received a [gift] i. e. any spiritual gift; he speaketh indefinitely, and so it may include every gift, whether publick or private. It is not limited to one gift, though it be expressed in the singular number, but may extend to all those gifts which the Lord con­ferreth on his people; as 1 Corin. 11. ver. 28. it's spo­ken in the singular number, Let [a man] examine him­self, and so let him eat of that Bread.—[A man] i. e. every man who approacheth to God in that Ordinance, [Page 33] let him examine himself: So [a gift] i. e. any spiri­tual gift, which he hath received from above, let him use it.

2. There is particularizing of that special gift of speaking to others edification, in the things of Christ. 1 Pet. 4. ver. 11. If any man [speaketh] i. e. hath a gift to speak a word of exhortation unto others to edi­fication, [Let him speak, as the Oracles of God] i. e. with reverence, zeal, faithfulness, humility, as it be­cometh the word of the Lord to be spoken. The na­ture of this direction how to speak, viz. as the Oracles of God, and the reference this hath to the foregoing verse, doe argue, that it is not common speaking, but some special gift of Scripture-interpretation that is in­tended; and so it is usually carryed by Interpreters. And this aptness to teach, being so suddenly mentioned, or following immediately after, and agreeing so suta­bly to what is expressed ver. 10. hence this 11. verse cannot rationally be denyed to have a special relation to, and dependance upon verse 10. but must be con­cluded to be an explication, how one particular gift is to be layd out, which is included in that general, viz. how those that have a preaching gift ought to use it.

3. There is a Divine Command to exercise such gifts as are received: [As] every man hath received a gift, so Minister the same one to another.—Every be­leever hath some gift or other, and that gift which the Lord hath bestowed in an eminent way, that is he un­der a special obligation, to lay out for the Lord. Rom. 12. 6, 7. There are different Gifts: one man excelleth in one gift, another excelleth in another gift; and that way which a mans gifts especially lyeth, he is especial­ly to endeavor the promoting of the interest of Christ, in the good of others; in that degree that any gift is afforded, in that measure is he to lay it out, [As] he [Page 34] hath received, so he is to Minister; he that hath receiv­ed much, of him will much be required. Such as a mans gift is, such his Ministration ought to be. Of what nature soever the gifts be, such the use of them must be; private gifts are to be used privately, and publick gifts (i. e. such as are fit for publick use) pub­lickly; else a man doth not Minister a gift, as he hath received it; which this Text commandeth. If publick gifts be exercised only in a private way, that man doth not give as he hath received: others are without that benefit which they might have by them.

4. This command is Universal, i. e. to all that have such gifts. 1 Pet. 4. 10. As [every man] hath received a gift.—and the gift of preaching is instanced in ver. 11. and therefore every man that hath that gift of Scripture-interpretation, is required to Minister unto others. We do not say, that every Christian is to preach; this Text limiteth the note of Universality unto such as have a gift that way: many Christians have not a gift to speak publickly unto edification; but we say it hold­eth out thus much, that every man who hath that gift, is to Minister with it. If a Father commandeth every childe who hath ability to work, and then directeth how to doe some particular work; it is undoubted he intendeth that every childe who hath ability to doe that work, should act in it; and that childe which is a­ble, and doth not set about that work, disobeyeth his father, unless his father giveth him a particular dispen­sation or prohibition, which the other have not. Now the Lord commandeth that [every Saint] or Steward of his manifold grace, who hath received a gift, should Minister with it unto others, ver. 10. and particularly directeth, how they which have a gift to speak profita­bly unto others, should use that gift: ver. 11. He that speaketh, as the Oracles of God.—and therefore it is to be concluded, he intendeth that every one who is a [Page 35] Steward of his manifold Grace, and hath received such a gift, should Minister with it unto others; and he sin­neth if he doth not, unless a particular prohibition or dispensation be given him, which others have not.

Here is a general rule requiring every gifted man to preach, and therefore unless some particular Scrip­tures can be shewn which give a prohibition, or doe forbid all un-ordained mens preaching, every gifted man ought to preach. We doe not say barely thus: The preaching of gifted men is nowhere forbidden in the word of God: Ergo, It is lawful. But we say, By a general command of God, every gifted man is requi­red to preach: Ergo, Every gifted man who is not forbidden preaching by some particular word of God, ought to preach; because else he sinneth in breaking that general command. And in regard the command is not here annexed to Office, but to gifts; it is not said, every man that hath received an Office; but, every man that hath received a gift, let him Minister; and this preaching gift is particularized, ver, 11. and seeing there are many men who are no Officers, nor in an im­mediate capacity to be ordained unto Office-work (be­cause they are not chosen to it by any Church) who yet are eminently gifted, and apt to teach; hence ma­ny not ordained to Office, may and ought to Preach.

Object. 1. Is not this Text chiefly to be un­derstood of giving of Almes? and is not the Mr. Col­lings, p. 57. gift spoken of this worlds goods?

Answ. 1. If it be meant chiefly of Almes, then not chiefly of Office: if this worlds goods be the gift, then Office is not the gift; and then it is the calling of any Christian, who hath the gift, to Minister with it; and so the objector fighteth with himself.

2. Then any Christian who hath this worlds goods may properly be called a Steward; and so, that it must be administred as Stewards, is no Argument that Office is intended, as he would make it.

[Page 36] 3. The Ministring of that gift, is to be as Stewards, not of this worlds goods, but of the Grace of God; yea, as Stewards, not of one Grace only, viz. Charity; but of the manifold Grace of God. 1 Pet. 4. 10. The Ministration is to be of the gift which they are Stew­ards of, and that is said to be manifold. In giving of Almes they may shew themselves to be good Stewards of this worlds goods; but not of the manifold grace of God: and therefore giving of Almes cannot be chiefly intended.

4. It is added, ver. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God. And therefore it cannot be meant chiefly of Almes; but the gift of preaching is de­clared to be one of those manifold gifts, which every man that hath, is to Minister unto others.

Object. 2. But here is not only a liberty granted, but a duty enjoyned, so that by this Text (if it were to the purpose) gifted persons were Mr. Col­lings. pa. 57. bound to preach, and that without Election and calling; for the Churches neglect of their duty, must not make him neglect his.

Answ. 1. We grant it is the duty of gifted persons to preach, and that this Text holdeth out so much. Yet,

2. It is not here determined either when or where gifted persons ought to preach. Here is power given to gifted persons to Preach; and therefore it is lawful for them to doe it: yea, it is commanded, and so they sin if they will not doe it. But other things must con­cur before the exercise of this power at this time or in that place. This distinction our Brethren (Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 144.) give us, and so we shall pay them with such coyn, as they would have us take. We di­stinguish (say they) between a Minister of Christ, and a Minister of Christ in such a place; between the Office it self, and the ordinary exercise of it, to such or such [Page 37] a people: so we distinguish betwixt the preaching of a gifted person in such a place; between his power to exrcise his gifts, and his power to exercise his gifts to such or such a people, or at such a time. Suppose or­dination did make an Officer, or a Minister, then all those Gospel-Commands that require it of Officers, that they diligently and constantly preach, they not onely give a man, who is ordained, liberty; but injoyn it as a duty, that, he preacheth in this manner. But if this man either by banishment, or the unjust rejection of a peo­ple, be put out of imployment, and be cast into some place, where his gifts are not desired; none giveth him a special call to exercise his gifts for a great while toge­ther: in such cases, our Brethren will not say, that he hath sinned or broken those Commands when he would have preached, if others would have heard. So gifted persons are enjoyned to preach, yet if they be not cal­led out, or desired to exercise their gifts a great while together, they may not sin; and if other things do not concur to open a door, or give an opportun y to preach at this time, or in this or that place; their du­ty may not be neglected, or that command broken. Our Brethren grant, that men ordained have not power to administer the Ordinances of Christ, without a special call. Jus Divin. pag. 144.

Gifted persons have power to preach; and the Churches calling, or desiring them to exercise their gifts, may be sufficient to give an opportunity to preach; yea, the desire of a particular person sometimes may be enough, Act. 8. 34, 35. And the Eunuch answered Philip, and said, [I pray thee] of whom speaketh the Pro­phet this? of himself, or of some other man. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and [preached] unto him, Jesus. The Eunuchs request [I pray thee—] was sufficient to give Philip an opportu­nity to preach.

[Page 38] Yea, the desire even of an unbeleeving Magistrate in some cases may give opportunity to exercise ones gifts in a way of preaching. Act. 13. ver. 7. The Deputy of the Country Sergius Paulus a prudent man called for Bar­nabas and Saul, and [desired] to hear the word of God.—and ver. 12. Then the Deputy—beleeved, being astonish­ed at the doctrine of the Lord. So Act. 13. ver. 15, 16. The rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up, &c. The desire or call of a Magistrate or Minister; yea, the desire of the people, as Act. 13. ver. 42, 44. may be call sufficient in some cases to exercise a mans gifts in a way of preaching. But when a gifted person hath no such call to exercise his gifts, he doth not sin in not preaching, though possibly others may sin in not desiring him to preach.

3. In such cases there ought to be a waiting in the use of means to satisfie the Church, before the exercise of gifts; though it be a duty in it self, and a Church may sin in hindring a man from preaching, ei­ther in the Church or elsewhere; yet at this or that time it may not be his duty to doe it, until other duties be done. It is his duty to use means to satisfie the Church, that he may act in it without offence to that; and until this be done, we conceive it is not immedi­ately his duty, in case of a Churches dissatisfaction, a­bout his ability to preach.

Obj. 3. This will prove that women may preach; if every one that hath gifts may. Mr. Col­lings.

Ans. A particular exception is enough to restrain any general rule. Women are expresly for­bidden, and that is one limitation of this general rule. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. But let it be shewn, where all men, not ordained, are forbidden preaching: without such a particular exception, every gifted man may preach, [Page 39] and find a warrant for it from that general rule. It's said, Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man, say­ing, Of [every tree] of the garden thou mayst freely eat. But will Mr. Collings say, That this will prove that Adam might (i. e. lawfully) eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; because it is said, [Of every tree?]—doth not the particular exception, v. 17. limit that general rule, v. 16? It's said, 1 Cor. 14. v. 31. Ye may [all] prophesie,—will he therefore say, Women may prophesie in the Churches? and doth not [all] bring them in here, as much as it doth, 1 Pet. 4. 10.? Every gifted man not excepted by some particular rule, may preach.

Obj. 4. If all that have gifts and abilities to preach, may do it, then those who are fitted with abilities to be Generals of an Army, or Captains, or Parliament­men, or Pleaders at the Bar, may do the work of Generals, Captains, and Parliament-men, and plead at the Bar.

Answ. 1. Those that have abilities for civil or military imployments, may exercise those abilities, if a King or Supream Governour doth command them to do it: He that hath abilities to be a Captain, may do the work of a Captain, if the General biddeth him. He may do the work of a General of an Army, or a Parliament-man, or a Pleader at the Bar, (being fit­ted with abilities) if the King, or those who are to appoint unto such works, do impower him thereunto. Now, Christ the King of Saints, and the great Captain-General of our Salvation, who had all po­wer in Heaven and Earth given unto him, he hath commanded every man that hath grace, and is gifted, to preach; and therefore, every man who hath Grace, and is gifted, may Preach.

2. He that doth the work of a General of an Army, [Page 40] assumeth an office in the Army; the General is the chief Officer there. And he that doth the work of a Parliament-man, assumeth the office of a Magistrate: and so the Argument is impertinent. We grant that Election and Ordination both, are necessary in Order before the exercise of gifts Office-wise.

3. Our Argument is not taken from a general Rule onely, but from a particularizing of Preaching gifts therewith, when a general Command is given to every man who hath a gift, to minister with it unto others; and one gift is particularly mentioned, then it is un­douted, that every man who hath that particular gift ought to minister with it, unless he falleth under some special prohibition: and let our Brethren shew any such prohibition, else their consequence is not good. And let this alwayes be observed; it is not Gifts, but Christ (by Gospel-Rules) that warrant­eth and giveth the Authority or power to gifted per­sons to preach. Gifts do qualifie and enable a person to the Act. Christ by Gospel Rules warranteth the acting in that way. Gifts (with graces) are decla­rative, that the person is warranted or authorized to Preach: Charity bindeth to follow Gospel-Rules in the exercise of gifts for the good of others.

Obj. 5. Every one is to use his gift with respect to the gift it self, and to his place and calling, and no otherwise.

These spiritual gifts are to be exercised by every one in his own Sphere, (Jus Divinum, pag. 102.) by private persons, privately; by those that are in Office, publickly, and in the Congregation.

Aquila and Priscilla, private persons, yet of eminent gifts (insomuch as they knew the way of Christ more perfectly then Apollos himself—) kept their own place; they as gifted Christians did not undertake to preach publickly, but took him to them, and pri­vately [Page 41] expounded to him the way of God more per­fectly, Act. 18. This is a notable pattern for private Christians, even of the highest form to walk by; in this way, that they may find imployment for all their gifts. Those women whom the Apostle honours with the Title of Labourers with him in the Gospel, Phil. 4. 3. they laboured not by publick preaching, for this the Apostle permits not to women, 1 Tim. 2. but by pri­vate Advertisements and Admonitions as opportunities were administrd.

Therefore it follows not, that because all gifts are to be improved, therefore a gifted Brother may preach: for, first, there are other ways of making use of our most excellent gifts, then by preaching onely; and secondly, it is required in him that will preach warrantably; not onely that he be fitted for the work; but that he be appointed to the Office of the ministry, &c.

Answ. 1. The third Answer to the foregoing Ob­jection may serve here also; if it will not follow, that because all gifts are to be improved, therefore a gifted Brother may preach; yet it will follow, that because every man is to minister unto others, that gift he hath received, and the gift of preaching is particularized: therefore every man who hath that gift, is to mini­ster with it, i. e. is to preach; and that is our Argument, from 1 Pet. 4. v. 10, 11.

2. The Examples of Aquila and Priscilla do not at all deny the lawfulness of any gifted mans preaching publickly. Because they did this privately; therefore they might not preach publickly: it doth not follow. The Apostles preached privated, in every house, Act. 5. v. 42. but it did not follow, that therefore they might not preach publickly: for, in the same verse they are said to teach in the Temple also. And as to the case alledged:

1. It is not determined whether Aquila had preach­ing [Page 42] gifts, or were apt to teach publickly or not: it is frequently found in our experience, that persons emi­nently qualified for the giving private Advertisements and Admonitions, yet are not gifted to speak publick­ly unto Edification. Our question is, Whether such as have publick gifts, may not use them in a publick way of preaching? It is not proved that Aquila had such gifts.

2. It was a particular person, Apollo, that was by Aquila and Priscilla at this time to be instructed; and therefore rules of expediency require that it should be in a private way. If Aquila and Priscilla had been Ecclesiastical Officers, it had been expedient to instruct Apollo privately. If an Officer heareth another preach, and perceiveth by his speaking, that he is much unac­quainted with some way of Christ; were it according to Gospel-order for that Officer to tell him publickly, and before all the Congregation, that he doth not understand the way of the Lord, and to direct him in­to it? Because one man, viz. Apollo, was instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord, by Aquila and Priscilla in a private way: for any to say, There­fore Christians who have publick gifts, may not preach in a publick way, when many desire instruction from them; how feeble is this Consequence?

3. Though private instruction be one way of im­proving eminent gifts, yet it doth not follow, that this is the chief, much less the onely way, wherein the Lord would have any man be always improving publick gifts, i. e. gifts fit for publick use. If Aquila had publick gifts, because at this time he used them in a private way, it doth not follow, that he always did so; and therefore this single act can be no warrant to any that have publick gifts to find imployment for all their gifts, alwayes, privately. Those women, Phil. 4. 3. if they laboured in the Gospel, by private [Page 43] Advertisements and Admonitions, seeing such a par­ticular exception, as 1 Cor. 14. 34. cannot be found forbidding gifted mens preaching: and seeing it is not expressed what gifts those women had; hence its far short of proving, that publick or preaching gifts, may always be made use of, in a private way.

3. We apprehend that it will necessarily follow, that because all gifts (i. e. spiritual gifts) are to be improved, therefore a gifted Brother may preach. Or rather, in the words of that text, Because every man that hath received a gift, is to minister with it; therefore every gifted Brother may preach.

Abilities to preach are called gifts, Rom. 12. v. 6. Having then [gifts] differing—and v. 7, 8. Teach­ing and Exhorting are put amongst those gifts. So 1 Cor. 12. v. 4, 8. And our Brethren (Jus Divinum, p. 102.) grant, that 1 Pet. 4. 10. extendeth to all spiri­tual gifts. Now [all gifts] include these preaching gifts; and how will the Consequence be avoided? Every man that hath preaching gifts is to improve them: Ergo, every gifted Brother (i. e. with those preaching gifts) is to preach. For preaching gifts are not to be im­proved, unless there be preaching.

Neither the examples of Aquila and Priscilla, Act. 18. nor of those women, Phil. 4. do intimate that there are ways of making use of preaching gifts, which will excuse from sin, if they preach not. There cannot be an improvement of any gifts without an use of them. Mat. 25. 25, 27. There is not an using of preaching gifts, or not for their proper end, if there be no preaching; and therefore, if all that have preaching gifts do not preach, then all gifts are not improved, or every man doth not minister that gift which he hath received.

4. It belongeth to his place and calling who hath preaching gifts, to exercise those gifts in a way of [Page 44] Preaching, and that publickly, as opportunity is of­fered: The chief weight of the Objection lieth here: Our Brethren suppose that it is a going out of their Sphere, out of their place and calling, for any that are not in Office, to exercise their gifts in a way of preaching; especially if it be publickly. Whereas that place, 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. determineth it to belong unto his place and calling who hath received such a gift, to minister with it. The commanding every man to use that gift he hath, is a determining it to be every mans place and calling to preach who hath that gift. Those men which do not use their gifts, do disobey this Command which extendeth to every man. But we shall adde several other Considerations, which (taken together) may serve for the evincing this; that it appertaineth to their Sphere, place and call­ing, who have such gifts to preach, and that pub­lickly.

1. It belongeth to the place and calling of persons gifted (though not in Office, to do the same work for substance, that Officers do in their preaching. Our Brethren in their Discription of preaching, say, (Ius Divinum, p. 72.) The Subject of preaching is, the Word of God: and the work of preaching is, the Explication and Application of this Word: And per­sons gifted, who are not in Office, may lawfully do all this; and for the proper end of it, viz. the Edifica­tion and comfort of those they speak to, a privite Brotherly teaching. Admonishing and Exhorting, they grant (pag. 78.) to be duty, and they exhort and charge their people not to neglect it. Persons gifted, though not in Office, may exhort others, Hebr. 3. v. 13. But [exhort] one another dayly,—They may rebuke others, Lev. 19. v. 17. Thou shalt in any wise [re­buke] thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. They may teach and admonish others, Collos. 3. v. 16. Let the [Page 45] word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, [teach­ing and admonishing one another.]—These last recited words, may be referred to the foregoing, as well as the following words. The Apostle would have the Word of Christ so dwell in Christians, as they may teach and admonish one another; and the following words may properly be read thus [Singing in psalmes, and hymns, and spiritual songs, with grace in your hearts to the Lord:] The Grammatical construction of the words doth not at all enforce it, that the teaching Zanch. Colos. 3. and admonishing should be in or by singing of Psalmes. From this place Zanchy observeth that Christians are bound to reach and exhort one ano­ther privately: yea, persons gifted, though not in Office, may expound the way of God to others. Aquila and Priscilla took Apollo unto them, and Acts 18. v. 26. [expounded] unto him the way of God more perfectly.

That all the forementioned places hold out the du­ties of porsons out of Office, may easily be perceived by any judicious Reader: for the exhortations are di­rected generally to believers, and even those that most stiffly oppose the preaching of men out of Office, ac­knowledge so much, and therefore we shall not insist on the proof of that: the very Objection we are an­swering, asserteth Aquila and Priscilla to be private persons.

That those acts of Exhorting, Rebuking, Teaching, Admonishing, Expounding,—are the same, for substance with Preaching, is also clear; for, these acts cannot be performed without an Explication and Ap­plication of the Word of God; Aquila could not ex­pound the way of God to Apollo, without an opening and applying of the Word to him, and Colos. 3. 16. It is in and by the opening and applying that Word of Christ unto others, which is within them, that they are t [Page 46] teach and admonish one another. And the work of Officers when they preach, is expressed by the same words that are used in these places to express the acts of men not in Office; and therefore the works are the same; though we do not say, That the way and man­ner of acting is the same in all respects. Officers preach­ing is exhorting, Tit. 2. 15. These things speak and [ex­hort.] It is admonishing, 1 Thes. 5. 12. are over you in the Lord, and [admonish] you.

And thus it appeareth, that persons gifted, not in Office, may do the same work, that is called preach­ing; and yet in this they do not act out of their Sphere, place or calling. And we cannot see how it can be de­nyed, the name or title of preaching, when the sub­ject is the Word of God; the Work, the Explication, and Application of the Word: the End, the Edifi­cation and Comfort of others, as it is in the preaching of Officers.

Our Brethren do grant that all this may be done by men not in Office, but they deny, That they may do it Authoritatively: and this we may grant them also, if by Authoritative, they mean Office-wise. It is enough to our purpose if they may do it charita­tively.

2. They deny that it is the place and calling of gift­ed men not in Office, to perform these acts [publick­ly;] they grant they may in private: we have prov­ed, that they may do the work of preaching; and if we can prove that it belongeth to their place and call­ing to do this work publickly, it is as much as we con­tend for; and divers of the ensuing Considerations shall be chiefly to evince that.

1. Every Church-member sustaineth a relation to the whole Church he is fixed in; and it belongeth to the place and calling of every gifted brother to teach, exhort, admonish every member thereof, as occasion is [Page 47] offered: there is some duty that every member oweth to the whole Church; those that are most eminently gif­ted, yet have need of the helps, assistances, experiences, & prayers, of the weakest and meanest Members in gifts and abilities. 1 Cor. 12. ver. 21, 22. The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you.—those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: and that those duties of teaching and exhorting (which are the same for substance with preaching Office-wise) are required from every gifted person towards all fel­low members, the aforementioned Scriptures will evi­dence. Hebr. 3. ver. 13. Coloss. 3. 16. They are urged a­mongst the general directions which were given to those Churches, not amongst domestical or family-du­ties. And Levit. 19. ver. 17. Rebuke [thy Neigh­bor.] Not only those in a mans own house; but neighbors. And seeing a gifted Brother may exhort and admonish all the Members of the Church severally, why may he not doe it when they are together?

3. A publick gift cannot be fully improved, nor Gods end in giving it be fully answered, if it be used only in a private way: the nature of the gift sheweth that the chief use of it should be in a publick way. A talent [is hidden] when it is not used in some way of proportion to the talent it self, as well as when it is not used at all; and they are unfaithful servants that hide their Talents. Matth. 25. ver. 18, 25, 26. Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required. Luk. 12. ver. 48. And if the Lord hath bestowed a gift fit for publick use, and it hath been cooped up, and used onely privately; there much is given, and little (in comparison of what might be, if it were used in a publick way) is returned. A gift might in a publick use of it, reach many, that in a private use of it, can reap no advantage by it; and so there is a hiding a Ta­lent. A man doth not Minister his gift, or not as he [Page 48] hath received, if he useth a publick gift, onely in a pri­vate way.

And Gods end in affording a publick gift is not onely a mans own private advantage, or the benefit of his fa­mily, but the publick advantage of the whole Church. 1 Cor. 12. ver. 7. The manifestation of the Spirit is gi­ven to every man to profit withal. He speaketh of profit­ing the Church, and not a mans family onely; for all the gifts particularized, ver. 8, 9, 10. were to be layd out for the profit of the Church; and the scope of the Chapter sheweth, that a publick profiting with gifts is intended. And the manifestation of the Spirit is given, not to Officers only, but to every man, for this end, that he may profit withal. Every man that enjoyeth those eminent manifestations of the Spirit, those emi­nent gifts of the Spirit; to whom is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, as ver. 3. i. e. to whomsoever the Spirit hath afforded a gift, either wisely to speak, and apply Gospel-truths to the souls of others, for the uses and ends they serve to; ac­cording to the various conditions, streights, exigencies, necessities, temptations, which they are in, that are spo­ken to; or understandingly to give an exposition of the Scriptures, every man that hath such gifts, it belong­eth to his place and calling, to use those gifts for the common good of the Church, or for the best advantage and profit thereof, else he crosseth the end of the Spi­rit, in bestowing those gifts, which is, that he might profit with them.

4. Publick actings are not peculiar to Office, and therefore it cannot argue, that a man not in Office, goeth out of his place and calling, because he acteth publickly: one great ground of their mistake seemeth to lie here, they suppose (but they have not proved it from any Scripture) that publickness in acting, or in preach­ing, is limitted and restrained to Officers onely; Spi­ritual [Page 49] gifts are to be exercised (say they, Jus Div. p. 102.) by every one in his own Sphere, by private persons pri­vately, by those that are in Office publickly, and in the Congregation. Whereas publickness doth not make an Act to be an Act of Office, nor privateness hin­der it from being so. An Officer may put forth Acts of Office privately; as, when he rebuketh or admo­nisheth a Brother as one set over him in the Lord, though it be not before the Congregation, yet surely it is an Act of Office. The Act may be preach­ing Office-wise in a private house, as we proved be­fore.

The publickness of the Act doth neither make it preaching, nor (as they call it) Authoritative preach­ing. And therefore gifted Brethren cannot be said to assume the Office of a Pastor or Teacher, because they exhort and admonish publickly. Also in many cases a man not in Office may act either in civil or religious matters publickly, and so may exercise both natural and spiritual gifts, when yet he taketh no Office upon him, nor goeth out of his Sphere. As, in any busi­ness of publick concernment to a Town, the manage­ment whereof is committed chiefly to the Officers of the Town or place; yet another man of eminent na­tural abilities, and fit for the management of such a work, (though he be no Officer) may be called in for assistance, or may act publickly in the case. Constables may ordinarily call in others, for their assistance in pub­lick works; and so, in many other cases, men that are no Officers, may do the same works that Officers do, either alone, or as Assistants, and that publickly.

It is an ordinary thing for men to distribute worldly goods openly in publick Assemblies, to the use of poor Neighbours, or of such as live at a distance, who have sustained losses by fire; and it is not unlike that they did it publickly, Act. 11. v. 29, 30. Now it is the work [Page 50] of a Deacon (who is a Church-Officer) to distribute: our Brethren interpret that so, Rom. 12 v. 8. [He that giveth] i. e. the Deacon; and if Jus Divin. Regim. pag. 125. any man may do the same work publickly which a Deacon by his Office doth, with­out going out of his place and calling; why may not a gifted Brother do part of the same work, which ano­ther Officer doth? why may he not teach and exhort, and that publickly, without going out of his place and calling also? Nay, Church-Members that were not in Office, did publickly act in that Assembly. Act. 15. v. 12. Then all the multitude kept silence—This necessarily impli­eth that the multitude did speak before in the Assembly; and it cannot be restrained unto Officers onely, for the whole Church did help to make up the multitude in that Assembly, v. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with [the whole Church] to send chosen men of their own Company, &c. There [Church] is distinguished from Apostles and Elders, which were the Officers; and the Church is said to Co-operate with the Apostles and Elders in those publick acts of choosing and sending Messengers. So verse 23. All which doth fully prove, that it belongeth to the Sphere, Place, and Calling of men not in Office, to act in religious matters [publickly:] and therefore unless some speci­al Gospel-Rule can be found, forbidding gifted men to teach or exhort publickly, it will not appear that they go out of their Sphere therein.

5. Charity bindeth sometimes, to an acting occasi­onally in some works that belong not to a mans own, but anothers Calling; and then it cannot be a going out of his Sphere to act therein: in civil employments, what is more ordinary, then for a man of one Calling, upon request to do the work of another mans Calling? yea, to leave his own work, to do work for his Neigh­bour? Yea in publick employments, who questioneth [Page 51] the lawfulness of a gifted mans tending a School, occa­sionally, for a few days, at the request of the School­master? and this is a publick work; and yet a man that is no Schoolmaster doth not go out of his Sphere, Place, or Calling herein, though he doth the work occasi­onally, that belongeth not to his own, but anothers Calling. And why may not gifted men as well preach in publick, without any sinful going out of their Sphere, Place, or Calling?

Charity putteth upon doing good to others to the ur­most of our ability, 2 Cor. 8. v. 3. 1 Joh. 3. 16. We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren; and therefore surely Charity calleth to lay out a mans gifts for the good of others, to the utmost of the gift and oppor­tunity; it is less to lay out gifts, then to lay down life.

And if a man hath publick gifts, and doth not use them publickly, he neither acteth to the utmost of his gifts, nor layeth them out in that way wherein he may most promote the good of others.

6. A man may lawfully choose it for his Calling to preach, if he be gifted and qualified according to Gos­pel-Rules for the work; and then it is no going out of his Sphere, Place or Calling, to Preach: Some men from their Childhood have an inclination to that work of the Ministry, and spend many years in preparation for it in the Universities, and elsewhere; are blessed with Grace and gifts fit for the employment; they can finde no rule for Ordination unto Office, until a pre­cedent Election from a Church: how can it be a going out of their Calling to Preach, who never owned any other Calling but that? if Ordination did give the Call to the Office, yet would it hardly be proved that it made it a mans Calling to Preach, or that he could not have that as his Calling without Ordination. Men may (being fitted for that work) many years Preach [Page 52] (for ought we finde) in order to, or before they under­take Office, if they have no Call from a Church unto Office, or no such Call as they can with clearness ac­cept of, in that time: for, every man is to minister his gift; which warranteth a constant as well as an occasional use of gifts, as opportunity is offered.

And the same is to be said for men who have used o­ther Callings; if they be gifted for the work of preach­ing, have a Disposition thereunto, and the Lord o­peneth a door for a constant use of those gifts, then they may lawfully leave their other vocations, and then they go not out of their Place or Calling if they ordi­narily preach, it being become their Calling to do it. That place speaketh much this way, Heb. 5. v. 12. When for the time ye ought to be Teachers, ye have need that one teach you again,—This implyeth that those Christians who are not Teachers, and so are of other Callings, (for Christians are not to live without Call­ings) may afterwards (being gifted) become Teach­ers; and so may change their Callings, or else preach, and hold other Callings too. Yea, it importeth that it is the duty of Christians to endeavour after such a growth in grace and experience, as they may become Teachers. As the Apostle exhorreth the Corinthians to covet that they might prophesie, 1 Cor. 14. 39. so here he exhorteth the Hebrews to covet to teach, or to be Teachers. And it's not like that private teaching is only or chiefly intended; for though these Hebrews were believers, yet he denyeth them to be Teachers in the sense he intended, for verse 12. he blameth them that they were not Teachers, but needed milk; and therefore he meaneth such Teachings as babes in Christ do not attain unto, and such as is reached unto, by long time or much experience: [for the time,] i. e. considering how long it is since your first conversion to Christ, ye ought to be Teachers. Whereas all Christians, [Page 53] even babes in Christ, are Teachers in that private bro­therly way; as themselves grant, (Jus Divinum, p. 78.) it's the common duty of all Christians, and prescribed to all, even to women, by the Law of God, under pain of sin. Onely grown Christians of long time or much experience are the Teachers the Apostle here intendeth, v. 12, 13, 14. And therefore more then teaching in a private brotherly way is intended: and either they must hold two Callings, or else leave their worldly Calling, to give up themselves to teaching.

Some do alledge against the preaching of men that have followed other Callings, 1 Cor. 7. verse 20. Let every man abide in the same calling, wherein he was called. Whereas this Text doth neither forbid an occasional doing the work of anothers, nor the changing of ones own Calling. The meaning is, Let him abide with God in his Calling; and so it is interpreted, v. 24. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein [a­bide with God.] He doth not forbid changing or leav­ing the Calling, but the leaving or forsaking God; the thing blamed, is a not abiding with God in a mans Calling. The occasion of this Exhortation appeareth to be this: The Corinthians questioned the lawfulness of a believers Co-habitation with an unbelieving Yoke-fellow; and the lawfulness of that; the Apostle asserted in the former part of the Chapter, and pro­ceedeth to lay down a general rule, which reacheth o­ther relations, v. 24. Let every man abide in the same calling—i. e. it's lawful for him to continue in the same condition or course of life that he was in, when he was called or converted: his being called doth not free him from or destroy his relation to Infidels and un­believers: many temptations will be met withal from the Infidels or unbelievers to whom the relation is, to a leaving the Lord and his wayes; but this doth not break the relation, or free from keeping Covenant [Page 54] with the unbeliever; and therefore let him abide in the same Calling, onely let him be careful to abide with God therein. If one be not in relation to Infidels or unbelievers, it's best (as much as may be) to keep free; but if when one is called or converted, he be in relation to such, let him abide in that Calling; yet so as to abide with God. He instanceth in the relation of a servant, v. 21. Art thou called being a servant? i. e. if thou be'st a servant to an unbelieving master when thou art called, [care not for it:] i. e. distract not thy self about, do not scruple or question the lawfulness of thy continuance, or Co-habitation with him: [but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather:] i. e. if the un­believer will release thee of thy service, and of thy pro­mise to dwell with him, thou had'st better be free; it's better to have Communion with & relation to believers, then to unbelievers. So that seeing the Apostle instan­ceth in servants, v. 21. & biddeth them continue or abide in that Calling, i. e. course of life, they were in when call­ed, as one particular included in that general, v. 20. hence he doth not forbid here, the changing of ones Call­ing or condition of life; for, he that is now a servant, may lawfully marry, and become a master of servants. As well may they assert from v. 20, 21. that he who is a ser­vant, must abide always a servant; as that he who is now of some worldly Calling, must abide in that, and not preach.

7. Gifted men have a Divine allowance to teach and exhort publickly; and therefore they go not out of their Sphere, Place, or Calling therein. There is a com­mand for it, Heb. 10. v. 25. Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together, as the manner of some is: but exhor­ting one another—Here is a command to keep up Christi­an meetings, or Church-assemblies [not forsaking the assembling of our selves together.] And there is a duty commanded to be performed in these publick assemblies, [Page 55] [but exhorting one another.—] The particle [but] ar­gueth that this hath reference unto the foregoing words; he telleth us that the manner of some was to forsake the assemblings of themselves together; and in Opposition to them it's added, [but exhorting—] i. e. but do you as­semble to exhort one another. And it is not limited or restrained to Officers, that they onely should give Exhortations in these publick assemblies, but it's left upon the Christians in general to exhort one another; the same persons that are to provoke one another unto love and good works, v. 24. and the same persons that are to assemble together, v. 25. it's left amongst them as a duty in their assemblings together, to exhort one a­nother; and therefore it cannot be limited to Officers. Any men that had abilities to exhort unto Edification, here had a liberty granted, to give Exhortations in these publick assemblies; here is no exception of any, that all might be provoked to cover gifts which enable to the duty.

Yet we do not think that every individual Christian did give Exhortations in those assemblies, but only such as were gifted; because they onely were able to exhort unto Edification, which was the end of the meeting. It was not unlawful for any (that we can finde) if they were able to do the work: they that cannot do it, cannot be supposed to be required to do it. As for Women, they are excepted elsewhere. It's certain that more then Officers are intended, for not Officers onely, but all in the Church are to beware of forsaking the assembling of themselves together; and the duty of exhorting one another lieth in general amongst those that are to assemble, and is not limited to Officers more then the duty of assembling. If a Father doth bid his Children meet together, and do such a work; as it is supposed he doth not require a Child in the Cradle to meet with the rest, or to do the work, be­cause [Page 56] it hath not ability: so it is supposed that any, or all who are able to do it, may, or ought to set about it. And, how can those who are able to exhort others in publick assemblies, free themselves from disobedience to this command, which is left in general amongst them, if they do it not publickly? Also there is example for it, Act. 18. v. 26. Apollo spake, i. e. preached [in the Synagogue,] i. e. publickly; and verse 28. He mightily convinced the Jews, and that [publickly.] And that Apollo was not at this time in Office, or was not ordained, but acted herein as a gifted person, we shall shew afterward. And this proveth that gifted persons do not act out of their Sphere, Place, or Calling, in preaching publickly.

Obj. By Gift, 1 Pet. 4. 10. it is very probable may be meant Office: for, 1. He says it must be administred as Stewards. 2. The Apostle M. Collings. page 57. instancing in particulars, v. 11. instanceth in two acts of Office, Exhorting and Ministring, Rom. 12. v. 8. and if so, the meaning is onely this: As any one hath received any Office in the Church, so let him mi­nister.—

Others (Jus Divinum, page 103.) speak thus: v. 11. doth not permit every gifted man to be a Preacher, but direct every Preacher in the right Dispensation of that weighty Office: [he that speaketh,] i. e. he that by publick Authority is rightly ordained to speak. And thus some restraine the word gift, v. 10. [a gift,] i. e. an Office; and that not without probability: for so the words [...] and [...] are taken, as Rom. 12. 6. Ha­ving gifts, which the Apostle in the verses following expounds of Officers. So 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not this gift—i. e. the Office, if the Apostle may be his own interpreter, Chap. 1. 18. This charge I commit to thee, Son Timothy, according to the prophecies that went before of thee, &c.—So Eph. 3. 8. To me—is this grace given, that [Page 57] I should preach among the Gentiles: his being made the Apostle of the Gentiles, is called [...]. So Rom. 1. 5. Grace and Apostleship, i. e. The grace of Apostleship. The order which the Apostle maketh between Gifts, Administrations, and Operations, they would have taken notice of, 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6. Gifts qualifie for Ministries, Ministry authorizeth for Operation. A Physitian might not judge of Leprosies, though he had skill; nor a Butcher kill the Sacrifice, though he knew how; these things belonged to the Priest: nor every gifted Brother undertake either the Office or the work of a Minister.

Answ. 1. Those verses have relation to, and depen­dance upon each other; for, those are gifts which are mentioned v. 11. and Ministration is required in both verses; and so the meaning is plain, [he that speaketh] i. e. he that hath a Gift to speak to Edification, or Preach. And this speaking being one gift which must be reduced to the general rule, v. 10. (as the connexion of the verses sheweth) hence [every man] that hath that gift, (with grace) is permitted, yea, commanded to preach, or to minister his gift. Some would evade the Argument by taking the word [gift] for Office; there­fore we shall answer further.

2. Neither the Context, nor the Subsequent verses, can be restrained unto Officers; neither doth it appear by the verses themselves, that the persons are changed who are spoken to; and therefore the word gift, v. 10. cannot be limited to Office: The Apostle exhorteth to Sobriety, and watchfulness unto prayer, v. 7. To charity, v. 8. To hospitality v. 9. Use hospitality one to a­nother without grudging.

All these Exhortations were plainly directed to Christians in general: for surely none will say, That onely Officers were to be sober, or to watch unto pray­er, or to have charity, or to use hospitality. And the [Page 58] persons spoken to, are the same, v. 10. He spake in the foregoing verses to all the Saints, and continueth his speech in general terms to the same persons, [as every man—] and that by this [every man] should be meant Officers onely, who were very few in comparison of those before spoken to, how unconceivable a thing is it? especially seeing no distinguishing Character is laid down to notifie Officers alone to be intended; it is not said, As every Pastor, Elder, or Overseer hath receiv­ed a gift, nor as every man hath received an Office; but he writeth to the scattered Saints in general, chap. 1. v. 1. and urgeth duties in common, upon all of them in the foregoing verses; and what a rupture would it make in the Text, to thrust in an Exhortation only to Offi­cers, without any plain nomination of them, and in terms applicable to all that were before spoken to? [e­very one] includeth all the Christians, as well as Offi­cers; [Gift] may be applied to others also; for, all believers have some gifts which they are to use, and some that are no Officers, have eminent gifts; and therefore it is a safe interpretation to take it for every individual person that is gifted: and the taking such a general expression, in so restrained a sense, that most who have gifts, should be excluded, or not intended, when the notification of the persons to whom the Ex­hortation belongeth, is by the word [Gift,] and when it runneth in general terms, [every one—] this were a dangerous way of interpretation of other Scrip­tures. Gal. 6. v. 4. Let [every man] prove his own works,—were it not dangerous to say, that here, but a few men, or onely Officers, are required to prove their own works?

And how any of those, to whom this Epistle was di­rected, who had received gifts, and eminent gifts, could in faith or groundedly conclude that this Exhortation did not belong to them, because they were not Officers, [Page 59] or that [every one] should not include them, we finde not.

3. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely [a gift] and an indefinite proposition is equipollent usually to an U­niversal, so it may be extended to all gifts in general, and therefore cannot without some special reason be re­strained to one particular gift, viz. Office: there is much in the Text to forbid the limiting of it to Office, as we have shewn; and there is nothing in the Text to inforce or prove, that it must be meant of Office; and there­fore it is to swerve from right rules of interpretation, to take gift for Office in this place; for (by these) Scrip­ture-expressions are to be taken in the la [...]est sense, un­less where necessity enforceth the contrary: and here no such necessity can be found.

1. That the words [...] and [...], are taken sometimes in Scripture not for gifts simply, but for an Office; this doth not at all prove that they must be ta­ken so here: when some particular word is used with gift, that doth speak it to be limited unto Office; if then it be to be understood in that sense, yet it doth not follow, that it should be so taken, when it hath general terms affixed to it [every one.] We may use the same Argument against those that bring it; we may say, [...] and [...], are frequently and far more usually taken in Scripture for other gifts besides Office, and such gifts as persons not in Office do enjoy: and there­fore gift is rather to be taken here in larger sense then Office. [...] is used, Rom. 5 ver. 15. Not as the offence, so is [the free gift.] ver. 16. The [free gift] is of many offences unto justification. Rom. 6. ver. 23. [The gift] of God is eternal life.—Rom. 11. ver. 29. [The gifts] and calling of God are without repentance. 1 Corin. 1. ver. 7. Ye come behinde in no [gift.] 1 Cor. 12. ver. 31. Covet the best [gifts.]—In all these places, and many more, the word for gift is, [...], [Page 60] which is the same word that is used for gift, 1 Pet. 4. ver. 10. And in those places gift cannot be taken for Office, with any colour of reason: in most of the places such gifts are intended as every Christian doth enjoy. And [...] is used for Grace. Act. 13. ver. 43.—Per­swaded them to continue in [the Grace] of God. Rom. 1. ver. 7.—[Grace] to you, and peace.—1 Cor. 1. ver. 3. 2 Cor. 1. ver. 2. and therefore the words [...] and [...], will not necessarily limit it unto Office; for these are applyed unto all Christians.

2. That it is to be administred as Stewards, doth not restrain it unto Office: for it is not said, as Stewards of the Mysteries of God, as 1 Cor. 4. 1. but, as Stewards of the manifold [Grace] of God. And every Christian is a Steward of the Grace, yea, of the manifold Grace of God; for he shall give an account of all the Grace he hath received, as Stewards doe; as the parable of the Ta­lents sheweth. Mat. 25. 14, &c. & Luk. 12. 48. Unto whom­soever much is given, of himshall be much required. Whe­ther gifts or Graces be afforded, an account will be re­quired; not of Officers only, but of whomsoever they be given unto. And how harsh would it sound to read the Text that way? As every man hath received the Of­fice, even so minister the same one to another, as good Stewards of the manifold Office of God. How improper is it to say, a man is a Steward of an Office? If Steward were a name of Office (as our Brethren would have it) then it were to be read thus, As Officers of the manifold Office of God.

3. The acts of exhorting and ministring are not pe­culiar to Office, and therefore the instancing in those two acts ver. 11. doth not prove it to be restrained un­to Office. Such as are no Officers may exhort others: Hebr. 3 13. & 10. 25. and also they may Minister. 2 Cor. 9. 1. and Hebr. 6. ver. 10. Ye have ministred to [Page 61] the Saints, and do minister.—Here not the Officers only, but the beleeving Hebrews in general, are highly commended, for ministring to the Saints; and therefore Ministring is not peculiar to Office.

All which considered, how that Text 1 Pet. 4. 10. 11. can safely be restrained to Office, we finde not, espe­cially seeing Officers are particularly and plainly di­rected unto their duties in the next Chapter of the same Epistle, 1 Pet. 5. ver. 1, 3. The Elders which are among you, I exhort.—That the Apostle should crowd in this exhortation to Officers only, and then spend eight ver­ses in admonitions to all the Saints, and then begin a­gain to speak to Officers, Chap. 5. ver. 1. [...]. how un­likely a thing is it? Surely this is not usually found to be the method of this Apostle.

And therefore that interpretation of ver. 11. He that speaketh, i. e. he that by publick authority is right­ly ordained to speak, or he that is in Office, hath no­thing from the word to warrant it. Who may speak, is declared ver. 10. Every man that hath received the gift.

And whereas it is said, Abilities do not authorize to act out of our Sphere and calling; We answer, Though abilities do not authorize to act, yet Gospel-rules doe authorize those that have abilities, and do speak it to belong unto their place and calling, to Minister one unto another.

If it had been said in the time of the Law. As every man hath received the gift, even so Minister the same.—He that judgeth of Leprosies.—He that killeth a sacrifice.—A Physitian might then have judged of Leprosie, or a Butcher have killed the Sacrifice, if no particular prohibition had been found elsewhere. Unless some word of God doth limit preaching to Officers, as it did judging of Leprosies and killing of sacrifices to the Priests, such argnings are of no force.

[Page 62] As for what they observe from 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6. the Apostle declareth, that though there be diversities of gifts, administrations, and operations, yet there is the same Lord; but if the operations be not intended of miraculous operations, as some think, yet such as have gifts may be authorized for Ministration and ope­ration, for ought is there clearly asserted. None can Minister without gifts; but such as have gifts are not there denyed liberty for Ministration; nay, they seem to have an allowance, ver. 7.

Thus much for the second Argument from Gospel­commands.

CHAP. VI.

Wherein the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Arguments are urged for the proving the lawfulness of Gifted-Bre­threns Preaching, though not Ordained.

Argum. 3. From a Gospel-promise.

THat practise which hath a Gospel-promise annexed to it, is undoubtedly warrantable. But the preach­ing of some men who are not ordained Officers, hath a Gospel-promise annexed to it. Ergo, The preaching of some who are not ordained Officers, is undoubtedly warrantable.

The Major is undenyable; for the Lord will not countenance any sinful practice with his promise. That which hath a promise annexed to it, a man may act in faith therein; and so the practise must needs be warran­table.

The Minor is proved Matth. 25. 29. For unto eve­ry one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abun­dance.

[Page 63] 1. Here is a promise, He that hath, i. e. if he u­seth, exerciseth, and improveth what gifts he hath, to him [shall be given.—] i. e. he shall increase his gifts, his labors shall be followed with a Divine blessing, he shall be abundantly blessed. The talent is taken away from that servant that hid it, that did not improve it; and it is given to him who had used his Talents, ver. 28. And Christ addeth this as an incouragement to an improvement of all Talents received, [for unto him that hath.—]

2. Here are the persons who share in this promise, not Officers onely, but every man that hath, i. e. that improveth what he hath. Whatsoever gifts or Talents a man hath, here is a promise annexed to the laying of them forth for Jesus Christ.

We restrain not these gifts to preaching gifts; it is e­nough to us, that these are included; neither doe we say, that every Christian ought publickly to preach; many have not the Talent of preaching gifts. But whatseover Talents any man who is a professed Servant of Jesus Christ hath (as vers. 14.—Who called his own servants) he falleth under this promise in the im­provement of them, that to him shall be given.—He that hath private gifts, if he useth them, to him shall be gi­ven; he that hath publick gifts, if he useth them, to him shall be given.

Now, none can deny that many un-ordained men have preaching gifts, i. e. gifts that render them apt to teach; for a knowledge of their having such gifts, is pre­required unto ordination. And here is a promise an­nexed unto the use of any Talents, that any professed servant of Christ hath; and therefore they that have preaching gifts, whether they be ordained or not, do fall under this promise in the use of their gifts.

Object. 1. There is no great trust to Arguments for [Page 64] positive truths from parabolical expressions: what Talents are there meant, is not exprest.

Answ. 1. Parables are proofs of some positive truths, else of what use are they? To strain parables beyond the scope of Christ in them, is unsafe. But that by Talents are meant gifts; by trading, a using or im­proving those gifts by Servants, not onely Officers, but visible Saints, professing subjection unto Christ as their Master, &c. it is not to be denyed with any colour of reason. So that Arguments drawn from the parable this way, would be strong.

2. Our Argument is not from the parable, but from a general rule that hath a promise included in it. Indeed it is applyed to the parable, as a reason of that proceed­ing, ver. 28. but also it is applyed unto other things, as Mark. 4. 24, 25. Take heed what you hear,—and unto you that hear, shall more be given: for he that hath, to him shall be given.—If they improve Gospel-opportu­nities, if they keep the word themselves which they hear, and measure out or communicate unto others what they have heard, they shall not miss of their reward, more shall be given them. So that it is no parabolical-argu­mentation, but from a clear rule, that saith, whatsoever gifts the Lord hath bestowed upon his servants in the Church, they are in a way to enjoy the promise of en­crease, if they be in the improvement of them.

Object. 2. This will prove that women may preach too.

Answ. It is denyed; because women are except­ed. It is sayd, Josh. 5. ver. 5. All the People that came out (i. e. out of Egypt) were circumcised; will any conclude, therefore women were circumci­sed? [All] includeth women in that case, as much as [all that have gifts or Talents] doe include women in this case.

Object. 3. But may it not be meant of Ministerial [Page 65] Talent, and a called Ministry, ver. 14, 15. his ser­vants.

Answ. Though the parable of the Talents might be understood of them, yet this general rule and promise cannot be restrained to them, because it is applyed e­ven to hearers, Mark 4. 24, 25. Unto you that hear, shall be given. For—and because the rule is so gene­ral,

2. Neither can the parable be restrained to them, seeing others besides Officers are in the Kingdome of Heaven, are servants, have their Lords goods, and must give an account.—

Obj. 4. But they must do it orderly; first, be ordain­ed, and then preach: and is there no way of improv­ing gifts, but in publick preaching? he that that hath them, must improve them in his Sphere.

Answ. 1. It is granted that he must be ordained when he undertaketh to be an Officer; but Election or a Call from a Church must precede that: let it be pro­ved that a man may have ordination to Office-work, be­fore he hath Election from a Church; or that he may sus­pend the exercise of his gifts, until he hath such a Call from a Church. It is possible that a man may have gifts, which render him apt to teach, divers Yeares before any Church may elect him to Office: but he would be in danger of losing the benefit of this Pro­mise, [to him that hath, shall be given,] and of falling under that dreadful threatning, [from him that hath not, shall be taken away, even that which he hath.] if all this time he should not exercise his gifts.

2. It belongeth to his Calling, who hath gifts fit for publick use, to improve them publickly: the very end of the Lords affording such gifts, is, That they might be laid forth in such a way. 1 Cor. 12. 7. The manifesta­tion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. If one ordained to Office-work should use his gifts in a [Page 66] private, and not in publick, he would be called to an account for not using or improving his gifts, and not barely because being ordained he did not use them pub­lickly. Men shall not be called to an account barely for the not using gifts, but for the not using them in that way wherein they might most have promoted the Lords glory, and the publick good.

Argum. 5. From Gospel-presidents or examples.

That which is holden forth by Gospel-presidents or examples, with Divine allowance, that may lawfully be practised. But the ordinary exercise of preaching gifts in publick Assemblies, by persons who are not ordained Officers, is holden forth by Gospel-presi­dents, or examples, with Divine allowance. Ergo, The ordinary exercise of preaching gifts in publick Assem­blies, by persons who are not ordained Officers, may law­fully be practised.

The Major we suppose will not be denyed. It is our duty to walk as we have Christ, the Apostles and pri­mitive Saints for a pattern. Phil. 3. 17. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark those that walk so, as ye have us for an ensample. There was the same rule of obedience then, as now, viz. The Gospel; and therefore what those Saints did (unless by an extraor­dinary Call) with Divine approbation, must needs be our duty, as well as it was theirs; the Lord would not then give allowance to any sinful practise.

The Minor, that the ordinary exercise of preaching gifts, in publick Assemblies, by persons not ordained Officers, is holden forth by Gospel-presidents, or ex­amples, with Divine allowance; we prove,

  • 1. From the preaching of Apollo, Act. 18.
  • 2. From the preaching of the scattered Saints, Act. 8. v. 11.

1. From the preaching of Apollo, Act. 18. v. 24. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, [Page 67] an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to ephesus. ver. 25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing onely the baptism of John. ver. 26. And he began to speak boldly in the Sy­nagogue:—ver. 28. He mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

From these verses, we observe these things.

1. That Apollos preached, v. 25. He spake and taught diligently.

2. That he preached in publick assemblies, v. 26. He began to speak boldly [in the Synagogue:—] & v. 28. and that publickly shewing by the Scriptures—and the expressions laid together, will speak it to be his ordina­ry practise.

3. That Apollos had Divine allowance, in this his preaching: the Holy Ghost would never have vouch­safed to give him such high Commendations for his be­ing mighty in the Scriptures, v. 24. for his knowledge, v. 25. instructed in the way of the Lord, for his Zeal, and this as an occasion of, or a leading thing to, his preaching, v. 25. being fervent in Spirit, he spake and taught—if the Lord had not approved of his preaching. And the mentioning so many matters of his praise to usher in a narration of his preaching, without limiting any word of dispraise for that, doth strongly intimate Divine approbation in his preaching. Yea, his preaching it self is declared with Commendation.

He is said to preach:

1. Diligently, not negligently: v. 25. He spake and taught diligently.

2. Boldly, not with a carnal fearfulness. v. 26. He began to speak [boldly—] the same, as a Commen­dation, is given unto Paul, when the Disciples were afraid of him, Act. 9. 27, 28. But Barnabas took him, and [Page 68] brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them—how he had [preached boldly] at Damascus, in the Name of Jesus.

3. Successfully, or prevailingly, v. 28.—He migh­tily convinced the Jews—his labours were seconded with a Divine blessing.

All these Commendations of his preaching, do evi­dently speak forth his having Divine approbation there­in. And this is enough to answer that Objection which some bring, viz. That this is but an instance of the liberty given by the Jews, or taken, where as yet there was no Church in being; and the liberty given in the Jewish Synagogues, is no more a president for Christian Churches, then their exercise of power.—

We say, That if onely the Jews had given such a liberty, that would not have been enough to make it a president for us; but Christs approbation in Gospel-days of such a practise as the Jews gave liberty for, is enough to speak the warrantableness of such a practise, and to make it a president unto us.

We do not urge the lawfulness of gifted mens preaching, because the Jews gave such a liberty to Apollos, but because with Divine allowance Apollos took the liberty to preach.

4. That Apollos was not an ordained Officer; and that we prove, thus:

He that knew onely the baptism of Iohn, was not under the Ordination to Office-work, which was in­stituted by Christ. But Apollos knew onely the bap­tism of Iohn, Act. 18. 25.—He spake and taught dili­gently the things of the Lord, [knowing onely the baptisme of Iohn.] Ergo, Apollos was not under the Ordination to Office-work, which was instituted by Christ.

The Minor is undeniable, being the very words of the Text.

The Major, That he that knew onely the baptism [Page 69] of Iohn, was not under the Ordination to Office­work, which was instituted by Christ, we prove, thus:

1. Because the instituting of Ordination was Sub­sequent to the baptism of Iohn: the baptisme of Iohn spake nothing of Ordination of Officers; and there­fore he that knew onely the baptisme of John, could know nothing of that Ordination; especially seeing in order of time, the baptisme of John was preceda­neous to the institution of Ordination of Officers. He that knew onely the baptisme of John, which was Antecedent to the instituting of Ordination, he did not know that Ordination which was Subsequent to that baptisme.

But Apollos knew onely the baptism of John, which was Antecedent to the instituting of Ordination. Ergo, Apollos did not know that Ordination which was Subse­quent to that baptisme.

2. Because the importance of the expression doth deny his being ordained: for the Baptisme of John is distinguished from the baptisme of Christ, Act 19. v. 3. Unto what then were ye baptised? and they said, Unto Johns baptism. v. 4. Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. v. 5. When they heard this, they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Whence we ob­serve, 1. That the baptisme of John, and the bap­tisme of Christ, are they which in Scripture-phrase are distinguished each from other, as appeareth by comparing v. 3. with v. 5. and therefore to say, That Apollos did know onely the baptism of John, is to say, That he did not know the baptisme of Christ; with­out which he could not know Ordination, which ap­pertained onely to the baptisme of Christ, and not to that of John.

[Page 70] 2. That the baptisme of John doth comprehend the Doctrine and Ministry of John, as well as the outward signe of water, v. 4. The baptism of Iohn did teach re­pentance, and faith in Christ: it declared that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messias, and no o­ther to be expected, and [that he should come after] i e. openly to shew, manifest and reveale himself to be the Redeemer of the world.

The baptisme of Christ teacheth, That Christ is al­ready revealed; and in his death and resurrection our Salvation is made perfect.

So that [to know onely the baptisme of John,] is to know Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messias, and to have repentance and faith in him, as afterward to re­veale himself; but to be without a knowledge of Christ, as already revealed in his death, resurrection, and in those clear doctrines of the Gospel, and Miracles for the confirmation of those doctrines, which are given forth by the Apostles as fruits of the Ascention of Jesus Christ. And therefore he that knew onely the bap­tisme of John, could not know the Ordination which was instituted by Christ, because the institution of Or­dination is found amongst those doctrines which belong to the baptism of Christ and was not given forth be­fore; yea, the knowledge of Ordination presupposeth a knowledge of many other doctrines of the Gospel, as concerning Christs establishing Church-Order for his Worship, and the profession of his Name: and that he hath instituted such Offices, &c. which none by the baptisme of John onely could reach unto. Therefore there being this defect in Apollos knowledge, hence he was not an ordained Officer; for then he had known more then the baptisme of John: yea, he had known the baptisme of Christ; which to assert, were directly to cross the words of the Text, which declare, that he knew onely the baptisme of John.

[Page 71] Obj. 1. But was not Apollos an extraordinary Officer, or had he not an extraordinary Call to preach?

Answ. 1. Let him prove it, that will assert it. The Text speaketh not of any thing extraordinary; a man may be eloquent without extraordinary gifts, and mighty in the Scriptures: ordinary Officers are to hold fast the faithful Word; and to be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gainsayers, Tit. 1. 9. and this is to be mighty in the Scriptures, Act. 18. 28. He mightily convinced the Jews—and ordinary Saints are commanded to be fervent in Spirit, Rom. 12. 11. Therefore these will not prove an extraordinary Call.

2. His being so uninstructed in the way of the Lord, as Aquila and Priscilla excelled him in knowledge there­in, v. 26. strongly argueth his not being extraordinari­ly gifted.

3. The people at Ephesus, where he preached, v. 24. 25. were, after his departure from them, ignorant of those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 19. v. 1, 2.—We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. If Apollos (who before preached to them) had been indued with those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, surely they should have heard of it.

Obj. 2. But how will it be proved that Apollos being one of Johns Disciples, had no commission from John to preach?

Answ. 1. Let those that can, prove that he had such a commission from John; the Gospel is silent about it: we read that he was gifted, v. 24. Might in the Scrip­tures.—and that he had a zealous disposition to exercise those gifts, and that put him upon preaching, v. 25. Being fervent in Spirit, he spake and taught.—This seemeth to hold out, that persons really gifted, being [Page 72] fervent in spirit, may speak and teach, where opportu­nity is offered.

2. We cannot find that John gave commission to a­ny of his Disciples to preach: the Objection is built up­on this Supposition; and this being denyed, it is al­together groundless: we ask, how it will be proved that John gave a commission to any to preach? if it cannot be proved that he did, the Objection is vain.

Obj. 3. Apollos abilities were eminent; he was e­loquent, and mighty in the Scriptures—and he preach­ed where there was no Church; and therefore this will not warrant their preaching, who have not such gifts, in places where Christ is known.

Answ. 1. It matters not how eminent his gifts were: the Question is not, whether persons not eminently gifted, may preach? but the Question is, whether per­sons so eminently gifted, as (according to Gospel-Rules) Preachers ought to be, may exercise those gifts in publick Assemblies, though they be not or­dained to Office-work? If they will grant, that men of like abilities with Apollo, may preach without Ordination; then they cannot with any colour of rea­son deny a like liberty to others to preach without Or­dination, if their gifts be so eminent, as (according to Gospel-Rules) Preachers ought to be, though far inferiour to Apollos.

2. The Objection supposeth, that gifted men, with­out Ordination, may preach, where no Church is; we wish that liberty were not denyed them. But, let it be proved, that it is more unwarrantable to preach where a Church is, then where no Church is.

3. If it be said, that because there was no Church, therefore Ordination could not be had, and so he might lawfully preach without it, which otherwise he might not have done, if there had been a Church to give [Page 73] Ordination; We answer, Though Ordination could not be had there, if there were no Church, yet it might have been had else-where, at Jerusa­lem.—

Obj. 4. Apollos seems to be more then a gifted Bro­ther; for he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. he is called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3. 5.

Answ. That was afterward; when he was at Corinth, he might be an Officer for ought we know, and be or­dained; but his preaching at Ephesus, Act. 18. 24, 25. was before his going to Corinth, v. 27. when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the Brethren wrote, ex­horting the Disciples to receive him,—Act. 19. 1. And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth,—This intimateth that Apollos going to Corinth, which was in Achaia, was after his preaching at Ephesus: his being an Officer afterward at Corinth, doth no more prove that he was an Officer before at Ephesus, then his knowing the baptism of Christ at Corinth, doth prove his knowing of it at his first coming to Ephesus, when he is said to know onely the baptisme of John. And, those who are now but gifted Brethren, may afterwards become Officers.

2. From the preaching of the scattered Saints, Act. 8. & 11. we infer the lawfulness of gifted mens preach­ing, though not ordained.

It is said, Act 8. 1.—And at that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad thorow out the regions of Judea, and Samaria, except the Apostles—v. 3. As for Saul, he made havock of the Church, entring into e­very house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison. v. 4. Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the Word. Act. 1. 1. v 19, 20, 21. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.—From hence we observe:

[Page 74] 1. That these scattered Saints preached publick­ly, Act. 8. 4. they went every where preaching the Word.

2. That they had Divine allowance in this their preaching, Act. 11. v. 21. The hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed—the Lord eminently owned their labours with his blessing; which argues his approbation of them in their work.

3. That these scattered Saints who preached, were (many of them at least) unordained. This may ap­pear from Act. 8. v. 1, 4. The persons who preached, are said to be the scattered Saints, v. 4. They that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching—and who were scattered, is declared v. 1. There was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad.—We argue thus:

Those who were scattered abroad upon the persecu­tion, they preached the word with Divine allowance. But many men un-ordained were scattered abroad upon the persecution. Ergo, Many men un-ordained did preach the word with Divine allowance.

The Major is proved Act. 8. 4. The scattering a­broad is the very Character which the Holy-Ghost doth set out these preachers by, neither is it said, [some] of those that were scattered, but [they that were scattered.—] therefore very very many, a very great, if not the greatest part of those who were scattered, they preached; otherwise, if but a few of them had preached, it had been improper to set out who were preachers by the scattering. Those that had not abili­ties could not doe it; but all that were scattered who had gifts, did it, else the phrase were improper.

The Minor is proved, Act. 8. ver. 1. If it was the Church at Jerusalem that was scattered abroad upon the persecution, then many men un-ordained were [Page 75] scattered abroad; for surely none will say that the Church was ordained; Church, according to the usual acceptation of it, must imply the generality of the mem­bers; and surely our Brethren will not say, that the ge­nerality of Church-Members were ordained, or were Officers. But it was the Church at Jerusalem that was scattered abroad upon the persecution. Ergo, many men un-ordained were scattered abroad.

The Minor is plain, Act. 8. ver. 1. There was a great persecution against [the Church] which was at Je­rusalem, and [they] were [all] scattered abroad.

Our Brethren (Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 110.) assert, That they were men in Office who were scattered, and that these all were all the Church-Officers.

The Text saith, The persecution was against the Church; they say it was onely against the Officers of the Church. The Text saith, [all] were scattered.—They say, only the Officers, who were few in comparison of the Church, were scattered. We confess we cannot but wonder at such interpretations.

1. The very Grammatical construction will forbid its being restrained to Officers, or their being chiefly intended. For ask the Question, Who were all scattered abroad? The answer must be, [The Church which was at Jerusalem?] there are no other persons spoken of, for it to have reference unto: Officers were not menti­oned before Church was; and therefore it was the Church, and not Officers onely, that were scattered, and did Preach.

2. The Apostles, who were the chiefest Officers, were not scattered, ver. 1.—They were all scattered—except the Apostles.

Now if the persecution & scattering had been of Offi­cers onely, then the scattering would have been rather of the Apostles, who were the chiefest Officers, then of inferior Officers. Therefore it's probable their spite [Page 76] was rather against Church-order, and their design ra­ther to break the Church, then to scatter Officers.

Object. 1. All the Beleevers were not scat­tered, for it is said, ver. 3. That Saul made Jus Di­vin. pag. 110. havock of the Church, entring into every house, and women, committed them to prison. And Act. 11. 22. There is express mention made of the Church at Jerusalem, notwithstanding the persecution. Had all the Beleevers been scattered, what should the Apostles have done at Jerusalem?

Answ. 1. That by Church is not meant Officers onely, ver. 1. is cleared, ver. 3. and that the perse­cution was against more then Officers; for men and wo­men suffered by it.

2. Pauls making havock of the Church, might be one means of the total scattering of it: it may be a narration how the Church came to be scattered, rather then of what followed its scattering. It may be a decla­ration of Sauls carriage in this persecution, rather then after it. It is not said that all were scattered, and then Saul made havock of it; his making havock of it, might be that which fully scattered it: and hence the scatte­ring is mentioned again, after his making havock of it, ver. 4. Therefore they that were scattered.

3. All the Beleevers might be scattered, and yet Saul might be said to make havock of the Church, en­tring into every house,—after scattering. Some of that all might be scattered in Jerusalem, and so Saul might be said to make havock of the Church, in haling our in­dividual Members of the Church, out of those private houses into which they were scattered, and putting them in prison. The Church might be said to be scattered, when deprived of liberty to hold up Church-meetings, though the Members had not been driven out of Ieru­salem. The Text doth not say that they were all dri­ven out of Ierusalem by this scattering, though it men­tioneth [Page 77] other places into which they were scattered. The Church might be scattered thorowout those places mentioned, and in Jerusalem too, and Saul might make havock of it at Jerusalem.

4. Whereas they say, there is express mention made of a Church at Jerusalem, notwithstanding the persecu­tion, Act. 11. 22. We answer, This doth not hinder but that all the beleevers might be scattered; but onely denyeth that the scattering was perpetual. Before the dispersion, we read onely of a Church at Jerusalem; but before the time mentioned Act. 11. 22. we read of Churches in Judea: Act. 9. 31. new Churches were planted in the time between; and therefore it is easie to conceive, that there was space enough for so many of the scattered Saints to return (the persecution ceasing) as might walk as a Church at Jerusalem again. And for this end might the Apostles tarry still at Jerusalem, to put the Church in order again, when the heat of per­secution should be over; and to preach for the conversi­on of others, so soon as liberty should be offered. And Sauls entring into every house, and haling men and wo­men to prison, ver. 3. doth argue, that not the Officers onely, but the Church was now scattered; why else should he mention women, or make such a narrow search in every house for them, if Church-meetings had still continued, where he might have taken many together? Therefore the beginning of the scattering seemeth to be by depriving of liberty for publick Church-meetings; the full scattering, by haling out of private houses.—

Object. 2. The word all is used here with an excep­tive partcile, which necessitates to be meant, not of Be­leevers, but of men in Office; for if all relate to Belee­vers, then it will follow, that there was not one Belee­ver left in Jerusalem except the Apostles. The parti­cle [...] with the Genitive case in the New Testament, being alwayes exceptive to the utmost, as appears, Joh. [Page 78] 8. 10. Act. 15. 28. and 22. 22. Mar. 12. 32. but this we are sure is false.—

Answ. 1. All is frequently taken for the generality of those persons spoken of, yet not including every in­dividual as is often urged against those that assert Uni­versal Redemption: as Matt. 21. v. 26. [All] hold John as a Prophet. Yet many did not know John, and so could not take him for a Prophet. Mark 1. ver. 5. There went out unto him (i. e. to John) [all the land of Judea,] and they of Jerusalem, & were [all] Bapti­zed.—[All] i. e. very many; every individual went not out, nor was Baptized by John; we read of some that were not Baptized of him, Luk. 7. 30. And if we take [all] in this sence, it amounteth but to thus much, [all] i. e. the generality, or very many of the Church were scattered.

2. There are like expressions used in other terms, which are not exceptive to the utmost: as Mat. 24. 22. Mar. 13. 20. Except those days should be shortned, there should no flesh be saved. i. e. very few would be saved; not but that some individuals might be saved, though they were not shortned. Surely some shall be saved whilst the tribulation doth last, viz. the Elect, for whose sakes the days are shortned.

And if we take [all] in this sense, it ariseth but to thus much: [All] were scattered abroad, i. e. very many were scattered, so as there remained very few, ex­cept the Apostles.

3. Admit that all used with the exceptive particle, should be exceptive to the utmost; yet this doth not follow, that then there was not one believer left in Jerusalem, except the Apostles; the utmost it would a­mount to, is, That there were not any believers which were not scattered abroad: or that all the believers were scattered abroad, except the Apostles. But many of them might be scattered about Jerusalem, for all this.

[Page 79] To shew how great the dispersion was, it is said, Act. 8. 1. They were all scattered abroad; and to shew how far it did extend, it is added, [thorowout the regions of Judea and Samaria.] Yet not excluding Jerusalem or other parts, from being places to which some were scattered. Their being scattered thorowout the regi­ons of Judea and Samaria, doth not deny their being scattered about Jerusalem and other places also.

Or the meaning may be, None continued together in Jerusalem except the Apostles; no visible company of them continued worship together, but the Apostles; the rest were driven into corners.

Obj. It is (Jus Divin.) said, That they that were scattered, went every where preaching the Word: it is not said, Teaching, which may be actus Charitatis; but Preaching, whith is actus Officii: how can they preach, except they be sent? Rom.— [...] refers to the act of men in Office.

Answ. 1. Teaching and Preaching in Scripture­phrase are the same, Act. 4. 18. They called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the Name of Jesus. Can it be imagined that they should onely prohibit teaching, an act of Charity, or do they not for­bid all preaching in Christs Name? and Act. 5. 42. They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Here teach­ing and preaching are made all one, and the very word [...], is here used for preaching, as one with teaching, for both are in the Temple, and in every house; and if our Brethren will allow teaching in the Temple, i. e. publickly, as a Charitative act, that will be as much as is contended for. Here it is said, [Dayly in the Temple and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.] And therefore in that it is said, They that were scattered went every where preaching; it is all one in Scripture-phrase, as if it had been said, They went every where Teaching the Word.

[Page 80] 2. It is evident even by their own grant in the very Objection, by the place they alledge. Rom. 10. that [...] is all one with [...]; for to prove preaching to be an act of Office, they alledge that Rom. 10. v. 15. How shall they preach, except they be sent? and the word there for Preach, is [...]; and in the same verse it is added, [as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, [...], and bring glad tidings of good things, [...]. Here in the same verse, [...] and [...] are used promiscuously, and declared to be of the same signification; now [...] is used for such as are no acts of Office, Luk. 8. v. 39. The man out of whom the devils departed, can­not be proved to be an Officer; yet he went his way and published thorowout the whole city, how great things Jesus had done unto him. The word for publish is [...], So Mark 1. 45. Christ clensed the Leper. v. 42. And then charged him with silence. v. 44 See thou say nothing to any man,—Yet v. 45. But he went out and began to publish it [...].—

And Mark 7. 36. He charged them that they should tell no man; but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal [...], they published it

By all which it is evident, that [...] which in Scrip­ture-phrase, and according to the judgment of our Bre­thren, is of the same signification with [...], and signifieth to preach, yet this [...] is used to ex­press acts of men out of Office; and therefore it can­not be evidenced, that they who were scattered, were Preachers by Office, from thence, because they went about [...], preaching the word.

Obj. 1. Act. 8. 5. There is but one of this scat­tered number named, and he was a person in Office, to wit, Philip, not the Apostle, but who is numbred among the Deacons, Act. 6. and called an Evan­gelist, [Page 81] Act. 21. 8. By the singling out of this one, who was in Office, we may judge that the rest were persons in Office as well as he. Philip was ordained, Act. 6. 6.

Answ. 1. The consequence is very feeble: Because one of those that were scattered was an Officer, ergo all that were scattered were Officers, non sequitur. Some of those that were haled out of houses by Saul were wo­men, yet all that he haled out were not women: Act. 8. 8.

2. Philip's Ordination was to the Office-work of a Deacon, not of a Preacher, Acts 6. 6. that Office and Ordination could not authorize him to preach. It was to take off incumbrances from Preachers, that he and the rest were made Deacons: Acts 6. 2. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables: vers. 3. wherefore brethren look ye out among you seven men.—If he were now an Evangelist, it followeth no more that the rest were Officers, (which were scattered) because he was, then it doth follow, that all who were scattered were Evangelists, because he was one.

Obj. 5. It is probable that these that were scatte­red, did baptise, as well as preach. Act. 11. 26. It is said there, there was a Church setled at Antioch; which could not be, unless they were first baptised: but there were none in Antioch to baptise them, if they of the dispersion did not; for Barnabas and Agabus, and other Prophets, came not to Antioch till the Church was founded, Act. 11. v. 26, 27. and this Church of Antioch is expresly said to be founded by the scattered Brethren, Act. 21. 19. Now baptisme is to be performed onely by men in Office, Mat. 28. 19.

Answ. 1. We cannot find that it is said, there was a Church setled at Antioch, before Barnabas had been there; much less do we finde it expresly said, that this Church was founded by the scattered Brethren: Act. 11. 26. saith, that a whole year they (i. e. Barnabas and Saul, v. 25, 26.) assembled themselves with the [Page 82] Church,—which clearly sheweth that then there was a Church at Antioch, and also that Barnabas and Saul (Church-Officers) were there: but Barnabas had been at Antioch before this, v. 22, 23. They sent forth Barna­bas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad—and after this he departed to seek Saul, v. 25. But when the Church was setled, whether before Barnabas came, or after, we finde not, nor by whose hands. The place alledged to prove expresly that it was founded by the scattered Brethren, is falsly quoted by the Printer, Act. 21. 19. for it speaketh nothing about the business. If they mean Act. 11. v. 19, 21. It is said there, that the Hand of the Lord was with the scattered Saints, and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. But this is far from speaking expresly, that a Church was founded by them.

Surely by their believing they were not founded Church; or if they were, this will destroy our Bre­threns Objection altogether: for then either they first baptized them before they did believe, and that will cross Gospel-order, which pre-requireth believing in those that are Adulti unto baptisme, Mar. 16. 16. Act. 8. 36, 37. Or else they were first a Church by be­lieving, and afterward were baptised: and then the Objection falleth; for then there could be a Church setled at Antioch, though they were not first baptised; and they of the dispersion might settle a Church, and yet might not baptise. Barnabas and Saul might do that afterward.

2. We apprehend there might be a Church setled at Antioch, before they were baptized: if baptisme be to be performed onely by men in Office, Mat. 28. 19. and men be Officers onely to a Church, as is proved be­fore, then they must first become a Church, before they can orderly be baptised. And then they might [Page 83] be a Church, and yet not be baptised until Barnabas came to them.

3. If a Church could not be setled at Antioch, til first they were baptized; yet in such a case of necessity where no Officers could be had, why might not the scattered Christians baptize those that were converted, though no Officers, as well as by our Brethrens first Answer to Act. 8. they might preach in such a case of necessity? yet we assert not, that men out of Office may baptize.

Obj. 3. These scattered Brethren are said to be Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13. 1. where mention is made of Lucius of Cyrene, who in all probability, was one of the scattered Preachers, as appears, Act. 11. v. 19, 20. where it is said, that some of these scattered, were men of Cyrene.

Answ. 1. This is a meer conjecture without any proof; for it is no where said that those Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13. 1. were of those scattered Christians. Lucius might be of Cyrene, and yet be none of those mentioned Act. 11. 19, 20.

2. But suppose they were, this was above a year af­ter the dispersion, some think years, that these Officers are said to be in Antioch, Act. 13. 1. For Barnabas and Saul assembled a whole year with the Church, Act. 11. v. 26. and after that, Barnabas and Saul were sent with relief to Judea, v. 30. and returned, chap. 12. 29. and af­ter this, are these Prophets and Teachers said to be in Antioch, Act. 13. 1. And in such a space, gifted Bre­thren might become Officers at Antioch.

3. It is expresly said before this, that there came Prophets to Antioch, Act. 11. v. 27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And why might not Lucius be one of those Prophets? However, it doth not appear that these Prophets and Teachers were of the scattered Brethren: and if they were, [Page 84] yet they might be but gifted Brethren at their scat­tering.

Obj. 7. But had they not an extraordinary Call, seeing it is said, Act. 11. 21. The hand of the Lord was with them, and many were converted?

Answ. This doth not prove it to be extraordinary; for a plenteous Conversion is promised to ordinary means, Isai. 60. 5. The Hand of the Lord, is put for his Power, as Psalm 11 8. 15, 16. For his Hand to be with, is for him to bless, and shew tokens of love: as for his Hand to be against, is for him to correct, scourge, and punish, Judg. 2. 15. How the Hand of the Lord was with these scattered Saints, is declared, A great number believed,—he blessed their labours unto conversion. And the Hand, yea the Arm of the Lord must be re­vealed, else none will effectually believe, Isa. 55. 1. Rom. 1. 16. And therefore the Hand of the Lord is with those that have but an ordinary Call to preach the Gospel.

Obj. 8. But might they not be of the seventy Disciples, or have mission from the Apostles?

Answ. 1. The Gospel is silent about it, and there­fore none can in faith assert it.

2. It is improbable that they should have such a mission, in regard the persecution occasioned their travels, Act. 8. 3, 4. Saul made havock of the Church—[therefore] they that were scattered abroad, went every where preach­ing the word. [Therefore] because Saul persecuted the Church: it is not said therefore they preached, as if they might not lawfully have preached, if the per­secution had not been; but because they could not enjoy peace and liberty at Jerusalem, therefore they went every where, and in their travels they were not idle, but exercised in preaching the word.

Then, 1. The persecution, not the Apostles mission, occasioned their travels: had they received [Page 85] mission from the Apostles, they must have gone whi­ther they were sent, though there had been no per­secution; and then it had not been [therefore,] as it is said it was, v. 4.

2. The persecution and scattering, in all likeliness, made them want opportunity to receive such mission from the Apostles, if they had desired it.

3. The Church was scattered. i. e. the body of the Church, for the most part, v 1. and they that were scattered, preached, v. 4. And therefore Deodat. if the seventy. Disciples were there, yet it can­not be limited or restrained unto them, as if they onely preached.

Obj. 9. But this was an extraordinary case, it was a time of persecution. Some rationally distinguish between a Church constituted, and a Church scattered and dissolved; between what may be done in a Church gathered, and in an ordinary way, and in the gather­ing of a Church, and in the cause of necessity. It is not recorded that these did preach while they were at Jerusalem in a setled Church, but when they were scat­tered; it cannot warrant preaching by persons uncalled, where Churches and Ministers are, or may easily be had. This is no better Argument, then if one should argue—Because when there was no King in Israel, every one did as it seemed good in his own eyes: there­fore Subjects at any time may do so.

Answ. 1. It is true, that a man may do some things, (necessity driving to it) that at other times would be unlawful, where there is no such necessity. But,

1. Though persecution necessitated these Disciples to travel, yet that laid no necessity upon them to preach; and therefore necessity can be no plea in this case.

2. It is questionable whether necessity, or an extra­ordinary [Page 86] case, can make that which which is in it self unlawful, become lawful: if a man doth swear falsly, because else he shall suffer, he sinneth in it; as Peter did, when to avoid suffering, he with oaths denyed Christ. But that which is not in it self unlawful, but onely at this time, or in this or that case, may be law­ful in time of persecution. If it were in it self unlaw­ful to preach without Ordination, then it were to be questioned, whether in a time of persecution it could be lawful? If when there was no King, the people did what was right in their own eyes, and not what the Law of God required, they sinned in it, and they had no Divine allowance therein; but these had a Divine allowance to preach, Act. 11. 21.

3. The Question is, when is there such a case of ne­cessity? when is the case so extraordinary, as a man may lawfully preach without Ordination, who other­wise should sin in preaching without it? Surely when Ordination can be attained in Gods way, those who are required to submit unto it, may not lawfully be without it, upon any pretence of necessity, or an ex­traordinary case. And if Ordination cannot be had in Gods way, or according to his will and appointment, then the case is extraordinary, and necessity may be pleaded for being without it, as well as if it could not be had at all: for a man sinneth who taketh up an Or­dinance of Christ out of Christs Way, or not as he hath appointed; and it were to be under a necessity of sinning, to be obliged to do any thing out of Christs Way.

Now we find no rule for Ordination to Office-work without Election from a Church, as antecedaneous thereunto; and it were to go out of Christs Way, and to act not according to his Will and appointment, to be ordained to Office-work before such a Call from a Church: and therefore all gifted men lie under such a [Page 87] case of necessity, or it is an extraordinary case, until some Church of Christ hath given them such a Call; and so they may preach until then without Ordina­tion.

2. They that preach in such an extraordinary case, either they are Officers, or no Officers.

First, If they be no Officers: then preaching is not an act peculiar to Office; then there is a difference be­tween preaching by Office; and preaching by Gift; then there is a notion besides Office, under which men may warrantably preach; and this will be applicable to gifted men: as [...] saith, it is a contradiction, that the formal act should be before the form be introdu­ced. That which one who is no Officer may do, can­not be an act of Office in it self, but as performed in this or that manner.

Let not gifted brethren, then, be charged with assu­ming the Office of the Ministery, or intruding into the Office, because they preach: if they do no more then persons who are no Officers may do, then there is no usurpation of the Office in doing of it. That which can be done in any case lawfully, by a person that is no Officer, cannot without contradiction be said to be an act peculiar to Office, or an act of Office in it self.

Preaching it self then is not an act of Office; but preaching in such a manner, or under such a relation. And let not gifted brethren be denyed liberty to preach, but onely to preach Office-wise; seeing Preaching may be by a person not in Office.

Secondly, If those that preach in such extraordina­ry cases be Officers, then

1. Ordination is not essential to Office. Office, nor any other thing, can subsist or be, without its essentials: if essentials, Matter and Form, be not found, the com­positum is denyed to have a being. If Office may be preserved in being, where Ordination is not, then Or­dination [Page 88] cannot be essential to Office, much less be the formal cause of it. As well may there be a man with­out a reasonable soul, as Office without Ordination, if Ordination be the formal cause of Office. Take away the essence of Office, and the formal cause, or that which is constitutive thereof, and there can be no Officer.

2. Then another Mission must be found out besides Ordination; or else men may preach who are not sent, and men may believe without hearing a Preacher sent: and then that Rule is not universal, Rom. 10. 14, 15.

3. Then if men baptize without Ordination, their acts may be valid, according to their own arguing: for say they,

Those that may preach, may baptize, Matth. 28. 19. And (by the way) why may not Baptism be valid, when performed by persons whose Ordination by the corrupt­ness of it is a nullity, as well as when by persons who are altogether without Ordination?

Argum. 5. From Gospel-Rules about Prophesying.

All that are Prophets, may publikely preach.

But some men who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets:

Ergo, Some men who are not ordained Officers, may publikely preach.

The Major, That all that are Prophets may publikely preach, is proved, 1 Cor. 14, 29. Let the prophets speak—vers. 31. For ye may [all prophesie] one by one—Here is an universal liberty given to all the Prophets to exercise their gifts publikely in a setled Church: vers. 23. If therefore the whole church be come together into some place—vers. 24. if all prophesie—This prophesying therefore was publikely, in a Church-meeting: and not onely some, but all the Prophets have a liberty of prophesying granted to them, vers. 31. We do not say, that [all] hath reference to every member of the Church of Co­rinth, as if all the people of the Church might prophe­sie, [Page 89] whether they had the gift or no: we grant the liber­ty doth not extend so far; and therefore many Argu­ments used by our Brethren, to prove that [all] doth not include every member in the Church of Corinth, do not touch us. That all the Prophets in that Church had the liberty of prophesying granted to them, is as much as we assert: and this our Brethren cannot deny.

The Minor, That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets, we prove thus:

All that have the gift of Prophecie, are Prophets.

But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of Prophecie:

Ergo, Some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets.

The Major, That all who have the gift of Prophecie are Prophets, is evident,

1. From their denomination: the name Prophet is properly applicable unto all that have a gift of Prophe­cie: yea, the reason of that name must be, either onely because they do actually prophesie; and that cannot be, because they must be Prophets before they can warran­tably do that; or because they have a gift to prophesie. How can they be denyed the name of Prophets, who enjoy that gift which giveth the denomination?

2. From the Apostles calling prophesie a gift, 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have [the gift of prophesie,—] and Rom. 12. 6. Having then gifts, differing—whether pro­phesie, let us prophesie. Those that have the gift of prophesie, are commanded here to prophesie.

3. From their being no Church-Officers, who are by the Apostles called prophets, and are commanded to prophesie: that some of these prophets were no Church-Officers, we shall endeavour to prove by and by. And if they were not prophets by Office, then they must be prophets who have the gift of prophesie. Either an Office, or a Gift, must give the denomina­tion. [Page 90] If the gift be enough to give the denomination, then all that have the gift of prophesie, are prophets. To clear the Minor, viz. That some men who are not ordained Officers, have the gift of prophesie, There are three things necessary to be proved:

  • 1. That prophesie is a Gift, not an Office.
  • 2. That some men have the gift of prophesie; or that prophesying is a gift still continuing.
  • 3. That some men who are not ordained Officers, have that gift of prophesie.

This last position is proved thus:

1. Because there is no Scripture-warrant for the or­daining prophets: and without a Scripture-warrant, they may not be ordained. Let any be produced.

2. Because they cannot warrantably be ordained Prophets, until they be discerned to have the gift of prophesie: they must have the gift first; and there­fore some men not ordained have the gift of prophesie, if it be a continuing gift.

3. Because there are some who have the gift of pro­phesie, who are no officers, as will appear in what followeth; and Ordination (according to our Bre­threns Judgment) is the essential constitutive thing of an Officer. He that is ordained (say they) is an Officer. Many of these Prophets are no Officers, and therefore not ordained.

For we suppose they will not say, that a man may be lawfully ordained, and yet be no Church-Officer. Our greatest difficulty therefore is, to prove the former Propositions.

Prop. 1. That the prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. is a Gift, not an Office.

Argum. 1. Because all who have the gift of pro­phesie are Prophets. Our two first Arguments before given, prove this; we shall not here repeat them. The Consequence is clear; because all who have the [Page 91] gift of Prophesie, are not Officers; they must first have the gift, before they can be made Prophets by Office. If they be Prophets so soon as they have the gift, then they are Prophets who are no Officers: for if there had been such an Office, the gift must have been before the Office.

Argum. 2. That which ought in duty, and might warrantably in faith, be coveted by every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth, that was a gift onely, not an Office. But the prophesying spoken of, 1 Cor. 14. was such as ought in duty, and might war­rantably in faith be coveted by every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth. Ergo, The pro­phesying spoken of, 1 Cor. 14. was a gift onely, not an Office.

The Major we prove thus:

1. That which the Lord had no where promised to accomplish, that could not in duty, nor warrantably in faith be coveted; for it is a humane faith that hath not a Divine promise to bottom upon. But the Lord had no where promised to make every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth, (or any other Church) a Church-Officer. Let them shew a promise of it, that will assert it. Ergo, Every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth, could not in duty, nor warrantably in faith covet to be a Church-Officer. Ergo, That which ought in duty, and might warran­tably in faith be coveted by every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth, that was a Gift onely, not an Office.

2. That which was impossible to be attained, that could not in duty, nor warrantably in faith be coveted. It's in vain to covet that which can never be had, or which is unattainable. But for every man who was a Member of the Church at Corinth, to covet to become an Officer, had been to covet that which was impossible [Page 92] to be attained. 1 Cor. 12. v. 17. If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? v. 19, 29, 30. Ergo, It could not in duty, nor warrantably in faith be co­veted.

3. To say that the Prophets were extraordinary Officers, as they must be, if they were Officers at all, else being ordinary Officers, they must be still continuing, and so there is still another Order of preaching Officers in the Church, besides and distinct from Pastors and Teachers, which they will not assert, is more absurd.

If they were extraordinary Officers, that maketh the case worse. Can it be imagined, that every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth, ought in duty, and might warrantably in faith covet to be an extraor­dinary Officer, when it doth not appear that he might covet the ordinary Office of a Pastor or Teacher?

Doth it not sound harsh, to say, that every man in a Church ought to covet to be an Officer in the Church? Can our Brethren exhort all the men that walk with them in Ordinances, to covet that they may be Pastors or Teachers? or do they unfeignedly desire it? If they did, surely they would not lay so much discouragement before gifted men, to hinder their preaching. And can they imagine that the Apostle should exhort the gene­rality of men in the Church of Corinth to covet to be extraordinary Officers, when themselves cannot exhort the generality of Christians to covet to be ordinary Officers?

Thus we have proved the Major of our second Ar­gument for the evincing that the prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14 is a Gift onely, not an Office.

The Minor, viz. That the prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. was such as ought in duty, and might warran­tably in faith be coveted by every man who was a mem­ber of the Church at Corinth, we prove from vers. 1, 5, 39. There is a command for it, vers. 1. Follow after cha­rity, [Page 93] and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may pro­phesie. Vers. 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied.—Here he wisheth, that not some onely, but [all] prophesied: the gift of prophecie then may lawfully be wished to all men that are mem­bers of a Church: and he addeth a reason of his wish; [for greater is he that prophesieth, then he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive edifying] because prophecie tendeth more to the edifi­cation of the Church, then speaking with tongues with­out interpretation. v. 39. Wherefore brethren, covet to prophesie.—Here is an exhortation left in general a­mong the Corinthians, whereby he layeth it upon them as a duty; and therefore it was that which any man a­mongst them might warrantably in faith, covet to at­tain unto. All had not attained to it; but every man might covet to prophesie. Ergo, It was no Office.

Obj. Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers of the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. God hath set in his Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers,—Ephes. 4 11, 12. Yea they are set next Apostles, Mr. col­lings. above Evangelists, and Pastors and Teach­ers—Apostles and Teachers were Officers set by God in his Church, so also were Jus Divin. the Prophets.

Answ. 1. The placing of Prophets before Evan­gelists, Pastors and Teachers, cannot prove them to be in dignity above Pastors or Teachers.

Our Brethren themselves use these words; Priority of Order is no infallible Argu­ment Jus Divi­num Re­gim. pag. 133. of priority of worth and dignity.—we finde (say they) Priscilla, a woman, named before Aquila, a man, and her hus­band, Act. 18. 18. Rom. 16. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 19. is therefore the woman preferred before the man? the wife before the husband?

[Page 94] And in another place (Ib. p. 147.) they say, Some­times the Pastor is put before the Teacher, as Eph. 4. 11. sometimes the Teacher before the Pastor, as Rom. 12. 7, 8.

We may adde further, that according to their own interpretation of 1 Cor. 12. 8. the Jus Divi­num Min. page 97. word of wisdome denotes the Pastors work, the word of knowledge the Teachers work; and yet prophesie is put after these, v. 10. To another pro­phesie—And if any will build a conclusion upon the order of words, which order will they stick to? v. 8, 10. Pro­phets are put after Pastors and Teachers, & v. 28, 29. Prophets are set before Teachers.

2. The enumerating of Prophets amongst Officers of the Church, is not sufficient to evidence that Pro­phets were Officers: for though some Officers be na­med, yet we conceive that all which are named are not Officers; for here are eight enumerated, 1 Cor. 12. 28. first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, fourth Miracles, fifth Gifts of healing, sixth Helps, seventh Governments, eighth Diversities of tongues; and else­where there are others to be added, v. 10. & Ephes. 4. v. 11, 12. ninth discerning of Spirits, tenth the interpreta­tion of tongues, eleventh Evangelists. Can any conclude that there were eight, or eleven Officers in the Church in those days? You may say that there were so many distinct Officers, because so many are enumerated a­mongst Officers, as well as that Prophets are Officers, because reckoned up together with Officers. Whereas some of those enumerated are gifts, v. 4, 30, 31. and particularly prophesie is called a gift, 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have the gift of prophesie, Rom. 12. 6. Yea, diverse of those gifts mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. 28. did meet in one Officer; the Apostles were Officers, yet they wrought Miracles, had the gift of tongues, Act. 2. v. 3, 4. Nay, the gift of tongues is one Office, (if they [Page 95] be all Officers that be enumerated, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Di­versities of tongues) and this gift was granted unto some before they were baptised, Act. 10. v. 46, 47, 48. On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Ho­ly Ghost, for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnifie God. Then answered Peter, Can any man for­bid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized

Here was the gift of tongues before baptisme; and therefore according to our Brethrens principles, before Church-Membership; and if they were not yet Church-Members, how could they be Church-Offi­cers? if they were not set in the Church, how could they be set as Officers in it? Yet if the enumerating of Prophets amongst Officers, would prove them to be Church-Officers, then the enumerating of the gifts of tongues amongst Officers in the very same verse, 1 Cor. 12. 28. would prove those that had such gifts to be Offi­cers also.

3. If Prophets must be Officers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11, 12. those places may be intended of the extra­ordinary Prophets, who did foretel of future events, as Act. 11. 27, 28. In those days came Prophets from Je­rusalem unto Antioch, and there stood up one of them, na­med Agabus, and signified by the Spirit, that there should be a great dearth thorowout the world If such Prophets be intended in those forecited places, and be extraor­dinary Officers, yet this hinders not, but that the Prophets mentioned 1 Cor. 14. may be onely by gift: especially seeing the fourteenth Chapter is an entire Exhortation of it self, and chiefly spent in holding forth Directions about prophesying, and that to the whole Church, without hinting any thing about foretelling things to come; which must be their main work as Prophets, if such a sort of Prophets were intended.

[Page 96] And this leads us to the second Position.

Propos. 2. That some men have the gift of prophe­sie, or that prophesying is a gift still continuing.

Argum. 1. That which was in use by Divine ap­pointment in the primitive times, and no Gospel-Rule can be shewn for the repeal or ceasing of it; that must needs be still continuing: If the Law which esta­blished the use of it be still in force, or unrepealed, surely the use of it ought to be continued, for else the Law of Christ is broken, and sin attendeth it. But prophesying was in use by Divine appointment in pri­mitive times, and no Gospel-Rule can be shewn for the repeal or ceasing of it. Ergo, prophesying must needs be still continuing.

That prophesying was in use by Divine appointment in primitive times, it cannot be denyed; this 1 Cor. 14. almost thorowout, is purposely to reprove an ir­regular use of prophesying, and to direct in the right use; and therefore, as Mr. Shephard well observeth, the Apostle doth grant and establish an use of it.

Now let our Brethren shew any Gospel-Rule to evi­dence that prophesying is now ceased, which we have proved was once in use by Divine appointment We should not need produce a Rule to prove it is not ceas­ed; it is their work to prove that it is ceased.

Yet we shall add a few things which will conduce to the proving that it is not ceased.

Argum. 2. That which was practised in primitive times, which was ordinary, is still continuing. But the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was ordinary. Ergo, That prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. is still continuing.

The Major will not be denyed, if that which was practised then, which was ordinary, be not obliga­tory and binding to us, we are to seek for a Rule for our duty.

[Page 97] The Minor is, That the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. was ordinary: for this, we may refer the Reader to Mr. Rutherford's Due right of Presbyteries, p. 466, 467. where he proves by eight Arguments, That these very Prophets mentioned 1 Cor. 14. were ordina­ry Prophets. Indeed he asserteth that they were Offi­cers; in which he is against us: but if his Arguments will hold to prove that they are ordinary Prophets, then our Brethren must say, either that they are Prophets by gift onely, or else assert another sort of ordinary Officers for prophesying, distinct from Pastors and Teachers; or else retract and unsay what they have said. For, in their Jus Divin. Minist. p. 97. they speak thus: ‘The gift of prophecie is reckoned amongst the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and put in the midst of them, 1 Cor. 12. 9, 10, 11. and contradistinguished from or­dinary gifts, vers. 7, 8. The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge: the word of wisdom denotes the Pa­stors work, the word of knowledge the Teachers work: but prophesying is different from both these.—’

Here our Brethren do plainly assert, that prophesying is different from the work of Pastors and Teachers; and therefore if prophesying prove an ordinary Office, and continuing, it must be a different office from Pastor and Teacher. And here we cannot but observe how the Lord hath left them to a self-contradiction, (if the sundry Ministers of London publishing the first Book, be of the province of London, which published the second.) For in this Book called Jus Divin. Minist. p. 96, 97, 98. they would strongly urge it, that these Prophets are ex­traordinary Officers: but in their other Book, called Jus Divin. Regiminis, p. 228. they use these words: ‘And though these Prophets had extraordinary gifts, (as the Church of Corinth excelled all other Churches in gifts, 1 Cor. 1. 7.) and were able to preach in an ex­traordinary singular way; yet were they the ordina­ry [Page 98] Pastors and Ministers of that Church of Corinth, as the whole current of this 14 Chap. evidenceth; wherein (as Mr. Rutherford, in his Due Right of Presbyt. p. 466, 467. proves by eight Arguments they were ordi­nary Pastors. some have well observed) so many Rules and Directions aptly agreeing to or­dinary Pastors, are imposed upon them, for the well-ordering of their Ministerial exercises.—’

Here they say these Prophets 1 Cor. 14. were ordina­ry Pastors: what is this short of flat self-contradiction? Mr. Rutherford's Arguments, which they approved of very much, in writing their Book called Jus Divin. Regi­minis, whereby he proveth ordinary Prophets to be in­tended, we may now produce to answer their later book called Jus Divin. Minist. wherein they assert the Pro­phets to be extraordinary Officers.

Mr. Rutherford speaketh thus:

‘They did here prophesie according to the Analogie of faith; and that they have common with Prophets now adays. 2. They are by the same rules regulated, that our Pastors are now. 3. They exercise these same acts of Jurisdiction which Pastors do now exercise. 1. They are to prophesie in a known tongue, vers. 19, 20, 21, 22. and that to the edification and comfort of the Church, vers. 31. even as Pastors now adays: one­ly the internal principle, to wit, the infused gift of prophecying, made them extraordinary prophets in fieri, as our prophets become prophets by ordinary industry and studies, in fieri: but in facto esse, and accor­ding to the substance of the acts of prophesying, these extraordinary prophets and our ordinary prophets and pastors differ not in specie and nature. As the eyes put in the man born blinde, Joh. 9. and those eyes which we suppose he was capable of from his mothers womb; and the wine miraculously made out of water by Je­sus Christ, Joh. 2. and the wines that grew in Judea, [Page 99] according to their manner of production and in fieri differed, but in facto esse they were of the same na­ture. Hence you see in the Text these Prophets are every way regulated as ordinary Prophets, and as the Prophets of the Church of Corinth.

1. ‘Because it is acknowledged by all Interpreters, that the scope of the Chapter is to prescribe what is or­der and decency in the publick worship in the Church of Corinth, as the last verse saith, v. 40. Let all things be done decently, and in order; and consequently, how these Prophets should edifie the Church of Corinth, v. 4, 12, 16, 17.’

2. ‘That these Prophets should not speak in publick the language of a Barbarian, v. 11, 12. to the which the hearer could not say Amen, v. 16. and this way are our ordinary Prophets regulated, except the Papists will but say service in Latine.’

3. ‘A direction is put on the Prophets, on those who speak with tongues, that they be not Children in understanding; and that they be in malice as Chil­dren; but as concerning understanding, men, v. 20. which agreeth well to Prophets, as they are ordinary Pastors.’

4. ‘What more ordinary then the coming together of the whole Church for prophesying, v. 23, 24. and convincing of unbelievers? as v. 25.’

5. ‘The Prophets are to be limited to a way of speaking to Edification; as he who speaketh with tongues, who must speak by an interpreter, or then be silent in the Church, v. 27, 28.’

6. ‘These Prophets, as our ordinary Prophets, must speak orderly, and that but one at once, to eschew confusion, v. 29.’

7. ‘What they speak, is to be judged, and put under censure; for the whole Colledge must judge, v. 29, 8.’

[Page 100] 8. ‘And as the women are here put under a Rule, when to speak, and when to be silent, v. 34, 35. So are these Prophets: all which, and diverse other Rules, do regulate our ordinary Prophets; which clearly saith to me, (saith Mr. Rutherford,) that this is a patterne of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets, &c.

Thus we have given you Mr. Rutherford's eight Ar­guments, to prove that ordinary Prophers are intend­ed in that place: we do not say, that every one of them is conclusive; but diverse of them are very conside­rable: and possibly will be more readily received from his mouth, then from ours; and all laid together, they will amount to little less then that they are ordinary Prophets.

That so many ordinary Rules should be laid down a­bout prophesying, and none extraordinary; and that yet the act about which all the Rules are given, should be concluded to be extraordinary, seemeth very strange and ungrounded.

1. The Rules to regulate the work are ordinary.

2. The description of the work itself is ordinary, 1 Cor. 14. 3. He that prophesieth, speaketh unto men unto edifica­tion and exhortation, and comfort. This description hold­eth forth the act of prophesying, [exhortation,] and the ends of it [edification, and comfort.] It is true, extraor­dinary gifts were to be imployed to these ends of edifi­cation and comfort, and some things were ordinary in extraordinary Officers: exhortation for those ends of edification and comfort, was not the proper work of extraordinary Prophets; but prediction, or foretelling things to come.

He that hath a gift to speak unto exhortation, edifica­tion and comfort, hath all that is here required unto these Prophets: but a gift of prediction is required be­sides unto all extraordinary prophets.

[Page 101] In this Chapter no word is mentioned of foretelling future events, which is that which should make them extraordinary Prophets; and diverse ordinary acts are mentioned, and that largely: that their main work as extraordinary Officers, and so as Prophets, should be omitted, if they had been such, how improbable is it?

3. One great end of extraordinary prophesying is de­nyed to this prophesying; it was a great end of future events, (which is the proper act of extraordinary Pro­phets) to be a signe: for, our Brethren give this as one evidence of an immediate Call to Jus Divi­num Mi­nist. page 116. the Ministry, The having the gift of su­pernatural prediction, or foretelling things to come. They use these words,—We say, That an immediate Call is alwayes joyned either with the gift of Miracles, or the gift of Tongues, or some other extraordinary thing, by which men are en­abled undoubtedly to demonstrate to others their im­mediate Call: thus the prophets were all of them en­dued with the gift of foretelling things to come: and John Baptist was enabled to make proof of his immediate Call, by shewing the prophesies both of Isaiah and Malachy, that were concerning him; which prophe­sies were applyed to him by the Angel, Luk. 1. 15, 16, 17. before he was born, appropriated by himself, Joh. 1. 23. and confirmed by Christs Testimony of him, Mat. 11. 9, 10, 11. &c.

By all which it appeareth, even from their own mouths, that as Miracles and the gift of Tongues were for a signe, so also was the extraordinary gift of prophesie, or foretelling things to come, for a signe, to evidence that they were no Impostors or Sadduces.

Now, the prophesying spoken of 1 Cor. 14. was not for a signe, vers. 22. wherefore strange Tongues are for a Signe, not to them that believe, but to them [Page 102] that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

The Antithesis or opposition between the gift of tongues and prophesying, intimated in the particle [but,] doth evidence that the thing which is predica­ted of tongues, viz. that they are for a signe, cannot be predicated of the prophesying there spoken of, that it is for a signe also. Were this prophesying for a signe, then it should serve for those that believe not, as the gift of tongues doth; which the Apostle expresly deni­eth; and therefore the prophesying spoken of, cannot be the extraordinary gift of foretelling things to come, which was a signe; and so it is an ordinary gift of pro­phesie.

4. Women Prophetesses are forbidden this prophe­sying in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. v. 34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedi­ence: as also saith the Law. But women Prophetesses might have prophesied publickly, if they had received the extraordinary gifts of prophesie. Luk. 2. v. 36. And there was one Anna a Prophetesse, the daughter of Pha­nuel—v. 38. And she coming in at that instant, gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Here a woman Prophetesse did with Divine allowance speak publickly [to all—] and therefore in Gospel-days it was permit­red to women who had an extraordinary gift of prophe­sie, to speak publickly.

That publick prophesying which was not permitted unto women by the Word of God, was ordinary; for extraordinary prophesying was permitted unto women, Luk. 2. 36, 38. But the publick prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. was not permitted unto women by the Word of God, v. 34. Ergo, The publick prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. was ordinary; Ergo, it is still continuing.

[Page 103] Neither can it be said that before they had this liber­ty, but now the Apostle taketh it a way; for, he ur­geth their silence upon such grounds as would before the promulgation of the Gospel have made it unlawful for extraordinary prophetesses to have taught publickly, as much as now. 1 Cor. 14. v. 34.—but to be under obedience, as also saith the Law; intimating, that they should transgress the Law, if they did not keep silence in the Churches; therefore it was no new, but an an­cient prohibition fetched from the Law; and from na­ture there is another Argument against it, v. 35. For it is [a shame] for women to speak in the Church. All laid together, will speak it to be an ordinary gift of pro­phesying, and so still continuing.

Obj. 2. It is evident by the series of this Chapter, that the Prophets her spoken of, and their prophesying was extraordinary, v. 26. When Jus Divi­num Mi­nist. page 97. you are come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation: tongues, interpretation, revelation, are joyned together. v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace: by which it appears, that the prophets here spo­ken of, were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that this gift of prophesie was an extraordinary Dispensation of God, given to the primitive Church, but now ceased.—

Answ. 1. The series of the Chapter, (as hath been shewn) speaketh the prophets and their prophe­sying to be ordinary: as for v. 26. if our Brethren would have recited all the words, it wonld have been evident enough that an ordinary gift may be in­tended; the words run thus, [—Every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.—] our Brethren have left out those words, [hath a doctrine] and then it seem­eth as if none but extraordinary gifts were mentioned. [Page 104] Such as have but ordinary gifts, have [a doctrine] as well as persons extraordinarily gifted. Ordinary Elders labor in the word [and doctrine,] 1 Tim. 5. 17. And ought to be able by sound [doctrine,] both to exhort and convince the gainsayers, Tit. 1. 9. And therefore the joyn­ing together of tongues, interpretation, and revelation, doth not at all evidence, that prophesying is an extra or­dinary gift or Office: for doctrine is joyned with them, which is ordinary.

Their Argument must run thus:

That which is joyned with, or reckoned up amongst extraordinary gifts, is extraordinary. But prophe­sying is so, v. 26. Ergo. And then the Major is easily denyed: for it is a common thing, to joyn and reckon up extraordinary and ordinary gifts together. And a like Argument we might use against them: that which is joyned with, or reckoned up amongst ordinary gifts, is ordinary. But prophesying is so, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. Ergo, prophesying is ordinary. Yea, pro­phesying (if mentioned at all, 1 Cor. 14. 26.) is joyn­ed with, or expressed by what is ordinary, viz. do­ctrine.

2. It is hard to determine that by revelation is meant prophesying, v. 26. for revelation is distinguished from prophesying, v. 6.—except I shall speak to you either by re­velation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by do­ctrine. Here, revelation and prophesying seem not to be the same; and how will it be proved, that by reve­lation is meant prophesying, v. 26? if not, their Ar­gument falleth: for it may be replyed, Prophesying is neither of those three gifts which are joyned together, v. 26. If prophesying be spoken of, it is questionable whether it be expressed by [doctrine,] which is ordi­nary; or by revelation, which is supposed to be extraor­dinary.

3. There is ordinary revelation, as well as extra or­dinary: [Page 105] if by revelation be meant prophesying, v. 26. yet there is no necessity that it should be understood of immediate revelation; and if not, then it is not ex­traordinary. As there is an immediate revelation by the Spirit, so there is a mediate revelation by the writ­ten Word. The Spirit useth the Word, as a means whereby it giveth forth discoveries of the Will of God, Ephes. 1. v. 16, 17, 18.—making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdome and [re­velation] in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your un­derstanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, &c.

He speaketh here of such revelations as are common to the Saints. When by the Gospel they reach unto a knowledge of Christ, and the hope of his Calling, then they enjoy revelations. Phil. 3. 15.—If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God [shall reveal] even this unto you. He doth not speak of new revelations, but of a revelation of those doctrines of the Gospel, which he before had preached. Whence it is evident, that there are ordinary revelations, still continuing. And this may answer the great Objection which some raise from ver. 30. Say they, These prophets spake by ex­traordinary revelation. Ergo, They were extraordi­nary Officers.

We deny that they spake by extraordinary revelati­on: the Text doth not enforce it. There was a disor­der in the Church at Corinth, viz. Divers of the pro­phets did speak together or at once in the assembly; and so edification was hindred: to rectifie this, saith the Apostle, v. 39. Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. He would have two or three speak, and the rest hear, and be silent. But lest two or three should speak at once, or lest one should spin out all the time, & others who came prepared to speak, should want op­portunity [Page 106] to exercise their gifts, he directeth further, ver. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace: i. e. Let not many speak to­gether; before another beginneth, let the first be si­lent: let one speak a convenient time, and then hold his peace, and give way or place to others, that the gifts of others may be exercised as well as his: and a reason is added, v. 31. For ye may all prophesie one by one: i. e. one after another, not many at once. Lest they should think that by this means the gifts of some would be cooped up, and their liberty for the exercise of them infringed; he tells them, no, they might [all] prophesie: i. e. all who were prophets: yet it must be orderly, one after another: but this doth not evidence the Apostles intent to be, that upon a subitaneous im­pulse which another hath, the first must abruptly break off, and hold his peace.

The requiring the first to hold his peace, doth not necessarily either forbid his proceeding so far as he in­tended, or command a sudden silence in the midst of a discourse, upon anothers having a sudden revelation, to give way to that; but it forbiddeth the speaking of di­vers together in the same assembly, and commandeth so to contract a mans discourse, as there may be oppor­tunity for others who come prepared to speak, or ex­ercise their gifts also.

Neither can it be concluded, that they prophesied by immediate inspiration, without any previous prepa­rations, because what they spake is said to be [reveal­ed] to them; For, Gospel-truths are revealed, by stu­dy, industry, and the use of ordinary means, as well as by immediate inspiration, as we proved before; and therefore no ground can be fetched from ver. 30. that can argue these Prophets to be extraordinaty Officers. Indeed the immediate Revelations and real motions of the Divine Spirit do not use to interfere with, interrupt [Page 107] and justle out one another, as according to such an in­terpretation they should do. If the first did speak by immediate revelation, and must suddenly hold his peace before he hath finished his discourse, or fully declared his Revelations, that another might discover his; then the motions of the same Spirit should clash each with other, and the Spirit should interrupt it self; which it were an impeachment to the wisdom of the Spirit for any to affirm.

Object. 2. Prophets are mentioned with a note of sin­gularity. 1 Cor. 12. 29, 30. Are all Prophets? Ergo, Prophesie was a miraculous extraordinary gift.

Answ. 1. A note of singularity is proper to them, because all had not the gift of prophesie. Some Church­members were not prophets.

2. It doth not follow, That therefore prophesie was a miraculous extraordinary gift; For, the ordina­ry gift of Teaching is expressed with a note of singula­rity also in the very same verse, 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? [Are all Teachers?]

Object. 3. Prophets in all the Old and New Testa­ment, signifie some in Office peculiarly call'd and sent. 1 Sam. 3. 20. 1 Sam. 22. 5. Act. 13. 1. Act. 21. 10, 11. Act. 11. 27, 28. The word Prophesying is used generally in the New Testament for that which is extraordinary and by Revelation. Matth. 26. 68. Rev. 1. 3. Act. 21. 9. Luk. 1. 67. Rev. 22. 10, 19. Rev. 10. 11. Mark 7. 6. 1 Pet. 1. 10. Jud. 14. Luk. 1. 76. and 7. 28. Matth. 21. 26, 14, 5. Mat 13. 57. Matth. 7. 22. Act. 19. 6, &c. Joh. 11. 51. 1 Tim. 1. 18.

Answ. 1. We have given many reasons to evidence that the prophets, 1 Cor 14. are neither Officers, nor persons extraordinarily gifted: and prophesie being the chief subject of that Chapter▪ hence the acceptation of the word prophesie in that place, is more likely to be found in that Chapter, then to be fetched from other [Page 108] places which do not purposely treat of that subject. And if the word were used there in a different sense from what it beareth in all other places, yet there may be enough there to clear that to be the sense of it.

2. It is questionable, Whether the word prophe­sying be used in diverse of those places mentioned, either for Officers or persons extraordinarily gifted: as Act. 13. 1. Rev. 10. 11. Matth. 7. 22. It is one thing for the persons who are prophets to have extraordinary gifts, and another thing for them to have the extra or­dinary gift of prophesie. Those Prophets mentioned Matth. 7. 22. might have power to work miracles, to cast out Devils, yet their prophesying might be an or­dinary gift, as Stephen had extraordinary gifts. Act. 6. 8. Stephen full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. And yet he had the ordinary Office of a Deacon upon him for all that, ver. 6, 7. It may as well be argued, that the Office of a Deacon is extraordinary, because Stephen, a Deacon, wrought mi­racles, as that the prophets, Matth. 7. 22, &c. were extraordinary, because they wrought miracles.—

3. It appeareth to us, as a certain truth, that pro­phesying is used in the New Testament for that which is neither an extraordinary Office, nor an extraordina­ry gift. Matth. 13. ver. 57.—But Jesus said unto them, A Prophet is not without honor, save in his own Country, and in his own house. Here the person speaking was indeed an extraordinary prophet; but the rule he layeth down is general, and cannot be restrained unto him onely, or to extraordinary prophets: for, can any imagine that the sense should only be this, He that foretelleth things to come, is not without honor, save in his own Country? Surely it extendeth to all faithfull Teachers or publish­ers of Gospel-Mysteries, for they are subject to be de­spised in their own country and house, as well as they which foretel things to come; as Luk. 4. 24. No prophet [Page 109] is accepted in his own Country. So Mat. 10. 41. He that receiveth a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall re­ceive a prophets reward. Will any say, that this promise runs onely to such as receive extraordinary prophets? Surely the meaning is, He that so receiveth any Gos­pel-preacher, he shall have a reward: ordinary Inter­preters of the Word, are here called prophets three times in one verse.

So Act. 15. 32. And Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them: Exhorting is the work of prophets. Here prophesying and exhorting are mentioned as one and the same thing; for their exhorting is said to be be­cause they were prophets. Take the words of Calvin on this place; saith he, They were prophets: whereas the word hath divers significations: it is not taken in this place for those prophets to whom it was granted to foretel things to come, because this title should come in out of season when he intreateth of another matter: but Luke his meaning is, that Judas and Silas were indu­ed with excellent knowledge and understanding of the mysteries of God, that they might be good Interpre­ters of God: as Paul in the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians, when he intreateth of the prophesie, and preferreth it before all other gifts, speaketh not of fore­telling things to come, but he commendeth it for this fruit, because it doth edifie the Church by doctrine, exhortation and consolation. After this manner doth Luke assigne exhortation to the prophets, as being the principal point of their Office.

By all this it appeareth, that although he counted prophets to be Officers; yet he did not account the prophesie mentioned here, nor 1 Cor. 14. to be the extraordinary gift of foretelling things to come. Rev. 11. v. 3. the witnesses are said to prophesie a thousand two hundred and three score days—It is doubtful [Page 110] what this prophesying of the witnesses is, neither is that material to the business in hand; but this is cer­tain, that either the extraordinary gift of prophesying did not cease in the primitive times, because the pro­phesying of the witnesses is one thousand two hundred sixty days, and therefore did undoubtedly continue many hundred years since; or else it must be granted, that there is an ordinary prophesying owned in the Gospel; and so the word prophesying, is not generally used in the New Testament for that which is extraordinary and by revelation. And so the Objection is answered. Some are called in Scripture-sence prophets, by way of resemblance, who do not foretel things to come. As the Scripture in general, and the Gospel in speci­al, is called a word of prophecie, 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20, 21. We have also a more sure [word of prophesie.—] v. 30.—[No prophesying] of the Scripture is of any private inter­pretation: yet a great part of the Scripture doth not contain predictions of future events. So, those that have a gift of Scripture-interpretation or exposition, may be called prophets by way of resemblance, al­though they have no gift to foretel things to come.

Obj. 4. Prophesie is reckoned as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had, 1 Cor. 13. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 16. pre­ferred before the gift of tongues, 1 Cor. 14. 1, 2. Paul compareth himself with these prophets, 1 Cor. 14. 37. Ergo, the gift is extraordinary.

Answ. 1. The Apostle preferreth prophesie before the gift of tongues, and speaketh of its excellency, not for any thing in it extraordinary, that yet we finde; but, for its usefulness beyond other gifts, for the or­dinary end of edification, as appeareth by his own words, 1 Cor. 14. v. 2. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him: howbeit in the spirit he speaketh my­steries. v. 3. But he that prophesieth, speaketh unto [Page 111] men to edification, &c. The Apostle granteth that he who had the gift of tongues did speak mysteries, as well as he that prophesied: but the rarity and excellencie of prophesie he placeth in its tendency and conducible­ness to edification, beyond the gift of tongues which men understood not, v. 2. for no man understandeth him.

And hence verss. 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, edifieth himself; there is a particular good: but he that prophesieth, edifieth the Church; there is a more general good: and in that respect, prophesie is better then tongues. vers. 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth, then he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive edifying. Which implieth, that if he doth interpret, that so the Church may understand and be edified, then he that prophesi­eth, may not be greater then he that speaketh with tongues. So vers. 6. It is in respect of the end, viz. edification, that prophesie is preferred before other gifts.

What the Apostle speaketh about prophesie, may aptly be spoken concerning the ordinary gifts of Pastors or Teachers: Greater is he that teacheth, then he that speak­eth with tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive edifying.

The ordinary gift of a Pastor or Teacher is better as to edification, then speaking with tongues, which no man understandeth; and therefore the preferring of prophesie before the gift of tongues for such an end, doth not evidence an extraordinary gift of prophesie to be intended.

2. Paul's comparing himself with the prophets, proves nothing extraordinary; for such was his humility, as he compared himself with ordinary Christians; yea, seemeth to prefer them before himself, Epes. 3. 8. Unto [Page 112] me who am less then the least of all Saints, &c. But how he compareth himself with the prophets, or equalizeth them with himself, we finde not in the place alledged, 1 Cor. 14. 37. because prophets are required to acknow­ledge the doctrines of the Apostles to be the Com­mandments of the Lord: for any to say therefore pro­phets are compared to the Apostles in a way of equality; it is a far-fetched conclusion.

Obj. 5. The formal effect of publick edifying, comforting, convincing, converting souls, are ascri­bed to these prophets, 1 Cor. 14. v. 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 24, 25, 31.

Answ. This proveth not that they are extraordinary gifts or Offices which are mentioned: for, the ordi­nary gifts of Pastors and Teachers are useful to such ends.

Indeed we know not wherefore gifted men should prophesie, if there were no hope of such effects of their exercising their gifts.

Obj. 6. The Apostle plainly distinguished this pro­phesying from the word of knowledge, and the word of wisdom, 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10, 11.

Answ. 1. It doth not follow, that therefore it is an extraordinary gift, or any Office at all. Ordinary gifts may be distinguished from the gifts of Pastors and Teachers, because of the different way and manner of laying them out, although the gifts themselves be a­like. Prophesie is distinguished from exhortation, Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. and yet it was the proper work of pro­phets to exhort, Act. 15. 32. 1 Cor. 14. v. 3. But he that prophesieth, speaketh unto men to edification, [exhortation,] and comfort.

2. It is often difficult to determine what is the spe­cial reason of the Apostles distinguishing those things from each other, which in themselves seem alike. It will be hard for our Brethren to shew the difference be­tween [Page 113] speaking by revelation, by knowledge, by pro­phesying, and by doctrine; and yet these are distin­guished each from other, 1 Cor. 14. 6.

3. If because prophesying is distingushed from the word of knowledge, and the word of wisdome; they will conclude, that by prophesying must be understood a gift of foretelling things to come, 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10. Then seeing the main work of those prophets, as pro­phets, 1 Cor. 14. is to exhort, thereby to convince and convert, as v. 3, 4, 24, 25. Hence it must be con­cluded, that there are two sorts of prophets, or that the prophets mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. are not the same with those, 1 Cor. 14. for the proper distinctive act of the former prophets is to foretel future events; and of the latter, to exhort for conviction, comfort, &c. and this will make much for us, and against our Bre­thren.

Obj. 7. But it is said, 1 Cor. 13. 8. Whether there be prophesies, they shall fail. Ergo, prophesying is ceas­ed.

Answ. Read on, ver. 9, 10. and thence you may ob­serve:

1. That the time of the ceasing of prophesie, is not until that which is perfect cometh. 1 Cor. 13. v. 9, 10. For we know in part, and we prophesie in part: but when that which is perfect is come, [then] that which is in part shall be done away. It is the coming of that which is perfect, that is concluded to be the cause of the cessation of prophesie, which is but in part. And therefore this is a strong Argument to prove that prophesying is still continuing, because that which is perfect is not yet come; and until then, prophesie doth not cease.

2. That the time of the ceasing of prophesie is not until the ceasing of knowledge in part: for, both are taken away by the coming of that which is perfect, v. 9, 10. We [know] in part, and prophesie in part: but when [Page 114] that which is perfect is come, &c. And also it is intima­ted, that so long as knowledge is but in part, that which is perfect is not come; for, when perfect know­ledge is come, then that which is in part, i. e. imper­fection in knowledge, shall be done away, v. 9, 10. Imperfect knowledge and prophesie cease both at the same time, and by one and the same means, viz. by the coming of that which is perfect. And it is observ­able, that when the Apostle speaketh in general of the ceasing of gifts, then he mentioneth the gift of tongues also, ver. 8.—Whether there be prophesies, they shall fail; whether there be prophesies, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. But when he mentioneth the coming of that which is perfect, as ex­pressing the time and means in and by which some gifts do cease, then he reckoneth up onely knowledge and prophesie; vers. 9. 10. He doth not say, that tongues cease by the coming of that which is perfect; they may be ceased long ago, and yet prophesie be still contin­uing. We argue thus:

That which doth not cease so long as we know but in part; nor until that which is perfect is come, that is still continuing: For yet we know but in part, and as yet that which is perfect is not come. But prophe­sying doth not cease so long as we know but in part, nor until that which is perfect is come, vers. 9, 10. Ergo, prophesying is still continuing. Ergo, prophesying is either but an ordinary gift, and no Office: or else it must be asserted, that an extraordinary gift, or a preaching Office, distinct from Pastors and Teachers, is still continuing.

Obj. 8. But this prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. was in the Church, and is said, Not to serve for those that believe not, but for them which believe, vers. 22. How can this warrant the preaching of gifted men out of the Church, to the world?

[Page 115] Answ. 1. If it warranteth the preaching of gifted men in publick Church-assemblies, that is the great thing denyed by our Brethren. They grant them a liberty in some cases to preach where no Churches are setled.

2. The Apostles intent seemeth to be, to deny that prophesie is appointed for a signe to confirm the Do­ctrine of the Gospel to unbelievers, as tongues were, vers. 22. Wherefore tongues are for a signe, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: and by way of Antithesis, or Opposition to this, he addeth, but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, (i. e. not to be a signe to them as tongues are) but for them which believe, i. e. to edifie them, vers. 3, 5. his intent cannot be to deny, that prophesie is useful to unbeli­vers; for he asserteth it to be a means of their conver­sion, vers. 24, 25. But if all prophesie, and there come in one that believeeh not, or one unlearned, he is convin­ced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, &c.

Prophesie then serveth for the conviction and con­version of those that believe not: this doth warrant the preaching of gifted men to unbelievers, for their con­version. And thus we have given our Arguments for the preaching of gifted Brethren: the last, which is taken from the Rules about prophesying: we formerly did not account so cogent as some other, but now (un­til we have further light) we account it at least a pro­bable Argument, which joyned with others, hath great force in it.

CHAP. VII.

Answering the first Argument brought against the Preaching of men un-ordained to Office.

IN this Chapter we shall give answers to their first Argument against the preaching of men out of Office.

Our Brethren in their Jus Divinum Minist. pag. 67. &c. lay down two positions which their Arguments are reduced to:

Thes. 1. That none may assume the Office of the Ministry, unless he be solemnly set apart thereunto.

2. That none may undertake the work of the Mini­stry, except he be a Minister.

As to the first, it is questionable what they mean by [assuming the Office of the Ministry;] if they in­tended onely this, that none may take upon them such a relation to a Church without Ordination; or rather thus, That all who assume the Office of a Pastor or Teacher, ought to be ordained: we might grant all their Arguments which they produce, to shore up this posi­tion; and yet gifted Brethren might still have a full li­berty to preach in publick assemblies, though not or­dained: For it is not preaching ex Officio, but ex dono, that we plead for. But by several expressions, they have given us cause to think that they have a further reach, viz. to deny the lawfulness of any mans preach­ing, or doing such work of the Ministry without Ordi­nation, and so both propositions make but one; for they say, page 67. It is manifest that there be some who constantly supply the room of preachers, and arrogate [Page 117] to themselves the reverence and maintenance due to none but Ministers; and yet they themselves were ne­ver ordained to this Office.—And in reference to this, their first Thesis seemeth to be put in. And again, page 76. they use these words: Having in the pre­cedent Chapter asserted the necessity of Ordination, to [the work of the Ministry] against the presumptuous usurpation of such as run and are not sent: we shall by the grace of God, in this Chapter, vindicate the work of the Ministry, unto those whom God hath set as Officers in his Church.

By which words, we gather that their designe in the first position, is to deny that any may do [the work of the Ministry] without Ordination. And how they can distinguish or difference it from the second positi­on, when they take it in that sense, we find not. We shall reply to such Arguments, as under either do seem to speak against the preaching of gifted men without Ordination.

Argum. 1. From Rom. 10. 15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent?—the form of the expression makes it morally impossible to Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 68, 69. preach without mission.—As no man to the end of the world can call upon him in whom he believes not, or believe in him of whom he hears not, or hear without a preacher; so it is and will be true to the end of the world, that no man can preach except he be sent. From all they gather,

1. That mission is essential to the constitution of a Minister. The Apostle doth not say, How shall they preach, except they be gifted, (though this be true) but, how shall they preach, except they be sent? implying that gifting without sending doth not constitute a Mi­nister.

2. That this mission is not onely of extraordinary, but of ordinary Teachers, because faith is as much [Page 118] annexed to their teaching, as teaching to their mis­sion.—

3. That there is a necessity of a constant and perpe­tual, as well as of an ordinary mission. If faith depends upon hearing, hearing upon preaching, preaching up­on mission; then if faith be necessary in all ages of the world, mission is also necessary; yea, ordinary mission, because extraordinary is ceased.

Mr. Collings putteth the Argument into this form. Mr. Col­lings. Vind. page 42.

What none may ordinarily do but those that are sent, that private gifted persons may not do ordinarily. But none may preach, but those that are sent, Rom. 10. 15.

The Major he endeavoureth to prove thus:

What none can ordinarily do, but those that are sent, that those cannot do, that are not sent. But private persons, though gifted, and desired, are not sent. This he would prove from the sending there meant, which he concludeth cannot be onely a sending from God im­mediately, but must necessarily be meant of a mediate mission from God, and that must be either by the civil power which none will say, or by the Church, not by the whole Church in chusing.—And therefore by the Presbytery, there must concur a commissiona­ting of the person to the work, by such persons as have authority from Christ to do it. This is the sum of what is expressed in many more words.

Answ. It may be granted:

1. That mission is not onely of extraordinary, but of ordinary Teachers.

2. That mission continueth in all ages of the world. But we deny that mission is essential to the constitution of a Minister; neither doth the Text conclude any such thing: for it may properly be said, How shall they preach, except they be sent? and yet sending not be essential [Page 119] unto the constituting of a man a preacher. We do not say, that gifts without a Divine command, do consti­tute a preacher, but yet the words of that Text do not deny it.

The Apostle there, neither denyeth gifts, nor affirmeth sending to be constitutive of a Minister: for,

1. Mission may be necessary unto preaching, and yet not be necessary unto the constitution of a preacher: the Text doth not necessarily enforce sending to be re­quisite unto the making of a preacher, but rather unto the act of preaching, [How shall they preach:—], for all those words might be aptly used about the Apostles or others, who were before constituted Ministers. We may say, How shall a people hear without a preach­er? and how shall they preach except they enjoy some measure of health, strength, liberty, under a great sickness, or bodily weakness, or imprisonment where none come at them to hear? they that are Officers can­not preach, and yet health, strength and liberty are not essential to the constitution of a preacher, for then un­der such sickness, weakness, or imprisonment, a man should cease to be one, because he should lose what is essentially constitutive of a preacher. It may be said, how shall a man preach as an Officer to a Church, with­out the peoples election? Yet, our Brethren will not say, that the peoples election is essential to the consti­tution of an Officer.

Therefore the interrogation doth not imply, that sending is essential to the constitution of a Minister, but onely that it is necessary unto some ministrations. It doth not imply, that mission doth make a preacher, but that it is requisite unto acts of preaching, [How shall they preach?—]

2. It may be both naturally and morally impossible to preach without mission, and yet mission may not be essential to the constitution of a Minister, or Preacher: [Page 120] It may aptly be said, How shall an Officer preach, except he be where there are some to hear? he cannot preach in a wilderness or a prison, where none are to hear; yet his being where some are to hear, is not essential to the constituting of him a Minister: for then so often as he were alone, so often he should cease to be a Mini­ster, because he should lose what is essential to the constitution of a Minister.

How can they preach warrantably, lawfully and or­derly, without all those circumstances which by Gospel­rules are requisite unto a preacher and preaching? yet who will say that all those circumstances are essential to the constitution of a preacher? He may sin in being without those, and yet may have whatever is essential to constitute him a Minister, else there are but few Ministers constituted in the world; for who hath all those things which are required to be in preachers? Therefore the form of the expression doth not enforce mission to be essential to the constitution of a Mi­nister.

3. Their argument, if granted, doth not prove what they produce it for. If it be morally impossible to preach without mission, yet it doth not follow thence, that none may assume the Office of the Ministry, unless he be solemnly set apart thereunto; which was the po­sition they undertook to prove. Their argument sup­poseth the solemn setting apart called Ordination, to be all one with mission; which is a thing we deny, and they have not proved. If we should grant that mission is es­sential to the constitution of a Minister, yet we might deny a solemn setting apart, to be essential thereunto, unless they can prove that Ordination and mission are the same.

As to the argument as urged by Mr. Collings, if that [...], Rom. 10. 15. be means of Officers only, then we [...] hi [...] Minor to be universally true. Preaching [Page 121] is either ex officio, or ex dono; we grant that none may preach Office-wise, but those that are sent; and accor­ding to that interpretation, no more is intended by the Apostle. And then some may preach by gift who are not sent, without crossing this Text.

We deny the Major of his first, and Minor of his se­cond Syllogism; and we assert, That persons gifted (which he calleth private persons, because nor ordain­ed, though their work be publick) and desired, are sent.

For the clearing of this, we shall endeavor to de­clare what mission or sending it is: And because this is so much insisted upon, we shall shew, 1. Negative­ly, What the sending cannot be. 2. Affirmatively, What sending (according to the acceptation of the word in other Scriptures) it may be.

Quest. 1. What is not Mission, or sending?

Answ. 1. Mission or sending is not a call to Office, or any act which doth constitute a man an Officer or preacher: it is not sutable to our Brethrens own prin­ciples, nor to ours, to assert it:

1. Because some that were Officers and had a call to preach before, yet had mission afterward; the Apo­stles were Officers, had a call and did preach before the death or resurrection of Christ, yet they had mission after it. Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations.—For Christ to say [Go.—] is for him to send those that are spoken to. They were Officers, preachers before, and therefore could not be constitu­ted such by this act, which was subsequent to it. A call to Office, and sending, may differ as prius and posteri­us, and therefore they cannot be the same.

2. Because mission may be iterated and repeated without losing Office; but (according to our Bre­threns principles) so cannot the call to Office, or that which constituteth a man a preacher: they judge that [Page 122] there ought to be no iteration of that, once an Officer and alwayes so, unless deposed. But mission was ite­rated. Matth. 10. ver. 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Goe not into the way of the Gentiles.—ver. 6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ver. 7. And as you go, Preach.—Here is mission or sending to preach, and they were the twelve Apostles that were sent, who are named, ver. 2, 3, 4. and yet the same persons had mission again. Matth. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach.—and v. 16. it was the eleven Disciples which he spake to. And hence also our Brethren must either grant, that Ordi­nation may be iterated, or else that mission and Ordi­nation are not the same, because mission is repeated.

3. Because some had mission to preach, who were not Officers that we can finde, viz. the seventy Disci­ples: Luk. 10. ver. 1. After these things the Lord ap­pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two.—Let them prove that these were Officers, who will as­sert it; here is sending, and yet we finde not that any Officers were constituted thereby, and therefore send­ing is not a constitutive Office-making act.

4. Because, then all that are instrumental to others conversion would thereby be proved and evidenced to be Officers, and all that are undoubtedly no Officers would be left hopeless that their instructions should e­ver take place to the conversion of others: for, it is made as impossible for any to beleeve without a preach­er sent, as it is for any to preach without being sent: the interrogation runneth through all. Rom. 10. v. 14. How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?

Therefore if some doe hear the word and beleeve, there is a preacher sent, or else the interrogation hath not the force of a negation, and then their whole ar­gument [Page 123] against the preaching of gifted men falleth. That gifted men unordained may be instrumental to bring others to beleeving, Scripture and experience hath witnessed; and this evinceth that they are preach­ers sent, and Officers, according to their own argu­ing.

2. Mission or sending is not Ordination: sending and ordaining are different things.

1. Because no Scripture (that yet we can finde) doth make mission and Ordination one and the same thing.

2. Because if sending be ordaining, then Deacons are sent, for they are ordained, Act. 6. 6. But we read not of their mission.

3. Because mission may be iterated, Matth. 10. ver. 5. Matth. 28. 19. But (according to our Brethrens principles) Ordination may not be iterated or repeat­ed.

4. Because the nature of the act (if men be the senders) forbiddeth it: for, if a Church hath a Pres­bytery within it self, then undenyably that presbytery may ordain other officers for that Church, and then they send to themselves, if ordaining be sending: for, they ordain them Officers to themselves; else, in case any of the ordainers should deserve censuring, the ordained cannot (as Officers) censure them. And our Bre­thren say, (Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 69.) The same per­son cannot be the person sending, and the persons sent unto. And sending necessarily implyeth distance be­tween the party sent, and those to whom he is sent, if the usual acceptation of the word sending be followed in a proper sense. Now, if a Church hath a presbytery, and that ordaineth Officers, the Church being present (as it was when they ordained Deacons, Act. 6. 6.) how can it be said, that the presbytery doth by the act [Page 124] of ordaining, send them unto that Church which is present at the same time?

3. Barely the gifting men for the work of preach­ing is not sending: Matth. 10. ver. 1. He gave them power against unclean Spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease. Here the twelve were gifted, yea, had authority given them for the performing of such acts: for it is said, [...], He gave them authority, or right, or a lawful power to do these works; the word is not [...], but [...]. and yet as a distinct act afterward, ver. 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, say­ing, Go not into the way of the Gentiles.—ver. 6, 7. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go preach.—Here was their mission, and it is distin­guished from, and subsequent to their being gifted, and receiving a lawful power to exercise those gifts: and therefore sending can neither be a gifting, nor an au­thorizing men to preach; but presupposeth them to be gifted and authorized.

Sending doth not make them preachers, but suppo­seth them to be preachers before: and hence, Mar. 3. 14. He ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. It is made the end of his ordaining, constituting, and making the twelve, that he might send them forth to preach; and therefore their sending was consequential to their be­ing ordained or constituted. For the end is last in exe­cution, though it be first in intention. The means is first and in order, before the production of the end. And if constituting and sending were the same things, then those words should sound thus: He sent twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And because it is grosly impro­per, to say he sent them, that he might send them; therefore the constituting or making of the twelve, and [Page 125] their sending forth were different things: So Luk. 9, 1, 2. The giving them power and a lawful right to act, is distinguished from sending. First, he gave them pow­er and authority, ver. 1. there is both [...], which (saith Mr Ferreby) is collatio donorum, and [...], which (saith he) is collatio Mr. Ferreby Lawful prea­cher. pag. 15. potestatis; and yet sending is distinct from and after both. ver. 2. And he sent them to preach. Therefore sending is neither gifting nor authorizing of men to preach. Thus negatively, what is not mission or sending.

Quest. 2. What is [sending] in Scripture-sense?

Answ. 1. It is either Christs commanding by his word, or assigning preachers, to go and publish the Gospel unto such persons or such a people. 2. Or sending is a providential disposing of preachers, to such persons or such a people, as Christ hath commanded or assigned the Gospel to be published unto.

1. Sending is Christs commanding by his word, or assigning preachers, to go and publish the Gospel unto such persons or such a people. In this, description of mission, there is declared:

1. Who is the person sending, [Christ;] neither a Church nor a presbytery, but Christ only can com­mand or assign the Gospel to be preached to such per­sons or such a people; either a Church or presbyters may exhort and desire preachers to go unto such persons, as Christ hath commanded or assigned the Gospel to be preached to; but it is Christ alone that hath the power to command and assign it to be published to such or such: and hence, Matth. 28. 18, 19.—All power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations.—[Therefore] because [all pow­er] is given to Christ, therefore he giveth forth this command, which is a mission to all lawful preachers; [Go—and teach] neither shall they need question, [Page 126] whether this or that people may by Christs mission be preached to, seeing he is not now with them to give forth immediate commands whither they should go, as in the time of his being on earth; for Christs mission extendeth to all sorts of persons, in all places and ages, to the end of the world. [Go,—Teach all Nations, &c.] But still it is Christ that saith [Go.] Matth. 10. ver. 6, 7. Luk. 9. 2. And [he] i. e. Christ, sent them to preach.—And the Lord complains, Jerem. 14. 14. [I] sent them not. It is the work of God and Christ only to send, let it be proved where ever a Presbytery was impowred to send.

3. Who are the persons sent, [Preachers, or gift­ed men impowred to preach.] We proved before, that mission doth not make a man a Preacher, but presup­poseth him to be one. The eleven Apostles were preach­ers before, and yet had a mission after Christs resurre­ction, Matth. 28. 19. Go.—Hence, if such as are not gifted or impowred undertake to preach, they are not sent.

3. To whom they are sent, viz. [to such persons or such a people, as by Christs command are to have the Gospel published to them.] Mission doth not make it lawful for such a person to preach, but for a preach­er to publish the will of Christ to such a people. Send­ing necessarily implyeth that some or other are sent to; now if a man could go and publish truths of Christ to such persons as Christ had not commanded them to be revealed to, he might be said [not to be sent] though he were a lawful preacher who did it. As for example, The twelve Apostles were authorized by Christ to preach, and sent by him to the Jews, Matth. 10. ver. 6, 7. Go,—to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go, Preach,—Here is mission: yet if the Apo­stles had gone with this message to the Gentiles at this time, they had run without being sent, though they [Page 127] were lawful preachsrs; for Christ saith, ver. 5. [Go not] into the way of the Gentiles. That which made the Apostles mission to the Jews, ver. 6. [Go,] that is ex­presly denyed as to the Gentiles [Go not.] And there­fore mission is not the impowring of men to preach, but the impowring of preachers to doe such a message to such persons or such a people. If any were excluded out of Christs mission, it were to run without being sent to preach to them; but Christs mission is general. Matth. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations. Not that every individual preacher is required to go into all nations, and teach in them; but every Gospel-preacher in what­ever nation his lot it cast, or wherever in a nation he is fixed, yet he doth share in this mission, Christ saith to him, Go teach, because no people in any nation are excepted from teaching. Yet Gospel-rules are to be observed, that a man preacheth not in this or that place, without the due requisites thereunto; and these being found, he may safely conclude, that Christ saith to him, Go, teach this people.

4. What is the message which is sent: they are to [publish the Gospel;] not that thereby we exclude a­ny part of the will or counsel of God, but their great errand is, to tell them of the glad tidings of the Go­spel; as Mark. 16. ver. 15. [Go ye into all the world,] there is their mission, [and preach the Gospel.—] there is their message. So Rom. 10. 15. How shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, how beautiful are the feet of them that [preach the Gospel] of peace.—and hence Jerem. 14. ver. 14. [The Prophets prophesie lies in my name] in stead of declaring the truths of God, they vented lies; and then saith the Lord, [I sent them not.—] they prophesie unto you a false vision, and divi­nation, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. and ver. 15. Jerem. 23. ver. 13. They caused the peo­ple to erre. ver. 16. They speak a vision of their own heart, [Page 128] and not out of the mouth of the Lord: and then the Lord saith, ver. 21. I have not sent these Prophets. We doe not finde that these are blamed for prophesying being no Prophets; but being Prophets, they are upbraided for not prophesying right things, for not carrying a right message unto this people. Sending is not made the call unto the Office of Prophets; it appeareth not but that they had this, but they carryed such news as God sent them not with. They had allowance to prophesie the truth, as is plain, Jerem. 23. ver. 21, 22. I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them, yet they Prophesied. ver. 22. But if they had stood in my Counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evill of their doings. By [Counsel] may be un­derstood Doctrine, as Act. 20. 27. I have not shunned to declare unto you all [the Counsel] i. e. the Doctrine of God. And then it runneth thus: If they had stood in my Doctrines, &c. if they had prophesied pure Do­ctrines of Gods word, then they should have profited the people; but because they prophesied false dreams, therefore he declareth that he sent them not. By all this it is evident, that these were Prophets rightly cal­led by the Lord: for would the Lord entayl his blessing upon the labors of false Prophets, as it was upon theirs, if they had declared his words, ver. 22? Surely they that might have such an assurance of success in preach­ing, might lawfully preach the word of God. And therefore how impertinently is this place alleadged a­gainst the preaching of gifted men? these Prophets (by Gods own testimony) had allowance to preach Gods word; they are not blamed for prophesying with­out a call, but for venting false Doctrine: and when those who are rightly ordained to Office-work, do speak the vision of their own hearts, this is as applicable to them as it was to these Prophets. If Pastors or Teachers [Page 129] rightly called do, in these days preach lies, in stead of truth to the people, the Lord saith the same to them' they ran, and I sent them not: i. e. sent them not with that message. The Lord doth send them to preach the Gospel: when they swerve from that; they are not sent, though the same persons before and after, may properly be said to be sent, when they preach the Go­spel.

5. What is the work offending: viz. [command­ing, or assigning to go.] Isai. 6. 8. Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? then I said, here am I, send me. And how doth he send him? see ver. 9. And he said, Go and tell this people.—So that for God to send, is for him to command to do such a work. So Jerem. 14. ver. 14, 15. [I sent them not.] What is that? [neither have I commanded them.] Jerem. 23. v. 21. I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them.—Matth. 10. v. 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not.—v. 6. But go.—So that undenyable, sending of Preachers, is Christs commanding of them to go, and preach to such a people. And they are not sent, who are not warrant­ed by some command of Christ, to publish the Gospel unto such persons. Indeed they that have not a command or warrant from the Gospel of Christ to preach, they may be said to run without being sent; yet not as if mission or sending were that which did authorize to Preach, or made it lawful for a man to preach, who else might not lawfully do it; but because that man cannot have a command from Christ to preach to such or such persons, (which is the work of sending, or that wherein the es­sence of mission doth consist) without he hath a com­mand or warrant to preach. Christ never saith to any man, Go preach to such persons, until he hath first com­manded him to preach. He that is not commanded to do the work of preaching, cannot rationally be suppo­sed [Page 130] to be commanded to preach to such persons, and so he may be said to be unsent, because he wanteth the prerequisites unto sending.

And whereas some object from Jerem. 14. That he is a false Prophet, not onely that teacheth lies, but who is not sent; The Prophet telleth them plainly, v. 14, 15. That his not commanding them to prophesie to that people what they did, was his not sending of them. The same things might have been prophesied to another people at Gods command, and might have been no lies, but truths. Had they prophesied what God commanded, they had been sent.

6. How, or by what means Christ doth command to go and preach; viz. [by his word.] Not by a pres­bytery, but by the written word. It is not an imme­diate mission, but mediate, by the word. As Gods command in his word would be a mediate call to hear the word preached, to pray, to be baptized, to receive the Lords Supper, and to perform other Religious ser­vices, though no Presbyters should exhort to these du­ties; so Christs command in the Gospel, to goe and Preach,—is a mediate mission to all lawful Preachers, though no presbyters should urge it upon them. And how a Presbytery can send, but by exhorting to follow this command of Christ, we know not. And in such a Doctrinal way, for ought we see, a private Christian may exhort to go and teach; yea, any Minister of Christ may say to another Minister, long after his being con­stituted an Officer, especially in case of sloath and ne­gligence, Go and teach that people committed to thy charge.

We finde Gospel-commands directed by Christ unto Preachers, which have the nature and form of a missi­on in them; as Matth. 28. 19. Go Disciple all Nati­ons, &c. 1 Pet. 4. 10, &c.

That such a mission belongeth to a Presbytery, let [Page 131] them prove that can; we can find no sillable of Scrip­ture-proof for it. And thus we have cleared the parts of this Description of mission.

And, if mission be taken in this sense, Rom. 10. v. 15 viz. For Christs commanding preachers to publish the Gospel to such persons, and such a people: Then a moral impossibility is intended by the interrogation; and it amounteth to thus much, How shall they ground­edly, warrantably, or orderly preach, except they have a command from Christ to go? The Jews would have ingrossed this priviledge; they laid claim to preaching as peculiar to them, and denyed that the Gentiles were commanded to be preached to. In answer possibly unto them, the Apostle may speak thus: It is promised that in Gospel-days the Gentiles should believe; and they cannot believe without hearing, nor hear without preaching; nor can any warrantably preach to them, or so as to justifie their act, or expect a blessing from God, except they be sent: i. e. except the Lord doth command to go and preach to them. If they must be preached to, it must be concluded that some are com­manded to go to them with the Gospel.

And if the words be taken in this sense, the dint of many Objections is avoided, which are levelled against a bare providential sending. We say, Providences a­lone do not express the nature of mission; but there is a command of Christ also, to go and preach, wherein especially this sending doth consist.

Obj. 1. This sending is not barely providential, but a ministerial sending, as appeareth by the next words: [As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel—] which words are taken out of Isai. 52. and the Ministers he speaketh of, are called Watch­men, vers. 8. And the prophet himself is mentioned as one of them, Rom. 10. 10.

Answ. 1 The prophet declareth what acceptation [Page 132] such should have amongst the people, who brought good tidings, who published peace and salvation; but what mission they had, whether ministerial, or provi­dential, the prophet doth not there determine. To use their own similitude: If a private person should re­port a pardon to a condemned malefactor, how beau­tiful would his feet be, though the same applied under the broad-Seal, by a person delegated from the Supream Magistrate, differeth from that.

If persons had onely a providential sending, yet all this might be said, How beautiful are their feet, when they bring good tidings of peace and salvation! But we assert that the King of Saints hath commanded per­sons gifted, to go and publish these good tidings; and this may make the news double welcome.

2. It is promised, that their Watchmen shall lift up their voice and sing, vers. 8. But that all, who are said to bring the good tidings, vers. 7. are called Watchmen, vers. 8. is not proved. Some think that by Watchmen there, are understood onely Apostles, and those that were eye-witnesses of what Christ did, and suffered for the redemption of sinners; because it is said, [For they shall see eye to eye.—] which is like that, 1 Joh. 1. v. 1.—Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.—and then there are more preachers spoken of ver. 7. then there are ver. 8.

3. If all of them be called Watchmen, it is a figu­rative term, taken from those that stand in Watch-Towers, who foreseeing dangers, forewarn of them; and foreseeing approaching-mercies, give notice of them. And why gifted men may not do this, we know not, though Officers are put in trust in an especial manner to do it; in which respect (though all preach­ers of the Gospel be Watchmen, yet) the term may be appropriated to Officers, in a special sense.

Ojb. 2. If providential sending were sufficient, [Page 133] then women-preachers are as much sent of God—yea, a tyrant, robber, or murtherer may justifie himself in his wickedness, as being sent by God provi­dentially.—

Answ. 1. For women we have answered the Objection often.

2. More then a providential sending is asserted, viz. a command of Christ.

3. The consequence is feeble, to say, If a provi­dential sending be enough to allow a man to preach, then it may justifie men in stealing, murthering.—for preaching is a lawful work, but robbing and mur­thering—are acts in themselves sinful. When by an ordering hand of providence, Christians do meet together, they may exhort one another, and pray one with another, Mal. 3. 16. Hebr. 3. 13. But it will not follow, that they may rob and murther one ano­ther.

Obj. 3. They are called preachers, or heralds: the participle in the Original, Rom. 10. 14. noti [...] the Of­fice, as Rom. 12. 7, 8. & 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17, &c. and the people are blamed for not hearing them, Rom. 10. 16, 21. but the not hearing of such as are not sent, is no fault, but a vertue, Joh. 10. v. 5, 8. and by this they would prove it to be an Authoritative mission, not providential.

Answ. 1. The words in the Original in those places, Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. are not the same with that, Rom. 10. 14. which we note, lest the unlearn­ed Reader should think those places a proof, that the word used Rom. 10. 14. should necessarily connote Of­fice; whereas other words are used there; and there­fore they prove nothing to the case in hand.

2. For the participle in the Original, Rom. 10. 10. [...]; that doth not denote Office necessarily for [...] is used, Mar. 1. 45. He went out, and began [Page 134] to [publish it.] [...]; and yet he was no Officer, nor had mission to preach, or publish this; for Christ forbad him publishing of it, vers. 44. See thou say nothing to any man. So Mark. 7. 36. Luk. 8. 39. Which sheweth that nothing can be concluded from the Original word, to prove them to be Officers, because it is applyed to such as were no Officers.

3. They may be called Heralds, who preach the Gospel, because they usually do publish it openly, as Heralds do their messages. Similitudes must not be stretched beyond the scope, nor be made to agree in all things. Let it be proved, that preachers are called Heralds, to connote their being authorized to publish the Gospel.

4. We apprehend that people are to be blamed for not hearing gifted men, as Rom. 10. v. 16, 21. If it be their duty to preach, then it is a peoples sin, not to hear. As for Joh. 10. v. 5, 8. Christ asserts himself to be the true Shepherd, and the door by which men enter into life, and attain salvation. vers. 9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.—And if he intendeth there to assert himself to be the door by which men must enter into the work of preaching, or any Office in the Church, gifted men enter in, by the door of his command. Christ saith, vers. 5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers. Such as preach false doctrine, or have wicked lives, are not of Christs flock, but are strangers; and it is a vertue not to hear such. And Christ saith, vers. 7, 8. I am the door of the sheep; all that ever came before me, are theeves, and rob­bers: but the sheep did not hear them. All that in their teaching deny Christ to be the door, or who shew any other door to life and salvation besides Christ, they are not to be heard. Ante Christum venire, non est tempore Christum praecedere, sed aliam Ferus. [Page 135] quàm Christi Doctrinam docere. It may be expounded of those which teach false Doctrine, and not of those which enter without sending.

Here is mention made of mission, or of a Presbytery to give mission; and therefore it doth not prove, that it is a vertue not to hear such as are not sent by a pres­bytery. Men might be blamed if it were but a provi­dential sending, as men are often for not hearing Gods voyce in other providences. Amos 4. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. And thus they may be called Heralds, because they publish the Gospel openly; and people may be blamed for not hearing, and yet no authoritative mis­sion from a presbytery may be intended.

Object. 4. All that have gifts are not sent of God; there are many gifted blasphemers and hereticks.

Answ. 1. Some men ordained may, and do prove such; and so if Ordination were mission, they might be such, and yet be sent: this will fall as heavy upon such a sending, as upon the other.

2. By turning such, I suppose it will b [...]id, or­dained men lose their commission: and so do gift­ed men forfeit their power and mission: Matth. 7. 15, to 21. Christ biddeth them beware of false Prophets, and giveth rules whereby they may know them, which will speak blasphemers,—to be such, as they are to be­ware of.

And thus much concerning mission in the first accep­tation of the word.

2. Mission is a providential disposing of Preachers, to such persons or such a people, as Christ hath com­manded or assigned the Gospel to be published unto; or, sending is a permitting them to go, a dismissing them, that they may go: Mar. 8. 26. when Christ had resto­red the blind man to sight, he [sent] him away to his house. Mar. 6. ver. 36, 45, 46. He [sent] away the people.—Act. 17. 14. The Brethren [sent] away [Page 136] Paul.—Here sending doth not denote the confer­ring of any power upon those that are sent, but only a dismissing of them from the work they were about, to go to some other place. Sending is there little more then going, or the permitting men to go. Genes. 45. 7. God [sent] me before you, to preserve you a posterity.—The Lord ordering by his providence Josephs go­ing into Egypt, is called his [sending] of him, here is a providential sending. And though other Scriptures speak of sending in that sense we before spake of, yet we do not see that but sending may be taken in this latter sense, in Rom. 10. 15. viz. for such a provi­dential sending; and then the meaning is but this, How shall they preach to the Gentiles, if they do not go, or be not permitted, and by providence ordered to go where they are?

And the scope of the place inclines us to these thoughts; for the Apostle is concluding, that there is no difference of nations in Gospel-dayes. Rom. 10. v. 11, 12. There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.—ver. 13. For whosoever (i. e. whether he be Jew or Gentile) shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Here he asserteth the calling of the Gen­tiles; and from thence he inferreth that Preachers of the Gospel must be sent unto them, because as ver. 14, 15. They cannot call on the Lord without beleeving, nor cannot beleeve without hearing: they cannot hear without a Preacher; they cannot preach (i. e, to the Gentiles, for they are such as had not heard of Christ, ver. 14.) except they be sent, i. e. except by providence they be ordered to go amongst them. The Jews grumbled at the going to preach unto the Gentiles: the Apostle proveth that they must be called, and therefore some must go preach to them. How shall they come by the glad tidings of the Gospel, if none go to them there­with? Alas they have no preachers amongst themselves, and how shall they hear, if none preach; and how shall [Page 137] they preach, if they do not go where they are to hear? now shall Paul preach to the nations of the Gentiles, if he be detained at, or doth not go from Jerusalem?

And all other interrogations, ver. 14. are to be un­derstood of a natural impossibility; it is naturally im­possible for a man to call on him, that he hath not be­leeved on; and to beleeve on him, of whom he hath not heard; and to hear without a preacher, i. e. with­out one or other to publish what is to be heard: and that this onely should be understood of a moral impossi­bility, [how shall they preach except they be sent?] it is hard to conclude.

[Sending] in this sense denoteth the ordering of a preacher for his bodily presence, what place it shall be in, for preaching. This sending may be iterated and repeated often. Thus God sendeth, when by his pro­vidence he ordereth or disposeth of things so, as there is a going to such a place to preach. Thus Magistrates may send preachers to places that are destitute of the means of Grace; thus they sent some Ministers into Scotland, others into Ireland.—Thus a Church may send. Acts 11. ver. 22. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of [the Church] which was at Jerusalem, and they [sent forth] Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch, Here the Church sent out a Preacher. Thus Presbyters may send men to preach. Act. 8. 14. When the Apostles which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Those that were sent, were preachers before, had no authority to preach con­ferred upon them by their mission; and if they had, then a Church may give authoritative mission; for the Church sent Barnabas, Act. 8. 14. And what is there more in this sending, then a desiring of him to go, or a dismissing of him?

And thus gifted men are capable of being sent, as [Page 138] well as others, seeing there is no act of power about it And where there is no distance, there needeth not this mission by men: but how should they preach to the Gentiles, who were at a distance, except they were sent by those Churches where now they preached? and if no more be intended, Rom. 10. 15. it may easily be judged, what a poor argument that is, which many bring from that place, against the preaching of gifted men.

And thus much in answer to their first argument: we shall be brief in answering the rest.

CHAP. VIII.

Answering diverse Arguments brought against the preaching of men un-ordained to Office.

Argum. 2.

FRom Hebr. 5. 4, 5. And no man ta­keth this honor unto himself, but he that is Jus Divi­num Mi­nist. page 71. called of God, as Aaron.—No man ought to take the ministerial honor upon him, unless called by God.

This proposition (say they) is not limited, but il­lustrated.

1. By Aaron, who undertook not this Office, till called thereunto. Exod. 28. 1. No more did any other of the Priests in the old Testament. 2 Chron. 29. 11. and 16. 16. If the Priests and Prophets of the Old Testament could not take this honor upon them till cal­led and appointed, who can shew any just reason, why any under the New Testament should do otherwise? [Page 139] especially, if we consider that the Gospel-Ministry is more weighty and glorious then the legal was.

2. By Christ, who though he be God blessed for ever, coequal and coeternal with the Father, yet he glorifi­ed not himself, to be made an High-Priest, but was sealed and inaugurated by his Father into this great Of­fice. Joh. 8. 54.—and thence they say, it can­not but be great presumption for any man to glorifie himself, and make himself a Minister, before he be law­fully ordained thereunto.—

Answ. 1. Here they run quite from the Question they undertook to prove, [That none may assume the Office of the Ministry, unless he be solemnly set apàrt there unto.]

And their conclusion from Hebr. 5. 4, 5. is but on­ly this, that no man ought to take it, unless called by God.

If their argument be granted, yet their position is not proved by it. Gifted men may have a call of God to preach, and yet not be solemnly set apart. Hebr. 5. ver. 4, 5. Aaron and Christ were both called of God, yet they were not solemnly set apart by imposition of hands with fasting and prayer; which is the setting a­part they intend, as themselves expresly declare.

They are blaming gifted men in these words, ‘[Such intruders, as will neither Jus Divinum Ministerii, pag. 67. be solemnly set apart for the Ministry by imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer, nor give way to them that would.]’ If to be call­ed of God, and to be thus solemnly set apart, be all one, then neither Aaron nor Christ were called of God, be­cause they were not thus set apart. If to be called of God, and to be so set apart, be different things, then their ar­gument is no proof of their position, which they would establish by it. Here they take for granted what is de­nyed by us, viz. that such a setting apart, is the only call [Page 140] of God in Gospel-dayes. Whereas Officers and gifted men, are called of God, i. e. allowed by him to preach; but neither of their cals doth consist in such a setting apart, though we grant a setting apart by fasting and prayer, to be necessary after a call to Office.

2. We deny their general proposition to have any footing in this Text. For, the [Honor] spoken of, and the universal note [no man] must necessarily be limited, according to the subject or matter insisted on. It is the rule they give us about the note of universality [all.]

This universal all is to be restrained and limited, according to the subject or mat­ter Jus Divinum Ministerii. pag. 95. treated of. Now the subject spoken of, Hebr. 5. is not the Ministry in gene­ral; but onely one order of Ministers, it is not a Gos­pel-Ministry that is treated of, but a legal; it is not the whole Ministry of the Law, but one order of that Ministry, viz. Priests; it is not all under that order, but the highest, the chiefest under it; not Priests in general, but the High-Priest only, as appeareth, ver. 1. [every High-priest] taken from among men.—Aaron, ver. 4. and 5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made [an High-Priest.—] Neither is this High­priest considered as performing a work which is com­mon to him with Ministers of the Gospel; he is not con­sidered as preaching the word, but as offering sacrifices for sin. ver. 1. That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. And ver. 3.—To offer for sins: and im­mediately it followeth, ver. 4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, &c. Thus far it is general, that no man taketh, or ought to take the honor to be a High priest to offer for sins, but he that is called of God as was Aaron the High-priest.

But because the Apostle saith, none may take the honor of the Highest Office under the Law, to be a [Page 141] High-priest, nor do the highest work of that Office, viz. offer for sin; for any to say hence, that the Apostle makes this general proposition, No man ought to take the ministerial honor upon him unless called of God, is to conclude beyond the premises. For, there was that required unto the highest order of Officers, which is not requisite unto Officers of an inferior species or or­der. It were presumption for any to undertake to be a high-priest to offer for sins as Christ did without a call, The design of the Apostle, is to assert Christ to be the only high-priest, and that the ancient priest-hood must cease, to give place unto him. To prove him to be a high-priest, he compareth him with the high-priests of the Law, and declareth that he was called of God, as well as they. ver. 4, 5. And therefore remission of sin and salvation were to be expected by him. ver. 6, 9. but this cometh far short of proving, that al Ministers of the Gospel are to be called of God, as was Aaron; see­ing they do not prefigure Christ as Aaron did, are not of such a high order as high-priests were, nor do not expiate sin as Christ did.

3. As to their argument as drawn not from Heb. 5. 4, 5. but from the priests and prophets in general of the Old Testament, it proveth not (if granted) a solemn setting apart by fasting and prayer and imposition of hands, but only a call to be necessary: and then the question between us, is only this, What that call in Go­spel dayes is? We conclude that Christs command or allowance, is a sufficient call; and if gifted men had not this, we grant they ought not to preach.

Argum. 3. The third Argument is, from the titles that are given to the Ministers of the Gospel: they are called Embassadors, 2 Cor. 5. 20. Stewards, Tit. 1. 7. Men of God, Tim. 6. 11. compared with 2 King. 5. 8. watchmen, Ezek. 3. 7. Angels, Rev. 2. 1. which are all names of Office, and require a special designation from [Page 142] God.—And these titles are applyed not onely to ex­traordinary, but to ordinary Ministers. Other titles they mention: Ministers are called Gods mouth.—Good Souldiers of Jesus Christ—Gods servants and Ministers.—

Answ. 1. Some of these titles cannot groundedly be restrained to preachers. For all Christians are Soul­diers of Jesus Christ, have spiritual armour, and are commanded to use it, Ephes. 6. 10, 11. Finally my brethren be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might; put on the whole armour of God.—1 Thes. 5. 8. Let us who are of the day, be sober, putting on the brestplate of faith.—All believers, all who are of the day, are commanded to be good Souldiers of Jesus Christ, and so are com­manded to be preachers, (if that title be peculiar to preachers) which is more then we assert. All believers are Gods servants; Peter exhorteth them to be, as the servants of God, 1 Pet. 2. 16. and they are believers in general he speaketh to, v. 7. v. 9. v. 10. Rom. 6. 22.—Being made free from sin, and become servants to God.—All who enjoy freedom from sin, are Gods servants. Those that are allowed by the Lord to declare his will to others, are Gods mouth, though it be but in a way of private admonition.

To be men of God, is to be his servants. And in a general sense, gifted men are Embassadors and Angels; which signifie, Messengers, or men sent. We have proved before, that gifted men are sent. They have a command and allowance from Christ to go and preach, and are providentially sent also.

2. If those titles must be taken in a special sense, and be applyed to Officers onely, yet still it doth not prove their position, that they must be set apart by fasting and prayer, and imposition of hands. Their designation may be by other acts.

Neither do they deny that men may preach by gift, [Page 143] without such a special designation.

3. If they be taken in that special sense, then those titles necessarily import a special relation between the persons to whom those titles are given, and some Church of Christ: as, they are Angels of the Churches, Rev. 1. 20. Rev. 2. 1. Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus.—ver. 8, 12, 18. & 3, 1, 7, 14.

So, they are Stewards; which do not onely denote their having a warrant to Officiate, but also their being over the houshold, Luk. 12. 42, Who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold? They have some house or Church of God, which they are Stewards over.

Watchmen, Embassadors, Bishops, have some Churches or other committed to their charge, to fore­warn of dangers, and to do their message to, and over­see: so as they should break their truths, if they should not forewarn those Churches, or not do their message to those Churches, or not oversee those flocks, as well as if they did neglect these works altogether. As a Father should break the trust of that relation, if he should not teach, govern, and provide for his own Children, though he should keep a School, and there teach and govern many other Children.

And such a relation, such a trust or charge gifted men assume not; and therefore this Argument striketh not at them, if the titles be taken in such a sense: and if in a larger sense, then gifted Brethren are as capable of those titles as others. Embassadors are not onely betrusted with a message, but limited by their commission, what Princes or forrain States to treat with; and if they go to other Princes or States, they cannot treat with them as Embassadors, though they may report their Masters willingness to hold a good correspondency with them also.

But if they should not go to those they are by their [Page 144] commission sent unto, they should break their trust: and so for Stewards, &c.

Argum. 4. Our Brethren argue, from the con­stant distinction that is made in Scripture, between gifts and calling: we read, (say they) Joh. 20. v. 21, 22. First Christ gives his Apostles their commission, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you: then he gives them their gifts, Receive the holy Ghost. Thus Isa. 6. 6, 7, 9. God touched his lips with a coal from the Alter, and gifted him; and afterwards he gives him his commission. Thus also it was with the prophet, Jer. 1. 5, 9. God sends him, and then puts forth his hand, toucheth his mouth, and fits him. Even as it is in all civil governments, gifts make not any man a Judge, or a Lord Mayor, &c.

So it is in Church-affairs; it is not gifts, but calling, that constitutes a Minister; therefore that distinction of a Minister by gifts, and a Minister by calling, hath no footing in the word of truth.—Then women might preach as well as men, for they may have as e­minent gifts.—If he (i. e. a person gifted) take the Office upon him unsent, he is an usurper, and may fear to perish in the gainsaying of Corah, notwitstanding his gifts.

Answ. 1. This Argument is like the former; it doth not prove their position, if it be granted: for, though gifts and calling & sending be distinguished, yet it doth not follow, that none may assume Office of the Mini­stry, unless he be solemnly set apart thereunto: for calling and sending are not the same with setting apart; which still they suppose as granted.

2. The Scriptures alledged, speak of sending, not of setting apart, as distinguished from gifting; and of the sending of such as were Officers before, not of any sending, that made or constituted them Officers: for, Joh. 20. v. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I [Page 145] you: i. e. as my Father hath sent me to make peace for some in all Nations, so (Mat. 28. 19.) send I you into all Nations to publish and declare this peace which is made: this was spoken to the Apostles after Christs re­surrection, vers. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24. and therefore this sending which is distinguished from gifting of them, did not make them preachers or Officers; for they were constituted preachers long before, Mat. 10. v. 5, 6, 7. They had preaching gifts before; but here was a com­munication of the Spirit in a fuller measure.

So Isaiah was a prophet before; and therefore this mission, vers. 6, 7, 9. did not make him a prophet, but put him upon the work of prophesying, which he was called to before.

So Jeremiah is first ordained to be a prophet, Jer. 1. v. 5. Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctifi­ed thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the Nations. Jeremiah excuseth himself, v. 6. I am a child. The Lord silenceth him in his excuses, v. 7.—Say-not, I am a child, for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee.

He was sanctified and destinated to be a prophet be­fore his excuses, yet not sent till afterward; it is said, To all that I [shall] send thee to. And vers. 9. He toucheth his mouth, and fits him. And it is like his mission is expressed, vers. 10. However it doth not appear, that his sending, did constitute him a pro­phet.

So that these Scriptures alledged, speak not against assuming an Office, without being called and ordained; but against Officers going to a people which they are not sent as yet by the Lord unto. Men lawfully called and ordained unto Office-work, may erre this way, as well as gifted men.

3. Their instances from civil Governments, might have been spared: as gifts makes not any man a Judg, a Lord Mayor, Sheriff,—so we grant in Church-affairs, [Page 146] that gifts alone do not make a man a Church-Officer, for then there were no preaching ex dono at all. We have proved, that gifted men have a Call to exercise their gifts; and therefore preaching ex Officio & ex do­no, hath footing in the word. It is not so proper to say, A Minister by Gift, and a Minister by Calling: Gifts do not give being to the Call, it is the written word doth that: yet because gifts are a signe to judge by, an evidence who have a Divine allowance to preach, therefore we distinguish between preaching by Office, and by Gift. Such visible believers, as are really gifted (if they have not forfeited their liberty by a corrupt life or doctrine, which Officers may do as well as others) by the word of God they have allowance to preach.

Corahs assuming the Office of the High Priest, which did belong to Aaron; and that without a Call, Num. 16. v. 3, 10. speaketh nothing against the preaching of gifted men, who assume not Office, and have a Call to preach.

Argum. 5. They argue from the Rules laid down in Scripture, for the Calling of men to the Office of the Ministry: The word of God (say they) doth exactly tell us the qualifications of the person that is to be call­ed, Tim. 3. 2, 3, &c. The Scripture also directs for the manner of his calling to the work, who are to ordain, how he is to be ordained, 1 Tim. 4. 14, &c. Now either these directions are superfluous and unnecessary, or else it is a truth, that no man ought to take this Office up­on him without such a Call. Nor were these directions given for that age onely, but for all the ages of the Church to the end of the world; as appears evidently from 1 Tim. 6. 14. compared with 1 Tim. 5. 7, 21. In the first place, he is charged to keep those commands with­out spot, to the appearance of Jesus Christ: In the second place, there is a solemn charge—and one [Page 147] main ground why Paul chargeth Timothy to be so care­ful—was, that thereby false doctrine might be preven­ted, 1 Tim. 1. 3, 4.—The same charge upon the same ground is laid upon Titus, Chap. 1. 5, 9, 10.—which (soil. directions) are all ain and unuseful, if any may enter upon the Ministry without Ordination.

Answ. 1. This Argument doth onely prove, that all who assume the Office of a Bishop, or Elder, they ought to be ordained. Those that the Apostle speak­eth of, are such, 1 Tim. 3. 1.—If a man desireth [the Office of a Bishop—1 Tim. 5. 17. Let [the Elders] that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour.—Tit. 1. ver. 5. Ordain Elders, &c. Ver. 7. For a Bishop, i. e. an Overseer, must be blameless, &c. These directions were superfluous, if none were so to be ordained.

2. We grant it is a choice means for the preventing and suppressing of false doctrines, to look that those Gospel-qualifications which are required to be in Offi­cers, be found in men before they be admitted into Of­fice: for if the Pastors be not sound in the faith, they will be like to lead the flock into error, and will not seek to convince others who are gainsayers.

3 But yet we do not find that the Rules laid down in those Scriptures about Ordination, have the preven­tion of false doctrines as their main ground: as for 1 Tim. 1. v. 3, 4. The Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, that he might charge some [that they teach no other doctrine.] He doth not bid him charge them not to preach at all, nor charge them not to preach without Ordination; but not to preach any doctrines contrary to the Gospel. And in Titus 1. he chargeth; that he that be taken into the Office of an Elder, should hold fast the faithful word, vers. 9. That he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince the gain-sayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers.—Vers. 11. Whose mouths must be stopped, &c.

[Page 148] He would have Elders able and sound in the faith, that by sound doctrine they may silence gainsayers; but E­lection is a means unto this, not Ordination onely. The Church ought to be careful that such be chosen into Office, as are able and faithful.

4. Neither do we finde in any of the places alledg­ed, that Ordination is made the Call to the work of preaching, nor yet the Call to Office: Our Brethren still suppose that Ordination is the Call to both; which we deny.

This Argument speaketh not against the preaching of gifted Brethren without Ordination; for they lay no claim to the Office of an Elder, or Overseer; and such onely are required there to be ordained.

Argum. 6. They argue from that confusion which would come into the Church, if every man that presumes himself gifted, should intrude Jus Divin. himself into the Office of the Ministry, with­out a regular Call:—the reason (they say) is appa­rent; the prostituting of this sacred and weighty Of­fice to the wills of men, opens a door to all disorders, and the introducing of all heresies and errours: how much did the Church of Antioch suffer from such as came from the Apostles, and had no commission! Act. 15. Gal. 2. 5. Besides that contempt and scrone which it exposeth the ministry unto: admit the same in the Commonwealth, or in an Army; might he that would make himself a Mayor, Judge, Constable, a Colo­nel, Chaptain, &c. What an Iliad of miseries would thence ensue, is easier to be imagined, then ex­pressed.

Answ. 1. This is quite besides the Question; for, we do not assert that every man that presumes himself gifted, may assume the Office of the Ministry, nor that he may preach; much less do we say, That he may do either without a regular Call: but we say, [Page 149] That such believers as are really gifted, (not barely who presume themselves so to be) they have a regu­lar Call to preach; and this doth not prostitute either the Office or the work unto the wills of men, nor o­pen a door to disorders—it being the declared will of Christ, that such should preach.

2. We grant, that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place, there is prerequired a Call from the peo­ple or the Magistrate, &c. And such a Call is sufficient to prevent all those miseries that they suppose would ensue upon such a practise in a Commonwealth.

3. The instances are about Officers; as, to be a May­or, Judge, Constable, &c. is to be an Officer: we plead onely for exercise of gifts.

4. It is not said, That the Church of Antioch suffer­ed by the preaching of men without a commission, nor without Ordination; but by their preaching false do­ctrine, Act. 15. v. 24. Certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such commandment.

They had no commission to preach, that they must be circumcised—but it is not said, They had no com­mission to preach the Gospel.

So Gal. 2. 5. Paul would not circumcise Titus to gra­tifie the false Brethren, in yeilding the least subjection to them, that the doctrine of the Gospel might be preserved pure, without legal mixtures amongst the Ga­lations; for they would have made an ill use of it, there­upon to press such ceremonies upon them, as of ne­cessity to Salvation, or to persecute those that used them not,—and so Christian-liberty had been betrayed, if Titus had been circumcised; but how this speaketh against the preaching of true Brethren who are gifted, we know not. Though false Brethren have no com­mission to preach false doctrines, yet true Nathaneels, [Page 150] who are gifted, may preach the pure doctrines of the Gospel, and nothing here spoken, will reflect upon them therein. These are not here blamed for preach­ing without a commission, but for preaching false do­ctrines.

5. That confusion they speak of, will not be at all avoided by making Ordination the only door into the Ministry: for such as presume themselves so qualified, that they ought to be ordained, if they be denyed Or­dination, yet they will count it their duty to preach without it, when they cannot have it: and so the door is opened as wide to all disorders, and the introducing of all heresies and errors in the way of Ordination, as in the way of the preaching of gifted Brethren; and how will our Brethren shut this door, or hinder these evils? either it must be by Church-censures, or by the civil Magistrate, that the mouths of unordained men must be stopped, if Ordination onely giveth power to preach; and both these ways are as open to stop the mouths of ungifted men, (where the case justly de­serveth such proceedings) if it be asserted that gifted men are empowred to preach.

And thus we have answered their Arguments, to prove their first Position.

CHAP. IX.

Answering such Arguments as are brought to prove, that none may do the work of the Ministry, without Ordination.

THere are several distinctions which our Brethren premise before they come to their arguments, and these we have spoken to before. They say (Jus Div. Min. p. 78.) ‘[It is Authoritative teaching only which we deny.]’ If by authoritative they mean the preach­ing Office-wise, or such preaching wherein Office-po­wer is put forth, we might grant all their Arguments, and yet nothing is gained against the preaching of gifted men.

But because their position and some of their Argu­ments seem to reach further, and to deny all ordinary preaching without Ordination; therefore we shall give a reply to such arguments as seem to have the greatest strength in them: their position is this.

Position. That none may do the work of the Mini­stry, without Ordination. Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 78. That none may undertake the work of the Ministry, but he that is solemnly set apart thereunto. Jus Divin. Min. pag. 80.

Their Arguments to prove this, are eight in num­ber.

Argum. 1. That work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his own, neither ought nor may be performed by any that are not designed un­to that Office. But God hath designed special Offi­cers of his own, for the preaching of his word. There­fore [Page 152] none ought or may preach the word, but such as are designed unto this Office.

Answ. Their Minor we grant, if they intend no more in it, then they intimate in the explica­tion of it. We acknowledge that preaching of the word is one work assigned unto Officers. It is not their only work, yet it is one special work which they are ap­pointed to perform.

But their Major we deny: and we say, That a work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his own, may be performed by some that are not design­ed unto that Office. As for example, Act. 6. 4. But we will give our selves continually to prayer, and to the Ministery of the word. Here prayer is declared to be a special work of Officers, as well as the Ministery of the word; the Apostles would have Deacons appointed, that they might be freed from worldly incumbrances, and might give themselves continually, not only to preach­ing, but also to prayer; and therefore prayer is a work for the doing of which God hath designed special Offi­cers of his own. So Act. 20. 36. Yet prayer may be performed by such as are not designed unto Office. It is the duty of every Christian to be exercised in the work of prayer. 1 Thes. 5. 17. Pray without ceasing: and this is injoyned the Saints in general, ver. 14. We exhort you brethren. Jam. 5. 13. Is any among you af­flicted? let him pray.

Also to distribute worldly goods is one work, for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of own, viz. Deacons. Act. 4. 34, 35. compared with Act. 6. ver. 1, 2. &c. and yet it is the duty of such as are not designed unto that Office, to distribute to the necessities of others. Rom. 12. 13. Distributing to the necessity of the Saints.—and this is put in the midst of Christian duties: ver. 12. Such as are to rejoyce in hope, and be patient in tribulation, and continue instant in prayer, [Page 153] are also to distribute.—and therefore it cannot be re­strained to Officers. 2 Cor. 9. 1, 2, 13.

Also exhorting, and reproving or rebuking, are works for the doing of which, God hath designed special Offi­cers of his own. The Apostle layeth down the qualifi­cations of a Bishop or Elder, Tit. 1. ver. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and one work of his is, to exhort and convince gainsay­ers, ver. 9. and Tit. 2. 15. These things speak and exhort, and-rebuke with all authority. Yet these works may warrantably be performed by some that are not designed unto that Office. Heb. 3. 13. Exhort one another dayly.—and 10. 25. Matth. 18. 15.

Object. 1. But though private Christians may doe those works in the matter of them, which God hath de­signed Officers to, as privately pray, distribute, exhort, rebuke;—yet they may not do these in the sameway and manner, that Officers are to perform them in; not publickly, or with all authority.

The fuller answer to this objection is given before; yet we will add thus much:

Answ. If an Officer exhorteth or rebuketh such as he is over in the Lord in private, will not this be deemed a­nother manner of act, then if a brother doth it, who is no Officer? If so, then the publickness of an act, is not necessary to make it an act of Office.

2. If it be the different way and manner of acting, that maketh any act to be an act of Office; then our Brethrens argument halteth: for that is drawn from the work it self, not from the manner of working. Let them put their argument into that form, and then it must run thus:

That work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his own, neither ought nor may be performed in that same way and manner which Officers act in, by any that are not designed to that Office. But God hath designed special Officers of his own for the [Page 154] preaching of the word. Therefore none ought or may preach the word in the same way and manner that Offi­cers doe, but such as are designed unto this Office.

And if they will put the argument into this form, we may grant the whole, and yet gifted men may preach the word without crossing of it; for they do it in ano­ther way and manner, not under such a relation to those they preach to, as Officers are.

And although this Answer might be sufficient to the Argument, yet we shall take away their grounds for their Major.

Object. 2. God hath severely punished such as have done the work appointed by him to special Officers, though they had no intent to invade the Office unto which that work was by God designed:—Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 8, 9, &c. he lost his Kingdom for offering sacrifice, though but once, and that in a great straight.—Uz­zah, 1 Chron. 13. 9, 10. who put his hand to the Ark, and that out of a good intention to keep it from falling, when the oxen shook it; and yet the anger of the Lord was kindled against him, & he smote him that he died.—Uzziah, 2 Chron. 16. 16, 17, 18.—went into the Tem­ple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar of Incense.—and though he was a King, yet the Lord smote him imme­diately with the plague of Leprosie, of which he was not heal­ed till his death.

Answ. 1. This Objection concludeth as much, or is equally strong against the preaching of any who are not Officers, be the necessity never so great, and the case never so extraordinary; and so is against them­selves as much as against us: for they grant (Jus Div. Minist. pag. 80.) that in cases of necessity, men out of Office may preach; and instance in Aedesius and Fru­mentius two private men, by whose means the Indians were converted to the Christian faith, &c.

Now the case of Saul was extraordinary, the Phili­stims [Page 155] were ready to assault him, he had not made his peace with God, Samuel delayed his coming, the peo­ple began to scatter from him; whereupon he constrained himself, and offered a sacrifice: all these things our Bre­thren reckon up, (Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 81.) and then call it a necessitated act.

So in the case of Uzza, what greater necessity could there be then this, when the Ark was in danger, 2 Sam. 6. 6. The oxen shook it. 1 Chron. 13. 9, 10. The oxen stumbled. If the Ark had fallen or had been broken, how exceedingly Israel had suffered by it, the use of it will evidence, and that dolefull complaint, 1 Sam. 4. 17. The Ark of the Lord is taken. and ver. 22.—The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken.

Either our Brethren must say, That none may preach in a case of necessity without Ordination, or being de­signed to Office, and so cross themselves; and that none must preach as probationers, (for that is designa­tion to Office) but they must ordain men before they hear them preach, and so before they know their fitness to preach; or else they must grant, that these examples of Saul and Uzza, are impertinent, and no proofs of the Argument. Let them prove that these acts might be performed (so much as once) by any before they were actually in such Offices as the works did belong to, upon any account whatever.

2. These acts were expresly forbidden, and some of them threatned with death to any person that did them, besides the Officers designed for the doing of them; as Numb. 4. ver 15. The Sons of Kohath shall come to bear it, bu [...] they shall n [...]t touch any holy thing, lest they dy.—They are forbidden so much as touch­ing of any of the holy things, upon pain of death; Uzzah breaking such a command, he suffered the penalty, was punished with death. So Numb. 16. ver, 40. That no [Page 156] stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come neer to offer incense before the Lord, that he be not as Korah and his company, &c. All Israelites or Levites (save Aarons sons only) are counted strangets in this case of Priest-hood. None might Offer incense Ainsw. but they, lest they be as Korah, in sin and pu­nishment. Numb. 1. 51. Numb. 18. 22, 23. Neither must the Children of Israel henceforth come nigh the Taber­bernacle of the Congregation, lest they bear sin, and dy.

Let any shew where the preaching of gifted Brethren is thus forbidden, else these examples are nothing to their purpose. And besides, the matter of these works, as well as the manner of performing them, was not al­lowed to any but those Officers; whereas the matter of this work of preaching is allowed undenyably to such as are no Officers: they may exhort and reprove pri­vately, by our Brethrens own grant; but might not privately burn incense, or offer sacrifice:—which sheweth a further difference between those acts.

Object. 3. This practise doth make voyd, or at best unnecessary and insufficient, those Officers which God hath appointed. What needs a peculiar Officer to be set apart to a common work?

Answ. 1. It is common but to such as are gifted, not to all Christians, as they suggest.

2. It is not performed in the same manner by gift­ed men, or under such a relation, as in case of Office it is: Officers preach to their Churches, as to those that they are over in the Lord, & that are committed to their charge for such ends; but gifted men stand not under any such relation to those they preach unto. Some Churches have no Officers; and those that have, yet need the gifts of other Members. In some places there are no Churches to be Officers to, the people having never had the Gospel preached to them. It will hardly be proved, that Officers must leave their Churches, to preach to [Page 157] these; and if not, they must either finde some Officers who have no Churches, which is to finde a shepherd without a flock, a relate without a correlate; or else they must say, that none must preach for the conversion of such, or else that men not in Office may preach: and this doth not make Officers either voyd, unnecessary or insufficient. Officers are necessary and sufficient to the end that Christ hath appointed them unto, to be o­ver, and take charge of his Churches under him; but they are not sufficient to undertake the whole worke of preaching in all places and to all persons.

3. This Objection lyeth as strongly against Officers being designed to admonish, exhort, or reprove, at least in private; for what need a peculiar Officer to be set a­part (say they) to a common work? other Christians may exhort and reprove; and will our Brethren say, therefore there is no need, that Officers should be de­signed to this work?

Obj. 4. This practise doth confound & disturb that order which God hath set in his Church, therefore it must needs be sinful: God is the God of order, and not of confusi­on, 1 Cor. 14. and hath commanded that every one should do his own work, 1 Thes. 4. Rom. 12. And a­bide in his own calling, 1 Cor. 7. he hath condemned those that walk disorderly, 2 Thes. 3. and are busie-bo­dies: he hath placed in his Church different orders, some shepherds, some sheep; some Teachers of the word, some to be taught: as their places, so their works are distinct.—This takes away the distincti­on between shepherds and flock, Pastor and people, &c.

Ans. 1. We have proved that the preaching of gifted Brethren is a part of that order which Christ hath ap­pointed, & therefore doth neither confound nor disturb that order which God hath set in his Church. If Christ hath allowed their preaching, then it is their work, and [Page 158] in doing of it, they walk orderly. We have shewn be­fore, that it doth belong to their place and calling to preach: and thither we refer the Reader.

2. The preaching of persons not designed to Office, doth not take away the distinction between shepherds, and flock; Teachers, and some Taught:—because they do not act under such a relation towards them as Officers do.

A Father may reach and instruct his children as a Fa­ther, another man may instruct and teach the same children as a School-master; yet these relations are not destroyed or confounded hereby, though both doe the same work. Here are Fatherly teachings, and yet the distinction between the Master and Scolar is not taken away: and the same may be said, if a friend Teacheth them, who stands in no such relation to them. It is a common practice in Schools for some youths of ripe wits and wel learned, by the appointment of the School-master to be often set to teach fellow-scholars; and yet the distinction between School-master and Scholars, is not taken away hereby, he remaineth School-master still to those youths who teach others in the School. So gifted men are by Christs appointment to teach others, and yet the distinction between Shepherd and flock, Pastor and people,—is not taken away hereby; the Officer of such a Church, where such gifted men are, doth remain a shepherd, a pastor, or Teacher still, even to those gifted men who teach others.

3. If you will take pastor, shepherd or teacher, not for the relation, or such as take charge of a flock, a people, a Church, for feeding and teaching, but for a­ny that doe feed or instruct others; yet in that sense will not the distinction betweene shepherd and flock, &c. be taken away; for there are many in a Church, that are not gifted to teach others; and they and the women are fed, are taught. Yea, those [Page 159] who themselves are teachers, yet in that general sense are properly said to be taught, when they hear others preach: 1 Cor. 14. 31. Ye may all prophesie one by one, that [all] may [learn] and [all] may be [comforted.] All the prophets when they hear, they are Learn­ers.

And thus we have answered their first argu­ment. No Religious service may be perfor­med Argum. 2. Jus Divin. Min. p. 85. unto God by any other sort of persons then such as are appointed or otherwise warranted thereunto. The preaching of the word is a religious service unto which persons gifted, not or­dained, are neither appointed nor warranted. There­fore the preaching of the word may not be performed by gifted persons un-ordained.

Answ. We deny their minor, and we assert, That persons gifted, not ordained, are appointed or warrant­ed to preach the word.

Object. 1. They are not appointed; for then every gifted man that preacheth not, is guilty of the sin of omission.

Answ. 1. So he is guilty of the sin of omission, if an opportunity hath been offered, and he will not preach. If no door be regularly opened for men gifted or Or­dained, to exercise their gifts, then it is no sin of omis­sion.

2. He is guilty of the sin of omission, if he doth not preach at all, if scuh an opportunity be offered; but he may not be guilty of the sin of omission for not preach­ing at this place or that time: as the want of a call from others to exercise his gifts, may free it from being a sin of omission; so there may be something that may justly hinder the person gifted from accepting of a call to preach in such a place, or at such a time; as sickness may disable, and other natural causes: so upon moral accounts, either men gifted or ordained may lawfully [Page 160] refuse to preach, to some people at some times.

Obj. 2. Then preaching must be looked upon as a common duty, enjoyned unto all believers, as such: and every one should study Divinity in order to preach­ing; and wo to him that preaches not, though he could preach but one Sermon onely, and doth not.

Answ. 1. If they intend this of being immediately under an injunction to preach; there is no shadow of reason for the consequence. To say, if all gifted per­sons are to preach, then all believers are to preach, as such, we deny it; for, many believers are not gift­ed: it is enjoyned onely to gifted believers.

2. If they intend it of a mediate injunction, that believers, as such, are enjoyned to seek for such gifts as they may be able to teach others, we see no inconve­nience in that: for the Apostle exhorts the Brethren in general of the Church of Corinth, to covet to pro­phesie, 1 Cor. 14. v. 1, 5, 39. And the Apostle blameth the Hebrews in general, thus: Heb. 5 v. 12. When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you.

3. The Apostle was undoubtedly ad Officer, and saith it of himself, 1 Cor. 9. 16. Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel. And therefore this concludeth no further then Officers; or if it doth reach further, it is onely as we have expressed under the former Objection about its being a sin of Omission not to preach.

4. We deny that such a man is gifted who is able to make but one Sermon in his life-time. We ask our Brethren, whether they would deem a man gifted to preach, and so durst ordain him, if he could make but one Sermon?

To prove their Minor further, that gifted persons are not warranted to preach, they tell us that the Mi­nistry of the word is founded in institution, and there­fore must be regulated according to it: and tell us, That [Page 161] for the publick exercise of gifts by those who are no Mi­nisters, they find no institution, and refer to their an­swers to Objections.

And in answer to this, we refer the Reader to our foregoing reasons, which prove an institution for it.

If no man may do the work of the Magistrate in the Civil, or of a Deacon in the Ecclesi­siassical Argum. 3. Jus Div. Min. p. 86 state, but he that is called to the Of­fice of a Magistrate, or of a Deacon; then much less may any man preach the word (which is the work of a Minister) but he that is called to the Office of the ministry. But no man may do the work of a ma­gistrate in the Civil, or a Deacon in the Ecclesiastical state, but he that is called to the Office of a magistrate, or of a Deacon: therefore.

Answ. 1. This argument holdeth as strongly a­gainst the preaching of any as probationers, as it doth against other gifted men. Our Brethren hold forth this as their own principle and practice, that men may preach for tryal several times, before they be ordained; and indeed how could it be known that they were apt to teach, if they never made tryal? no man may doe so much as one particular act that belongeth to a magi­strate, unless he be called to the Office of a magistrate: it was but one particular act that was desired. Luk. 12. ver. 13. If this argument therefore be valid, they must not preach so much as one sermon as probationers, be­fore they be ordained to Office.

2. Both propositions may be denyed.

1. The Major or consequence will not hold good. Though no man might do the work of a magistrate, or of a Decon, but he that is called to such Offices; yet a man may preach the word (which is one work of a Minister) who is not called to the Office of the mini­stry.

[Page 162] Because the work of a magistrate is peculiar to, and doth necessarily imply and presuppose the Office of a magistrate; but preaching the word doth not necessa­rily presuppose or imply the Office of the ministry. Preaching is one work which ministers in Office do per­form; but it is not so peculiar to Office, as the work of a Magistrate is. As for example, Prayer is one work of a Minister. Act. 6. ver. 4. But we will give our selves continually [to prayer] and to the ministry of the word. Their argument is as forcible against gifted mens pray­ing, or giving themselves to prayer, as against their preaching; thus: if no man may do the work of a Ma­gistrate in the civil, or of a Deacon in the Ecclesiasti­cal state, but he that is called to the Office of a Magi­strate, or of a Deacon; then much less may any man give himself to prayer (which is a work of a Minister) but he that is called to the Office of the Mini­stry.

But will our Brethren say, that no man may pray, or give himself to prayer, but he that is in Office? yet prayer is a work that Officers perform as well as preach­ing. If they say, that prayer is not peculiar to Office; we say, no more is preaching.

Object. The reason of the connexion is evident; for by how much the work of the ministry is of greater con­sequence, difficulty, and danger then either of these, by so much the greater care and circumspection is to be ta­ken, that it be not performed promiscuously.—

Answ. This doth not make the consequence evi­dent.

1. Because this care and circumspection may be ta­ken, and yet men who are allowed to preach, may not be called to Office: a man may have approbation, and yet not have Ordination. If we should grant that none might preach until they be approved, and upon tryal [Page 163] be found to have those qualifications, which by Gospel­rules preachers ought to have; yet how will it follow none may preach, unless they be called and to Office

2. Because men may warrantably perform some works of greater consequence, difficulty and danger, who yet may not perform works of less consequence and importance: as for example, every Christian may beleeve, and exercise himself to meditation of the word; which are works of higher consequence, because the salvation of the soul is so neerly concerned in them; and yet every Christian may not doe the work of Magistrates or Deacons, which are of an inferior nature, relating more to the good of the Body. Nei­ther will it help to say, that mediatating and beleeving are not acts of Office, unless they can prove, that preaching is an incommunicable act of Office: the example is brought only to shew, that God doth not allow some works of an inferior nature to be done by men unappointed to Office, and yet doth approve of their adventuring on works of higher consequence, difficulty and danger, without their being called to Office.

If the Lord hath warranted by his word, and allowed gifted men to preach without a call to Office, then they may do it, though it be a work of higher consequence then the work of a Magistrate, which they may not do without a call to the Office of a Magistrate. We know not any that plead for preaching without a Commission; but we say, a written word is Commission enough to preach without ordination to Office. The Lord can li­mit a lesser work to Office, and not so limit a greater work; and what is man, that he should gainsay it?

2. The Minor may be denyed in part; For, some men may doe the work which a Deacon doth, who is [Page 164] not called to the Office of a Deacon: distributing to the necessities of the Saints is a work of a Deacon, Act. 6. and yet (as we shewed in the answer to their first argument) men out of Office may distribute for the same end, Rom. 12. 13. We do not think, but that if a man hath ability, he may lawfully distribute of his own goods, to all those Church-members that are in want, though he be no Deacon by Office; yea, he may distribute to the same persons, the same quantity, be­ing as yet no Deacon, that afterward he doth being a Deacon, and yet may not be blame-worthy; and why may not a man as lawfully preach, and that to all those persons, being as yet no Officer to them, which after­ward he preacheth as an Officer to?

Therefore, if by doing the work of Magistrates, or Deacons, they mean barely a doing the same work that they do, and do not intend it of acts peculiar to their offices; then their Minor is denyed: some men may lawfully do such works, who are not called to be Magistrates or Deacons. But if by doing the work of a Magistrate, they mean, a work peculiar to a Magistrate; and by the work of a Deacon, a doing of it as under such a relation to the Church, or in such a manner as Dea­cons by their office are to do it; then we grant their Minor: none may do works peculiar to a Magistrate, or take the oversight of the Churches treasure, or call for, receive and dispose of the Churches goods, as one that is a trustee, and hath such a charge committed to him for the good of that Church, unless he be called to the of­fice of a Deacon. These things partly express what the office of a Deacon is, and what it is for Deacons to put forth acts of their office. Act. 6.

And then we deny their Major: If none may do such works (without a call to those offices) in such a man­ner as is peculiar to those offices, to say, then much [Page 165] less may any man preach the word, but he that is called to the office of the Ministry; this consequence is feeble: for preaching is not an act peculiar to office, in it self; but when performed by persons under a special relation to those that are preached to. Because a man may not perform an act of office without a call to that Office, therefore he may not exercise a gift, in doing that which is no act peculiar to Office, this doth not follow.

If none may administer the Sacrament, but he that is lawfully called and ordained Argune. 4 Jus Divin. Min. p. 87. thereunto; then neither may any preach, but he that is lawfully called and ordained. But none may administer the Sacraments, but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto. Therefore.

Answ. We deny the consequence of the Major: it doth not follow, that if none may administer the Sacra­ment but he that is lawfully called and ordained there­unto, then neither may any preach, but he that is law­fully called and ordained.

By being lawfully called and ordained, they must un­derstand, a being called and ordained to office, as else­where they express it; otherwise we may grant their whole argument, and yet gifted Brethren may preach: for the conclusion will be no more but this; therefore none may preach, but he that is lawfully called and or­dained.

We have proved that gifted men are called and or­dained, or appointed by God in his word to preach; and therefore in this sense it concludeth nothing against their preaching.

Yet neither way is the consequence good: though it be true, that none may preach without a lawful call, yet it doth not follow, that if gifted men may not admini­ster the Sacraments, then they may not preach; for the [Page 166] administration of the Sacraments may be peculiar to Office, and preaching not be so.

But let us hear their proof of it.

Object. The connexion is clear, because that these two works are joyntly in the same Jus Divin. Min. p. 8 8. Commission, Matth. 28. 19, 20. and of the two, the preaching of the word is the greater work: this the Apostle intimates, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. The negative parti­ticle is here (as in many other places) taken for the comparative; he was sent rather to preach, then to baptize: and by this manner of expression it appears, that to preach was his more proper and especial work.—

Answ. 1. This argument is as strong against them­selves as against us; for, they allow and frequently put men upon preaching as probationers, who are not or­dained, yet they will not allow them a power to bap­tize, or administer the Lords Supper so much as once, until they have taken Orders (as they call it) or have received Ordination. By which it is evident, that them­selves do separate between the power of preaching and of baptizing. If they give liberty to preach but one Sermon before Ordination, yet if they will not give li­berty to baptize one person, or to administer the Lords supper once, then they separate those works which are joyned together in the same commission, as well as we; and when they answer the argument for themselves, they do it for us also. By the same argument and their practise, we may prove that their Minor is false, and may justify men out of Office in their administring the Sacraments: for that we may argue thus:

All that may preach, may baptize, for there is the same commission for preaching and for baptizing, Mat. 28, 19, 20. and preaching is the great, if not the great­est [Page 167] work of a Minister. 1 Cor. 1. 17. But according to our brethrens principles and practises, some men un-or­dained may preach as probationers, which is the great­er work. Ergo, some men un-ordained (according to our brethrens principles and practises) may baptize, which is the lesser work.

2. It is judged by some, that Matth. 28. 19, 20. is a commission given to the Apostles as officers, and so be­longeth onely to those that succed them in Office­power; and that gifted men preach not by vertue of that, but another commission, as 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. 1 Cor. 14. &c. And if it be taken this way, then their Argument runneth thus:

‘If none may administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto, then nei­ther may any preach Office-wise, or by Office­power, but he that is lawfully called and ordain­ed.’

And this we may grant, and yet may assert that some may preach by gift, and by vertue of another com­mission, who may have no allowance to administer the Sacraments. As the seventy Disciples had power to preach, Luk. 10. Yet we do not read that they had power to baptize; and yet the twelve Apostles did bap­tize, as well as preach, John 4. v. 1, 2.—Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples. So that it is no new thing, for some as Officers to preach and baptize, and for others (by another commission) to preach on­ly, and not baptize.

3. The Argument is built upon this mistake, viz. That the commission whereby men are authorized and empowred to preach, is holden forth, Mat. 28. 19, 20.

Whereas this (as we conceive) is no Office-making commission, but an enlargement of the commission of [Page 168] Officers. It is not that which authorizeth either to preach or baptize, but it is that which empowereth preachers and baptizers to put forth such acts towards such persons. It was not that which made them preach­ers, or baptizers, who were spoken to, but that which made the Nations the Gentiles capable of being preach­ed to, and baptized. For, the Apostles were long before this made Officers, and were authorized both to preach and baptize: See Mark 10. vers. 5, 6, 7. These twelve Jesus sent forth,—vers. 7.—Preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. And Jesus baptized by these Disciples, John 4. vers. 1, 2. And therefore they could not again be constituted Officers, or empowered to preach or baptize; they could not in propriety of speech be said to be made Officers by any new act, who were Officers of the same kind before that act; they could not be twice constituted, unless the former constitution were lost before they received the later. The Apostles received as much power by this commission, or command of Christ, as any of their Successors can receive by it: for it is directed to them expresly, Matth. 28. vers. 16. Then the eleven Disciples went away into Galilee.—vers. 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in Heaven and earth. Verse 19. Go ye therefore and disciple all Nations, baptizing them—Yet, the Apostles could not receive power to preach or baptise, or become Officers by it; for they had such power, and were Officers before; and therefore the intent of Christ herein, is this, That he having obtained all power to give salvation, not onely to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles; now he would have the Nations of the Gentiles preached to; and upon believing; be baptized. Whereas formerly he said to them, Go not into the way of the Gentiles.[Page 169] Mat. 10. vers. 5. now he commandeth them to go into the way of the Gentiles. This mission doth not make men lawful preachers or baptizers, (as we shewed formerly) who had not such a power before; but it warranteth lawful preachers and baptizers, in their preaching to, and baptizing of Gentiles. It did then, and doth now make Gentiles capable Objects of preach­ing, and capable Subjects of baptism when they are made Disciples. As for example: Suppose the Lord should have said to preachers or Officers in New-Eng­land, Go not to the Indians; but go to the English and preach and baptize; and after some years should have said to the same preachers or Officers, Now go to the Indians, and preach and baptize them; this latter mission to the Indians could not rationally be deemed an Office-making act, nor that which gave them power to preach or baptize, because they were Offi­cers, and had such a power before: neither could it be argued, that all who might preach to the Indians, might also baptize, because both works are in the same commission; but onely it might be concluded, that such as had power to preach, might now lawfully preach to the Indians; and such as had power to baptize, might now lawfully baptize Indians when converted: and so is the case alledged, as may be seen, by comparing Mat. 10. v 5, 6, 7. and Mat. 28. v. 19, 20. together.

Suppose a man were an Officer to a Church in New-England, & many hundreds of the Indians should be con­verted and added to this Church; the addition of mem­bers maketh him an Officer to more then he was before, but doth not make him more an Officer then he was.

That place is not intended to shew who have power to preach and baptize, but to shew who may be preach­ed to and baptized by those that have power: and there­fore we deny, that the joyning those two works to­gether [Page 170] in the same commission, doth conclude, that all they which may do the one work, may also do the o­ther.

4. It is denyed by some, that preaching of the word is a greater work then baptizing.

Saith Dr. Homes, The sealing of a Deed is a greater Act then the writing, reading, Dr. Homes Church-cases clear­ed, page 47. or publishing of a Deed. Every Clerk may write out a Deed, but onely the conveyan­cer or owner may seal a Deed. Preaching is to all, even to Infidels, 1 Cor. 14.

Baptism belongs onely to those that are reckoned to to be within the Covenant.—And he addeth—1 Cor. 1. 17. doth not intimate, that preaching is greater then baptising—for the Apostle Ib. pag. 48. asketh, Were ye baptized into the name of Paul? (so the Greek, [...]; intimating, that men in baptisme were baptized into the Name of Christ (as Mat. 28. 20.) but not in one Sermon of many is a man in any degree brought unto Christ.—To justifie himself, that he had baptized but few; he re­peats his commission, (not the prelation of preaching above baptizing) viz. that he had his com­mission, in Act. 9. 15. &c.—the com­mand Ib. pag. 49. of his commission did not so run to that, as to preaching, &c.

5. Suppose that preaching the word be a greater work then baptizing; yet it doth not follow, that those who may preach, may also baptize: a work less weighty in it self, may by a Divine institution be limit­ed to Officers; and a work more weighty, not be so limited. Gifted men may do what Gods word warrants them in doing, though it be a greater work then some acts of Office.

Argum. 5. To usurp authority over the Church, is a [Page 171] sin. But to preach without Calling and Ordination to the work, is to usurp autho­rity Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 88. over the Church. Therefore.

Answ. We deny, that to preach without Ordination to the work, is to usurp authority over the Church. Gifted men do not preach without Calling, though they have not Ordination, which our Brethren assert to be essential to a Call.

1. We suppose our Brethren understand here by Ordination, (as they do elsewhere) a solemn setting apart by fasting and prayer, and imposition of hands.

2. Their Argument necessarily supposeth that there is such an Ordination to [the work] of preaching: and yet we can find no Arguments either here or elsewhere produced by them, to prove that such Ordination to the work of preaching is necessary by Christs appoint­ment.

Yet their position which all these Arguments are produced to prove, is this, [That (pag. 80.) none may undertake the work of the Ministry, but he that is solemnly set apart thereunto: or, That (pag. 76.) none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordina­tion.] And therefore, if it be not proved, [That Or­dination is by Gospel-Rules to the work,] the position is not confirmed at all: yet for ought we see, this they leave all alongst unproved. Their third Argument speaketh of an Officer, a Deacon being so ordained: but the utmost that this can conclude, is, That none may undertake an Office, or do a work Office-wise without Ordination; but this is far from p [...]o [...]ing, that none may do that work at all, without such Ordination. None may distribute as an Officer, as a Deacon, but he that is ordained to the work. Ergo, None may distribute at all, but he that is ordained to the work, [Page 172] None may exhort or rebuke as an Officer, without he be ordained to the works: Ergo, None may exhort or rebuke at all, without he be ordained to the works. What shadow of a consequence is here? Yet no better do we find in the case in hand: their position is gene­ral, That none may do the work of the Ministry with­out Ordination. Their proofs are particular, because none may do the work as Officers without Ordina­tion.

It remaineth therefore necessary, for the confirming their main Position, and this Argument, that they prove,

1. That Ordination, or a solemn setting apart by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, is necessary not onely to the Office, but to the work of preaching: Or that none may do that work without such Ordina­tion. As yet we can see no proof for this; if we could, we would exhort gifted men to take up such Ordination to the work of preaching: but if this could be proved, we should question whether they were Officers or no by this Ordination; for though they were ordained to that work, yet it is possible they might not be ordained to the Office, of which that is but one part, when a man is in Office. Therefore it is further to be prov­ed,

2. That none may do the work of preaching, but one in Office: or that none may be ordained to that work, without being ordained to Office: Or, that preaching the word is a work peculiar to men in Office. Else some gifted men out of Office may perform it; for what is not peculiar to Office, may be performed by some who are no Officers.

3. That to preach without Ordination to the work, is to usurp authority over the Church. If it were granted, that none might preach the Word but such [Page 173] as are ordained to that work; yet such as preached without Ordination, might not usurp authority over the Church:

1. Because preaching in it self is not (that we can find) an act of authority.

2. Because such unordained men might preach to Heathens, or Indians, where no Church is planted; and how the preaching could be usurping authority o­ver the Church, when no Church were preached to, we see not. It might be a sin against Christ, but yet no usurping authority over the Church.

But they endeavour to prove their Minor, by asserting preaching to be an act of Authority: if that were granted, yet but one part of their Minor is proved; they should also have proved, that none have that authority, without Ordination: otherwise we might say, Preaching is an act of authority, but yet men may preach without Ordination to the work; for there are other ways to invest men with authority to per­form such an act, besides and without Ordination; yet they have given us no proof that Ordination is that onely which authorizeth to perform such a work.

To prove that preaching is an act of authority, they say,

Obj. 1.—The Apostle, 1 Thes. 5. 12. gives this charge, Know them that are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; where to admonish, is to be over.

Answ. That Text doth plainly difference and distin­guish the [being over,] from the [admonishing them;] and yet our Brethren produce this place, to prove that they are the same.

The [being over them] denoteth their place, the [admonishing of them] denoteth but one work [Page 174] performed by those that are in such a place. Officers are there spoken of, and they admonish those they stand in that relation to, as being over them: and if it be an act of authority when performed under such a re­lation; yet it doth not follow, that it is so, by whomso­ever it be performed.

Obj. 2. Heb. 7. Without controversie the lesser is blessed of the greater.

Answ. The Apostle asserteth Christ to be an High­priest after the Order of Melchisedec, Heb. 6. ver. 20. and giveth a reason of it, Heb. 7. 1. and in the excellen­cy and greatness of Melchisedec, he setteth forth the ex­cellency of Christ, who is after has order. ver. 2, 3, &c. he proveth the greatness of Melchisedec, and so of Christ, because he blessed Abraham, ver. 6. and so must be greater then Abraham, who received the bles­sing, ver. 7. without all contradiction, the less is bles­sed of the greater. But what is all this to prove that preaching is an act of authority? Doe preachers suc­ceed Melchisedec, or Christ? Can they bless with a High-priests blessing? Are they greater then Abra­ham, as he that gave this blessing was? There is a bles­sing of reverence and worship, so men bless God, Psal. 68. 19. Blessed be the Lord, who dayly Dickson. londeth us with his benefits.—There is a blessing of Charity, so men bless one another by mutual prayer.—Rom. 12. 14. Bless them which perse­cute you, bless and curse not. It is required as a duty, not of preachers only, but of all Christians thus to bless; yet neither of these kindes of blessing do imply superiority, or authority, or that he is greater who blesseth, then he that is blessed. He that blesseth by an Original inhe­rent power as Christ doth, he is greater then he that is blessed; and of such blessing the Text speaketh: but he that blesseth Ministerially and instrumentally, is not al­wayes [Page 175] greater then he that is blessed, nor is the blessing alwayes an act of authority.

Object. 3. The Apostle suffers not women to preach, because they may not usurp authority over the man, 1 Tim. 2. but is commanded to be in subjection; upon which place, Oecum.—The very act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man.

Answ. There is a plain distinction and difference made in the very text alledged, between [teaching] and [usurping authority,] for the words are these: [But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authori­ty over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Tim. 2. 12.] That particle [nor] doth plainly intimate, that two things are forbidden. 1. Teaching. 2. Usurping authority.

And a womans usurping authority over her husband. seemeth to be the thing directly forbidden by the Apo­stle, rather then the usurping of authority over the Church; and hence the words are, nor usurp authority over [the man:] and the reasons inforcing it, from the mans being first created. ver. 13. and from the womans being first deceived. ver. 14. speak it to be an usurping authority over her husband, rather then over the Church, that is forbidden.

However, there is no such thing found in the Text, as that the act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man.

Object. 4. The publick work of the Ministry of the word, is an authoritative administration, like unto that of Cryers, Heralds and Embassadors, to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, and therefore may not be performed by any but such as are authorized, and immediately or mediately deputed by him, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. appears, because in preaching, the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven is used.—

[Page 176] Answ. 1. These titles we spake to in another place, and thither we refer the Reader.

2. A warrant from the written word to preach, is authority enough: and this we have shewn gifted men have.

If men who are not authorized by Christ to preach, will do it; and if this be an usurping of authority; yet what is all this to prove, either,

1. That it is to usurp authority over the Church? Or,

2. That to preach without Ordination to the work, is to usurp such authority over the Church? These are the things which not being proved, their Argument falleth.

3. That there is a Key of Knowledge, we grant, Luk. 11. v. 52. which Christians who are not in Office, may use, 1 Cor. 12. ver. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. And in Discipline, the power of

1. Excommunication is the binding Key, that which shutteth the Kingdom of Heaven, the Church, against offendors.

2. Re-admission is the loosing Key, or that which openeth the Kingdom of Heaven, the Church, to such as repent: Matth. 18 vers. 17, 18. If he neglecteth to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea­ven.

Here, the binding Key, and the loosing Key, are used about Church-censures; and if both these were given to the Officers onely (which we deny) yet, gifted men might preach; neither can they gain any thing from the Keyes to prove that preaching is an Act of Authori­ty, much less to prove their Proposition.

[Page 177] Argum. 6. That which the Scripture re­proves, may no man practise. But the Scrip­ture reproves uncalled men for preaching. There­fore.

The Minor (say they) appears, in that the false prophets are reproved, Jerem. Jus Divin. Minist. p. 89. 23. 21, 32. not onely for their false doctrine,—but also for running when they were not sent. I am against them, saith the Lord: a fearful commination; if God be against them, who shall be with them? The false prophets themselves accuse Jeremiah, Jerem. 29. 27. for making himself a prophet; which though it was a most unjust and false impuration, yet it holds forth this truth: That no man ought to make himself a prophet, the false prophets themselves being witnesses.—The Apostles in the Synod of Jerusalem, speak of certain men that went out from them.—They went out: they were not sent out, but they went out, of their own accord; and this is spoken of them by way of reproof. And then it follows, They troubled you with words, sub­verting your soules. He that preacheth unsent, is—not a builder, but a subverter of souls.

Answ. 1. We deny that the Scripture reproves the preaching of gifted men, who are unordianed to Office.

This Argument, if it were wholly granted, yet it proves not at all what it is produced for. Their pro­position is, That none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordination, or being solemnly set apart there­unto.

Their Argument to prove this, is, The Scripture reproveth uncalled men for preaching, therefore un­called [Page 178] men may not preach. We may grant that un­called men may not preach; and yet may assert that unordained men (if gifted) may preach. For, gif­ted men are called to preach, though they be not or­dained.

Let them prove that Ordination is the onely Call to preach; if it were granted that Ordination is the Call to Office, (as elsewhere they endeavour to prove) yet it would not follow, that there is no Call to preach without that; unless it can be prov­ed, that there is no preaching, but by Office.

2. The places alledged fall short of proving their Argument: as for Jerem. 23. 21, 32. We spake to that, when we insisted upon their Argument about mission. It is plain, that if they had not prophe­sied lies, they had not been reproved. For, if they had declared Gods Counsel, Gods Word to the peo­ple, then he would have followed their labours with his blessing; and therefore they (verse 22.) are not reproved for prophesying without a Call to be pro­phers, but being called to be prophets, they are re­proved for not preaching the Word of God to that people.

As for Jerem. 29. 27. It is a weak and slender proof, that no man ought to make himself a prophet, be­cause the false prophets said so; For false witnesses will tell lies, Prov. 14. 5. how shall this be credited upon their testimonie, more then other things? they are said to prophesie lies; and this might be suspected to be one, if onely they did witness it to be a truth.

But we say, that some unordained men are made prophets by the Lord, in his affording them the gift of prophesie, and warranting them by his Word to exercise that gift; and so they do not make themselves prophets.

[Page 179] As for Act. 15. We cannot see any ground to con­clude that they are reproved because they went forth from them, but because they troubled the brethren, & subverted their souls,—v. 24. For asmuch as we have heard, that certain which next out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls.—] Suppose some members of a classical Presbytery, who have taken up Ordination in that way, should go to a Church at a distance, and broach false doctrine; might not the Classis write in the same manner to such a Church, [—We have heard that certain which went out from us, have troubled you?—] Surely this would be proper enough, because really they went from them, and possibly without their knowledge or con­sent; yet this could not be understood to be a re­proof for their preaching without Ordination; for, they were ordained long before they went out; and therefore if it should cast blame upon them for preach­ing without mission, it must be meant of a mission which is not Ordination, for that they were not with­out; and of such a mission as presupposeth a Call to preach, for (according to our Brethrens principles) they had a Call to preach before, by being ordianed; and therefore this doth not evidence that the Scrip­ture reproveth uncalled or unordained men for preach­ing.

Argum. 7. We argue from the practise of the Ministers of Christ: if they have been as care­ful Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 90. to make proof of their mission, as of their doctrine, then is mission required in him that will preach the word. But they have been thus careful. Therefore. If any gifted man may preach without a Call, why doth the Apostle so often make mention of his Call? Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15, 16. 1 Cor. 1. 1. When the Disciples of John mur­mured [Page 180] against Christ for baptizing, John 3. 27, 28. John answers, A man can receive nothing unless it be given him from heaven: ye your selves bear witness of me, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. Here Christs undertaking to baptize, is justified by his mission.—

Answ. 1. This Argument laboureth with the same disease that the former did: if it be wholly grant­ed, yet the preaching of gifted men unordained, is not disproved. Still they confound a Call to preach, Mission and Ordination, which are different things.

We grant, that none may preach without a Call; but we deny that Ordination is that Call, without which none may preach. We know not of any that plead for preaching without a Call; the question here is, what that Call is?

2. The reason why the Apostle so often ma­keth mention of his Call, as we conceive, was ei­ther,

1. To vindicate himself from the reproaches of the false Teachers, who called in question his Apostle­ship: and all this gifted men unordained do, when they defend their Call to preach, against those that question it.

2. Or to vindicate the doctrine which he preached, and to adde a confirmation thereof: the false Teachers called his doctrine into question; and to prove the truth of that, he asserteth himself not onely to have a Call, (for he might have had a mediate Call, and yet his doctrine might have been false, and so that could not have evinced it to be true) but an immediate Call; and this doth help to prove the Divineness of his doctrine.

Hence, Gal. 1. v. 11, 12. But I certifie you Brethren, [Page 181] that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. vers. 20.—I lie not. He evidenceth his Doctrine not to be hu­mane, but divine, from his receiving it not by the ordi­nary Ministry of man, but by extraordinary and imme­diate Revelation from Christ.

Because Paul and others made proof of their imme­diate call, therefore mission or a call, is required in him that will preach the word; or therefore none may preach without a call, it's no good consequence. Though we deny not the conclusion itself, yet we do not see how it can necessarily be inferred from such a premise. For it was necessary that Paul and others should make proof of their immediate call, that thereby they might evidence the divineness of the Doctrines of the Gospel, which they preached; but there is no such reason which makes it necessary to make proof of a mediate call; and if it be done, yet that end cannot be attained there. Sup­pose Ordination were the onely mediate call, a man could not prove his Doctrine to be divine, because he hath that call; for men rightly ordained may preach false Doctrine.

Object. 1. Whereas they alleadge Joh. 3. 27, 28.

Answ. 1. First, Christ did not in his own person bap­tize, as is plain, Joh. 4. vers. 1, 2.—Jesus himself bapti­zed not, but his disciples. And therefore our Brethren do ungroundedly assert, that Christs undertaking to baptize is justified by his mission; for Christ himself did not then undertake to be an Administrator of Baptism; and therefore could not be justified by mission or any thing else in baptizing.

There is not a syllabe in the Text about the disciples [Page 182] mission, yet they were the Administrators of the Baptism there spoken of; and so it must be their mission (if any) not Christs, that must justifie the administration. If Christs mission would justifie the disciples baptizing, why may it not as well justifie gifted mens preaching? but how would this at all prove that Ministers made proof of their mission, or that mission is required in him that will preach the word? Because the disciples bapti­zing was justified by Christs mission, therefore other mens preaching or baptizing must be justified by their own mission; or they were justified by anothers, by Christs mission, therefore mission is required in him that will preach the word, himself must have mission; what shaddow of a consequence is here? Yet if Christs mission doth justifie any, it must be his disciples bap­tizing; for Christ himself baptized not.

Christ commanded the disciples to baptize, (though that be not here mentioned) and they baptized into Christs Name; and thence it may be said that Christ bap­tized, though in his own person he baptized not; and suppose Christs mission did here justifie this, yet how would this prove that mission is required in him that will be an Administrator of such an Ordinance, because it was required in Christ, who was the In­stitutor of, and Appointer to, such Administrati­ons?

2. Secondly, we cannot finde Christs mission men­tioned at all in that place, much less is it alledged to justifie his baptizing, or undertaking to baptize, Joh. 3. 27, 28 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven; ye your selves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. Here Iohns mission is mentioned, but not a word of Christs. Saith Iohn, [I am sent before [Page 183] him,] i. e. before Christ. But if Iohns mission justified Christs Disciples in undertaking to baptize, still this would prove, that one mans mission may justifie other men in baptizing; and so it is far from proving, that mission is required to the person him­self that will baptize; it rather proves that anothers mission may serve the turn, without one of his own.

If they would fetch it from those words, [A man can receive nothing unless it be given him.—] These words may refer to Iohn, as well as to Christ; Johns Disciples murmur, because Christs Disciples baptized so many, v. 26. John answereth, v. 27. A man can, &c. as if he had said, I have nothing but by Gods gift, and therefore have cause to be thankful for what I have, rather then to be ambitious of more honor, or envious against Christ, because more is given to him then to me: It is not given to me (saith John) to be the Messias, as vers. 28. Ye your selves bear me witness, that I said, [I am not to Christ:] It is not given to me to increase, as it is to Christ, ver. 30. Or if it doth refer to Christ, then it may found thus: It is given to Christ to be a Soveraign, else he could not by his Disciples baptize so many into his Name.

But take it either of these ways, yet it speaketh nothing about mission, or its being required in him that will administer such Ordinances; for, in the former sense there is no shadow of it: admit it be taken in the latter sense, yet he doth not speak here (whatever may be said in other places) of any Office, which was given to the Disciples, who were the baptizers; but of what was gi­ven to Christ, into whose Name they baptiz­ed.

[Page 184] Object. 2. When the chief Priests and Scribes, with the Elders, asked Christ, Luke 20. 2. Tell us by what authority dost thou these things? or who gave thee this authority? Christ makes answer by demand­ing another question: The baptism of John, was it from Heaven, or of men? which teacheth us—that none ought to preach, without being authorized and sent.—

Answ. 1. How so general a conclusion can be enforced thence, we see not; neither have they made it out. If one should ask a Colonel or a Captain of an Army, by what authority he fighteth, and he should alledge anothers testimony who is credible, to evidence that he hath authority; will it hence follow, that no common Souldier may fight without being authorized and sent? Surely no.

2. If they speak of a being authorized, and sent by men, there is not any thing in the Text to favour it; for, Christ was not sent or authorized by man. Johns baptism did not authorize Christ to preach. Because Christ alledgeth Johns baptism, to shew that he had authority from God to preach; therefore none ought to preach without being authorized and sent by men, this followeth not.

3. If by authority and mission to preach, they in­tend onely this, A lawful right or warrant to preach; then we have proved that gifted men have that, though they be not ordained. Christ hath warranted them by his Word thereunto, without mens sending. Gifted men may alledge the Word of Christ to defend their preaching, as Christ did Johns baptism to justifie his preaching.

Argum. 8. We argue thus: That work may not be performed by any, which can­not Jus Divin. Min. p. 91. by him be performed in faith: but [Page 185] preaching by a brother gifted, but not called or or­dained, cannot be done in faith. Therefore a gifted unordained brother may not preach.

Answ. We deny their Minor; and we affirme that preaching by a Brother gifted, but not ordained, may be done in faith. As for the word called, it is not in their position; and if we should gtant, that such as are not called cannot preach in faith, yet we may say, gifted men not ordained, may do it in faith, for they are called.

Object. 1. The truth of the Minor (they say) ap­pears, in that there is no warrant in Scripture (which is the ground of faith) for such a practise.

Answ. We refer the Reader to our Arguments before urged, for the preaching of gifted men, which do—evidence that they have warrant in Scripture (which is the ground of faith) for such a practise; and may serve as a full answer to this Argument: we prov­ed there, that gifted men have Scripture-precepts, promise, and example—to warrant their preach­ing; and therefore they may in faith do it.

Object. 2.—If there were a precept, it was then a necessary duty that every gifted person ought to perform; it was a sin if any gifted person should not preach, &c.

Answ. So it is a duty, and a sin to neglect it; but in some cases, a not preaching is no sinful neglect. This Objection we had before; and the Reader may find the full answer to it, in our reply to their second Argument.

Object. 3. There is no precept that any should hear them, or obey them in the Lord, or maintaine them: these duties of the people are appropriated to those that are preachers by Office, Mal. 2. 7.—Luke 10. 16. The hearing of them, is the hearing of Christ.— [Page 186] It is not so said of any that preach without mis­sion; but contrarily there is a strict charge not to hearken to such, Jer. 17. 14. and a complaint of them that heap to themselves teachers, 2 Tim. 4. Thus the Apostle, Heb. 13. 7, 17.—So 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be accoun­ted worthy of double honour, &c. Nothing of this is spoken of gifted Brethren; yet if they may lawfully preach, all this may they challenge, and all that hear and plead for them, are bound in conscience to yield, because all this is due for the works sake, 1 Thes. 5. 12.

Answ. 1. The Lord hath warranted gifted men to preach (as we have proved) and that doth necessarily imply a precept to hear, and obey the word of the Lord, which is declared by them.

2. Some of the places may speak of a more especial obligation between Officers, and those they are Officers to, then between others; but do not deny that others may be heard, or that the word is to be obeyed when such as are no Officers speak it: because the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, will any say, that others lips who are no Officers, are not to preserve know­ledge, or that people are not to enquire or seek the Law at the lips of any other? are not the Saints to exhort one another? Heb. 3. 13. & Heb. 10. 25. and is no this a means to encrease know­ledge? and are they not to be heard when they [Page 187] do exhort? and seeing Christ commandeth them to give exhortation, do not they hear Christ that hear them, when they declare the will of Christ, at his command? Those places, Heb. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12. do affirm that such as are Officers, and do labour constantly amongst a people, and make it their work to feed them, are especially to be obeyed, and highly esteemed by those they are over in the Lord, and that for their works sake; but this doth not deny that others may share, in some good degree, in that honour and esteem; nor that they are to be obey­ed who do the work but occasionally amongst them, and are not Officers to them or over them in the Lord: as if a Stranger who liveth a hundred miles off, and is over a flock there, cometh and preacheth several Sermons to a Church at such a distance, upon request, he is not an Officer to this Church, or over it, because he cannot (with­out asserting a height of Episcopacy) be said to be an Officer to two Churches a hundred miles distant; and he may be an Officer to ten or twenty Churches, by the same Rule (for ought we know) that he may be to two; yet preaching thus occasionally to a Church which he is not o­ver, he is to be obeyed (if he preacheth sound Doctrine) and to be esteemed for his works sake, as we suppose will not be denyed: and why may there not as well be liberty for the preaching of gifted men, without crossing those Scriptures?

[Page 188] There is a strict charge not to hearken to those Prophets, Jer. 27. 14. (we suppose that place they intend, though it be printed Jer. 17. 14.) because they preached false Doctrine, for it is said, vers. 14. Therefore hearken not unto the words of the Prophets that speak unto you saying, ye shall not serve the King of Babylon. [for] they prophesie [a lie] unto you. Such as prophesie a lie unto men, are not to be hearkened unto, though they be Or­dained; this is as much against hearing Ordain­ed men as gifted men.

As for 2 Tim. 4. the words are these, vers. 3. For the time will come, when they will not indure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers.

It is a matter indeed of complaint, when men heap up to themselves such Teachers as are ac­cording to their own lusts and corruptions; and when aversness to sound Doctrine puts them up­on this; for it is not like they will be preachers of sound Doctrine, who in such a case are heap­ed up: but this speaketh nothing against the heaping up Teachers out of a desire to hear sound Doctrine, and to have grace promo­ted.—

Object. 4. There is no promise in Scripture made unto any that preach, and are not there­unto lawfully Ordained; we say, no promise, ei­ther of 1. Assistance,—2. Protection,—3. Success.—

[Page 189] Answ. We have proved that there is a pro­mise made unto gifted men, who preach though they be not ordained.

Mat. 25. vers. 29. For unto every one that hath, shall be given; and he shall have abundance.—i. e. if he useth, exerciseth, and improveth his talents, he shall encrease them.

Act. 18. vers. 28. He (i. e. Apollo, a gifted man) mightily convinced the Jews.

Act. 11. vers. 19, 20, 21. They that were scat­tered, went about preaching: and though (as we have proved) these were many of them not ordained; yet vers. 21. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turn­ed to the Lord.

Here was great success in their preaching; and therefore such as follow their example in preaching, may expect success as they had. There is a promise included in such presi­dents.—

Malach. 3. vers. 16, 17. Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another.—Here are Christian-meetings for mutual Exhortation; and the issue is, 1. The Lord hearkned and heard it: i. e. took special notice of it with appro­bation. 2. A book of remembrance was written: i. e. he kept it, as it were upon record. 3. He promiseth, vers. 17. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels: God will own them as his, [Page 190] challenge an interest and propriety in them, when others are rejected: [And I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him: The Lord will overlook that in them, which he will not in others. Therefore gifted men have sweet promises for their encouragement in the exercise of their gifts, for the edification one of ano­ther.

And thus we have finished our answer to the Arguments produced in the Book called Jus Divin. Min. against the preaching of gifted men.

CHAP. X.

Answering Several Arguments brought by Master Col­lings to prove gifted persons may not ordinarily Preach, without a solemn setting apart to Office.

Argum. 1. MAster Collings his first Argument riseth to this.

Gospel precepts require, and Gospel presidents hold forth, that those that are to Preach the Gospel, should not onely have inward gifts, and graces, and an outward call and Election; but also that they should be solemnly set apart for that work. There­fore inward Graces and gifts, and the election and call of the people, are not all the Gospel re­quires.

Answ. If his proposition be not understood to be universal; it may be granted, and yet nothing is concluded by it against the Preaching of gifted bre­thren, we may grant that such a setting apart, by Gospel precepts is required, and by Gospel Presidents is holden forth, as necessary for [some] of those that are to Preach the Gospel, viz. for Officers, and yet may fairly deny it to be necessary for all that Preach. Other Gospel Precepts and Presidents may al­low gifted men to Preach without such a setting apart.

Because some who are to admonish and exhort others, and convince gainsayers, ought to be set apart. Ergo, all must or none may admonish, or exhort others, or convince gainsayers but such as are set apart. Surely himself will not judge this a necessary conse­quence. We suppose therefore he would have the proposition understood Universally, and then none of the Scriptures he alledgeth, do prove it. We deny, That Gospel Precepts require, or that Gospel Presi­dents [Page 194] hold forth [...] [all] those that are to Preach the Gospel should be solemnly set apart for that work.

We shall briefly view the precepts and presidents which he bringeth.

Precept. 1. Tit. 1 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in Order those things which are wanting, and Ordain elders in every City as I had appoint­ed thee.

Answ. This Text speaketh of none but elders, [Ordain elders,] Because [...]lders ought to be ordained, therefore [all] those that Preach the Gospel ought to be ordained. This doth not follow. The question is whither gifted brethren may Preach without setting apart, and he would prove they may not, because elders were to be ordained.

Pre. 2. 1 Tim. 5 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. This he interpreteth thus, set none apart by Ordination for Officers in the Church. And that which he infer­reth is this, That there is a precept concerning such as were to be elders, and labour in the word and do­ctrine, that they should have hands laid upon them by Timothy; that is, be solemnly set apart by Timothy, &c. to the work of the Ministry.

Answ. That by laying on of hands is meant Ordi­nation, is not clearly proved: it being used in dispen­sing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Act. 8. 18. 19 & the A­postles being cautious about the dispensing out of those gifts, as appeareth in the case of Simon in the same verses, hence it was not needless to give Timothy such a warn­ing. And diverse cautions are given about the using of those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as the gift of tongues, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 23. 26. and why not as well about the dispensing ou [...] of those gifts. And Timothy was an Evangelist. 2 Tim. 4. 5. Do the work of an Evange­list; and in those dayes Evangelists, yea a Deacon [Page 195] wrought miracles. Acts 6 ver. 8. Stephen full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people; and this was quickly after his being made a Deacon, vers. 5. 6. and so Philip, Acts 8. ver. 6. 13. And Paul received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Ananias hands. Acts 9. ver. 17. And Ananias went h [...]s way, and entred into the house, and putting his hands on him, said Brother Saul, the Lord hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost: yet it doth not appear that Ananias was either Apostle or Evangelist, which Timothy was, and therefore it is not out of doubt that by laying on of hands is meant Ordination.

2. But suppose it be, yet himself granteth that they were elders on whom hands were to be laid, and so it doth not follow, that because elders were to be or­dained, therefore all those that Preach are to be Or­dained. We say some may P [...]each who are not elders. His own inference falleth far short of his position. This precept doth not require that all those that are to Preach the Gospel should have hands laid on them, but onely forbiddeth rashness or suddenness in laying hands on any upon whom they were to be imposed.

Precept. 3. Act. 13. 3.

Ans. Paul and Barnabas were Officers and Preach­ed before, without this Ordination or setting apart, and therefore this is far from proving that all those who are to Preach the Gospel must be so set apart.

And the same answers serve for the Scripture presi­dents which he bringeth. Acts 13. 3, 4, 5. Acts 14. 23. They were elders who were Ordained. As for Acts 6. They were not Ordained to Preach, but their office was to take off encumbrances from Preachers, as ap­pears, vers. 3. 4. and Mat. 28. 19. speaketh nothing of setting men apart to the work of Preaching; we have spoken to that place under the Argument concerning mission.

[Page 196] Argum. 2. ‘For any to take upon them acts of of­fice, being no officers is sinful and un­lawful. But for private persons how Master Collings Vindication. Pag. 33. well gifted and qualified soever, and though elected and called (i. e. desired) to take upon them to Preach, interpret and apply Scriptures, is for them that are no officers to take upon them acts of office. Ergo, It is sinful and unlawful.’

Answ. If by Acts of office he intendeth Acts pecu­liar to Officers as Officers, acts both materially and formally flowing from office, then we grant the major, The places cited to prove it, do hardly evince it. One that is no servant may lawfully do the same acts that a servant doth, at least occasionly, when it is desired, yet 1 Cor. 7. 20. is as much against this as against gifted mens doing such acts as Officers do, for servants are instanced in ver. 21. 1 Cor. 12 14. Rom. 12. 4. do not deny (that yet we see) the lawfulness of mem­bers using such gifts as they have, or of performing such acts as their gifts do enable them to, but denyeth all members to be gifted, or to be furnished with the same gifts, or the same measure of gifts. vers. 29. Are all Apostles; &c? The Apostles intent there seemeth to be, rather to deny that all are gifted, then to forbid any that are gifted the exercise of their gifts which really they have till they be in Office.

But yet if by acts of Office he intendeth acts that are materially and formally such, then, we shall de­ny onely his Minor; viz. That for persons gifted to take upon them to Preach, is for them that are no Of­ficers to take upon them acts of Office. We deny that all ordinary Preaching, interpreting and applying Scriptures, are acts of Office. i. e. acts peculiar to Office. That he endevoureth to prove by diverse Argu­ments.

[Page 197] Object. The proper acts of elders, Bishops, Stewards of the mysteries of God, Heralds, Ambassadors of God, watchmen, extraordinary Deacons, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers are acts of Officers, and acts of Office. This (he saith) is plain enough, for these are all names of Office in Scripture phrase. But or­dinary Preaching, interpreting and applying Scri­ptures are acts, and proper acts of elders and Bishops, 1 Tim 5. 17. of Stewards, Tit. 1. 7. 9. 1 Cor. 4. 1. Of He­ralds. 1 Tim. 2. 7. 2 Tim. 1. 11. And for Teachers none can deny it, except they can tell what the Office of a Teacher else is, and deny the very significancie of the name which carries the duty in it.

Answ. If by [proper Acts] he meaneth, such as are [not Common] to them with others, but [peculiar] to them, then we deny the Minor. None of the Scriptures alledged do prove, that Ordinary Preach­ing, interpreting and applying Scriptures are acts pe­culiar to elders, Bishops, Pastors or Teachers. They prove them to be acts which officers are to perform, but do not limit and restrain them unto Officers, or assert them to be acts which they onely may perform; Elders are to feed their flocks, Ergo none else may. Elders are to labour in word and Doctrine, and to convince gain sayers, Ergo none else (though able) may do it, or, Ergo these are acts peculiar to their Office. This doth not follow.

As for the name [Teacher] that is given, to distin­guish his gift from the gift of exhorting, Rom. 12. 7, 8. He that teacheth, on teaching, or he that exhorteth on ex­hortation. This name Teacher is not given to distinguish him that hath it from [...]on-Preachers, but from such as are Preachers whose gifts lie in exhortation. He is called a Teacher, not as if Teaching or Preaching were peculiar to, and a distinctive act of his office, for [Page 198] the Pastor may teach, and the Teacher may exhort and baptize; but to difference this gift of his from the gift of exhorting. If sheweth that every one is to give most attendance to that work which his gift lieth most towards whether it be teaching or exhorting. This doth as much deny that Pastors may Teach as that gifted brethren may: or this denieth it to be an act of the Pastors office to Teach, as much as it asserteth it to be an act peculiar to the Teacher.

If by [proper acts] he doth not mean [acts peculi­ar] to Elders, Bishops, Pastors, Teachers: then we de­ny his major. There are some proper acts of Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Teachers, which are not acts of office.

For the clearing of the whole businesse, let these things be considered.

First, That some are proper acts to a Relation, as [proper] is opposed to [improper] which yet are not proper to that relation as proper is opposed to [com­mon.]

We grant it is not improper for Elders, Bishops, Pa­stors and Teachers to preach, in this sense it is pro­per to them. Preaching is a great part of the work. But we deny that Preaching is their proper act, as pro­per is opposed to common. We say it is common to them with others to preach. Some acts belong to all in such a Relation, but not onely to those within that Relation, Competunt omni, sed non soli. To hear and see are proper acts of a man; it may properly be pre­dicated of a man, that he seeth or heareth; yet other creatures, many beasts do see and hear also. It is even naturally proper to every man to have two feet, yet o­ther creatures as birds have two feet also. So it is proper (in the first sence) for Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Teachers to Preach, but it is proper for gifted men to preach also.

[Page 199] 2. That some are proper acts (materially) of a Re­lation which are not proper acts formally of that Re­lation: Distribution is materially an act of a Deacons Office, and yet it is not formally an act of his Office, for others may distribute who are no Deacons, If we should argue thus about others acts, the fallacy would be easily seen. The proper acts of Deacons are acts of Office; but receiving and distributing of worldly goods are proper acts of Deacons. Ergo, Recei­ving and distributing of worldly goods are acts of Office.

This arguing is like that which Mr. Collings useth: but it may easily be answered that Receiving and Di­stributing are but materially proper acts of Deacons, and therefore others who are no Deacons may perform those acts; they are not formally acts of a Deacon, un­lesse performed in such a manner, under such a Relati­on, &c. So Preaching, interpreting and applying scriptures are the proper matter of those acts which Elders, Bishops, Pastors and Teachers put forth, but they are not formally acts of Elders &c. i. e. they are no acts of Elders as Elders, or of Bishops as Bishops, &c. unlesse performed in such a manner, as under such a Relation to those they are performed to. None of the Scriptures alleadged prove, that they are such proper acts as belong to them and none else.

Obj. 2. If Baptizing be an act of Office; which an Officer onely can do, then Preaching is. The reason is plain, for Christ in the same Commission authorizeth those to baptize whom he authorizeth to preach, Matth. 28 19, 20 But baptizing is an act of Office, &c. Ergo, Mr. Collings wondereth that any are thy at baptizing, and yet dare venture to preach.

Ans. This argument is answered before, it be­ing the forth Argument used by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Minister. pag. 87. we refer the [Page 200] Reader to our answers to them.

1. Our Brethren will admit un-officed men to Preach as Probationers, and yet will not admit them to baptize: and so the Argument is as well against themselves as against us.

2. That place Matth. 28. 19, 20. is not the Com­mission which authorizeth men to preach or baptize, but authorizeth the Nations or Gentiles to be preached to and baptized, by those that have power to perform such acts.

3. There is a limitation in the very Text alleadged, Matth. 28. 19. They are to preach to the Nations, the Gentiles, but they could not be Officers to them be­cause they were no members either of a universal, or any particular Church, before they were preached to, and therefore the preaching to them could be then no act of Office, because Church and Officers are Rela­tives, and here they preached to such as were no Church. But the Text requireth that they should be made disciples before they were baptized, verse 19. Disciple ye all Nations baptizing them. Now a disciple is one in the school of Christ his Church, and there­fore it is more probable that Church Officers were onely to baptize, then that they onely might preach, because Church-membership is pre-required unto bap­tism, not so to being preached to.

4. Wee finde that men out of Office are allowed to perform the same acts which have the denomination of preaching, and that for the same end: Men out of of­fice may admonish, Mat. 18. 15. and exhort, Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10 25. They are to perform these acts for this end to prevent sin, and to build up in grace, which are ends of Preaching even by Office.

Where doth the Gospel allow men out of Office to perform that act which is called baptising, and that for the proper end which that Ordinance of baptism is [Page 201] instituted for? if he cannot shew this, he may cease wondring why gifted men are shy of baptizing, and yet venture to preach.

Argument 3. Mr. Collings pag. 36. ‘This tenent, That any gifted person, if elected, and desired by the people, may ordinarily preach, open, interpret, and apply Scripture, doth necessarily tend to make this great Ordinance of the Ministerial Function frustra­neous, and of no use as to its chief act.’

Answ. We deny that it doth necessarily tend to make this great Ordinance of the Ministerial Function (i e. Office) frustraneous, or of no use as to its chief act.

To prove this Proposition, he endevoureth to prove, 1. That ordinary preaching is the chief act of the Mi­nisterial Function. 2. That it is uselesse as to this act, if every gifted person may do it.

To evince the first, That ordinary preachiug, open­ing and applying scripture is the chief act of the Mi­nisterial Function, he layeth down two or three things.

Obj. It is the first act in the Ministerial Commission, Matth. 28 19. First Preach, then baptize.

Answ. 1. What Ministerial Commission is there in­tended, we have shewen before.

2. If it were an office-making Commission, yet that doth not prove that preaching is the chief act of the Ministerial function, because it is the first act. Or­der of words is an unsafe ground to build an argu­ment upon, and here more then in other scriptures, because preaching was to be in order of time first, or before baptizing of the Gentiles, they were by preach­ing to be fitted for baptism, and therefore preaching might be first mentioned, though baptizing were the chief act.

Dr. Homes, In his Church Cases cleared, pag. 49. saith, ‘Preaching is but a preparation to baptism, and there­fore [Page 202] cannot be a greater thing then baptism. And if order of words were a forcible argument, we might prove baptizing to be the chief act, for that is put before preaching, Mark 1. verse 4.’ John did [bap­tize] in the wildernesse, and preach. Here is first bap­tizing mentioned, and then preaching.

Obj. 2. 1. Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Intimating that, he lookt upon that as the chief act of his Ministery.

Answ. 1. Some (as we shewed before) judge, that this doth not intimate preaching to be the greater work.

2. If preaching in some respects be greater then baptizing, yet baptizing may be more limited to office then preaching, seeing they must be first discipled be­fore they may be baptized, Matth. 28. 19. not before they may be preached to; and baptism being more li­mited to Church membership, hence its more like to be the act of a Church Officer.

Obj. 3. If preaching the Gospel be not the chief act of a Minister, he hath no act proper to him, but admini­string [...]he [...]acraments, for the Elders (say we) the mem­bers ( [...] brethren) have as much to do in the Govern­ment of the Church as he, &c.

Answ. 1. What a [...]ity will follow, if we say, that he hath [...] proper to him, but administring the Sa­craments? Mr. Callings giveth us nothing to evidence that such an assertion would be either against Scripture or Reason.

2. We have proved that gifted persons may preach; and if we finde a Scripture allowance for their preach­ing, and cannot finde that they have a Scripture al­lowance to administer Sacraments, there needeth no more to evidence that the administring of Sacraments is more the peculiar act of the Minister then preaching but onely that, It is enough to say, one is written, the other is not.

[Page 203] 3. Himself, aff [...]cteth, that the main work Paul had to do, was to Preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17. and yet he also useth these words in the very same page [It is plain that it was not the distinctive act of his Apostle­ship, for so his universal governing and ordering the Churches, was his chief and distinctive work.] Whence we gather that a lesser work may (according to his principles) be the chief distinctive act of a mans Of­fice, and yet a greater work, be the main work he hath to do. And so, administring of Sacraments, though a lesser work, yet may be the distinctive act of Pastors and Teachers Office, and yet Preaching be their main work: for there is no necessitie that the distinctive act should be the main work.

4. Whatever others judge, (according to our present light) Preaching is the chief, and main work of an Officer. We do ingenously confess, that place, 1 Cor. 1. 17. doth intimate to us, that it is a greater work, (especially being performed office-wise) then bapti­zing; Yet, we do not find any Scripture Rule to evi­dence, that Preaching in it self, is either an act of Office, or peculiar to the distinctive act of Office; to make it so there is required a being over them in the Lord who are Preached to, 1 Thes. 5. 12. And the Preaching as under such a special Relation to them that are Preached to, as having them committed to his charge for that end, as his flock; this we conceive, doth make Preaching an Act of office; and it is pecu­liar to office thus to Preach; and thus some Preaching is a distinctive act of Office.

This we desire may be well observed, for many are exceedingly troubled and perplexed under such thoughts as these; if gifted men may Preach, and the Church may put forth acts of government towards particular members, then there remain no Acts peculi­ar to Officers but onely administring the Sacraments, [Page 204] and these are lesser acts then Preaching and governing, and so, Officers are of very little use in the Church, and next unto Cyphers, because they can do very lit­tle more then other members may do, &c. Such work­ings (we believe) are in the breasts of many Saints. Whereas, if there were no acts performed by Officers, which in themselves were incommunicable or peculiar to them; if all acts which Officers put forth, might be performed by members who are no Officers; yet there would remain a very vast difference between of­ficers and other members, enough to speak Officers to be very necessary, and of great use in the Church. For

1. Although Officers and other members put forth the same acts, towards the same persons, yet not un­der the same Relation to the persons which such acts are put forth towards: they act under different Relati­ons, and this speaketh a vast difference between their actings. As for example; A man provideth for his children under the relation of a father, the obliga­tion he standeth under (by that relation) bindeth to provide for them; but he provideth for the poor un­der another notion: here, the acts are the same for the matter of them, yet vastly different in the manner. The relation is not the same between the workers and the porlons who are the objects of the works. So, a Christian friend or neighbonr may and ought to give gracious and wholsome instructions upon occasion, to the children of his acquaintance, and the parent of the same children ought to give them such instructions also; but, there is a vast difference between these acts, the one is under a standing ob­ligation by the parental relation to perform such acts, the other not. So, in some corporations, the power of determination of matters which concern the whole, resideth in the Bayliffes and Free-men [Page 205] of the Corporation, the Bayliffes act under a different relation to the Corporation, from that which the Free-men act under, yet they share in the power as well as the Bayliffes, and the major part may carry matters without and against the Bayliffes, when the Bayliffes would run crosse to their Char­ter.

So, in Church affairs, the Officers Preach to the flock committed to their charge to be fed by them with the word and Doctrine, as under the special relation of Pastors to the flock; and gifted men Preach also, to the same flock, but not as under such a Relation to it. So, Church-officers put forth acts of Govern­ment, the flock is committed to them for oversight, Acts 20. 28. the flock over the which the Holy-Ghost hath made you overseers, &c. They are over it in the Lord. 1 Thes. 5. 12. and are to be obeyed as over it, Heb. 13. ver. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves &c. and therefore a ministerial power of Government is granted to them by Jesus Christ, and in respect of this their place they are set in, not under but over the flock, the Church is in re­lation to its officers a Governed body, and they are stiled Governours, because a special charge of over­sight and Government is committed to them as a work and business which they are to give a special attend­ance to. Yet all the members of the Church are to have an oversight each of other, and of the Officers themselves, Col. 4. 17. Say to Archippus, take heed to the Ministry, which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it: the Colossians are exhorted to ad­monish their Officer Archippus, and so were to Over­see his conversation, else how could they know what to admonish him for? and if any brother offend, the offended (though no Officer) is to admonish; and if he doth not hear him, or one or two; not the Of­ficers [Page 206] onely, but the Church, is to admonish, Mat. 18. vers. 15. 16, 17. tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to [...]ear the Church, &c. therefore the Church is to ad­monish, else how can he hear it? and this admoniti­on is a part of Government, for, if the Church be not heard, Communion with him is to be avoided, [let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Pub­lican.]

And therefore the sole power of Government is not in the officers, the Church hath a power to put forth some acts of it. The officers, are in a special sense Governors, as being and or a more especial designation to take cognizance of, and go before the Church in the ordering its affairs, then any other particular members. No other members can rightly challenge it as their place to be over the Church, as they may. But yet, a power of Government, is granted to the Church over its particular members, though its act­ings therein be not under the Relation of office. Un­der the Relation of a whole it putteth forth acts to­wards its parts, as a boly it acteth sometimes to the cutting off particular members for the preservation of the body.

If a Church hath Officers, they by their place are to go before the Church in directing and executing determinations according to the will of Christ, but the power (under Christ) of determination, admoni­tion, and excommunication resideth in the Church, Mat. 18. 17. the acts are, not of the Officers only, but of the, Church. If a Church censureth an offender when it hath officers; the officer acts towards that offender as one set over him in the Lord, & who hath taken a soe­cial charge and oversight of his so [...], and urgeth duty upon him, because else he shall sinfully break the Law of that Relation which is between them, in crossing still the will of Christ; but the Church urgeth duty up­on [Page 207] the same offender, because he shall else not onely sin against Christ, but break the Law of his Relation to the body, which as a member he ought to keep.

If a Church hath no officers, it censureth offenders as a free people, or spiritual corporation invested by Christ with such a power, under the general Rela­tion; as a body it is to seek the preservation of it self, and if possible the healing of its diseased mem­bers. For it is a Church st [...], though it wanteth of­ficers, and so the Rule of Christ runneth to it, Mat. 18. 17. No Church of Christ can be exemped from that Rule; Communion is to be avoided with such persons as will not hear any Church of Christ when it doth admonish for such a cause as deserveth admonition.

Office-power where it is afforded, is but the super­addition of another Relation to adde more chains to the offender, if he proveth obstinate, and to prevail the more with him towards submission; but the power of the censure is in the Church, not in the officers onely. The officers are useful for the better manage­ment of censures, but have not the sole power of cen­suring. They are to Govern in censuring, but the Church hath a power to censure. Yet the Church doth not act under such a Relation in cen [...]uring, as an of­fice doth; as in acts of Government in a Corporation the Bayliffes by their place and office are over the whole Corporation, yet the Free-men may have power for Admission or ejection of members, into or out of the freedom of the place, and many by vote carry it without or against the Bayliffes, but when they concur, they act under one Relation, and the Freemen under another; and this different Relation makes a vast difference between the Bayliffes and the Freemen in their actings, though the matter of the acts be the same.

2. No distinctive Acts are necessary (by our bre­threns [Page 208] principles) for some officers: They assert-Ruling elders to be of Divine institution, and yet these have no distinctive acts which they onely may perform, the main argument that Ruling is that which is accounted their most proper work, and yet that is not accounted incommunicable; for, they grant a Rul­ing power to the Preaching elders as well as to them. If a ruling power may be communicable, without making the Ruling elders function frustraneous as to its main Act, why should the Preaching of gifted men, render the Preaching elders office frustraneous, though Preaching be his chief Act. And indeed this is it which we deny in Master Collings Argument. viz. That the ministrial function or office, is uselesse as to this Act of Preaching of every gifted person may do it. And now we expected some Scripture proof of this, the Argument being of no force if this be not proved, and all that we can find he saith to it, is this.

Object. What need any particuliar persons be by the Ordinance of God appointed, to do that which all may do?

Answ. 1. We do not say, that all may do it, but onely that those who are really gifted may do it: all Christians are not gifted.

2. If there be Scripture warrant for the Preaching of gifted men, then it is needful, whether our rea­son can see it so to be or not; for, none of Christs in­stitutions are needless.

3. The granting liberty unto gifted men to Preach, doth not render it needlesse for particular persons to be by the Ordinance of God appointed to do it: in the Primitive times the Preaching of Apostles, Evange­lists, and Prophets did not render it needlesse for Pastors and Teachers to be by an Ordinance of God appoint­ed to do it, nor did the appointing of Pastors and [Page 209] Teachers render Apostles, &c. un-necessary. It help­eth not to say, they were all officers who by divine appointment were to do the work, for we say, gifted brethren are also by divine appointment to preach; and besides, the argument is built upon this princi­ple, That what others may do, there is no need that any particular persons should be appointed by God to do, and so it will strike at those as well as others.

If every Church-member of ability may distribute to the poor, will it follow thence, that there is no need that any particular persons should be by God ap­pointed as Deacons to do it? If the inhabitants in a Town may give to the poor, yet it is not reckoned needless for Overseers to be appointed to the work. If some friends or Relations may provide for an Or­phanous child, will it follow that therefore there is no need that any should be put in trust, as Guardian for it? Surely this doth not follow.

So, neither doth it follow, that if gifted men may Preach, then it is un-needful, or un-necessary that any should be put in trust with, or have the charge of the flock committed to them, to feed it with the Word and do­ctrine.

Arg. 4. The truths of the Gospel are such, as ac­cording to Scripture warrant, are onely to be com­municated to others, by such as being faithful and able to teach others, and have those things commit­ted to them by Timothies; and private persons are not such, to whom such things are committed. Ergo, It is unlawful for such to communicate them in that man­ner. He endeavoureth to prove the proposition by that place, 2 Tim. 2. 2. And the things that thou hast heard of me amongst many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others.

Hence he taketh notice of several things.

Obj. 1. According to Gospel-order, in Gospel-Churches, [Page 210] there should be some to teach, and others to be taught, so saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. 29 A [...]e all Teachers? now according to this principle it is possible that all may be Teachers in a Church, it all be gifted.

Ans. 1. It is as possible that all in a Church may be Officers; for it they be faithful and able, by what rule can any Presbytery refuse to ordain them? this is as much against himself as against us.

2. If all were Teachers, yet whilst one Teaches, the rest that hear, are taught, 1 Cor. 14. 29, 31.

3. If all the Church should be Teachers, yet others who are unconverted would need to be taught, though the Church did not; and the Text only saith [who shall be able to teach others] whether in or of the Church.

Obj. 2. It is plain from that place, that those that teach others, must be able to teach, and faithful, not unlearned and unstable men.

Ans. That none but those who are faithfull and a­ble to teach others, are to preach we grant; and if by unlearned he meaneth men un-instructed in Gospel mysteries, we grant they are to be learned, and no other learning doth this Text require unto preach­ing; for the things to be committed to them that they might be able to preach, were the doctrines of the Gospel, which he had heard of Paul [the things thou hast heard of me. &c.]

Obj 3. These able and faithful men, before they teach o­thers, must have a Timothy or Timothies commit the Gospel to them, it is not enough that they are gifted, faithfull, &c. The word for commit (he saith) sig­nifies,

1. Sometimes meerly to propound a thing to others, and set it before them, thus often, Mat. 13. 24. v. 31. Mark 8. 6, 7. Luke 9. 16. 10. ch. 8. Luke 11. 6. Acts 16. 34. Acts 17. 3. 1 Cor. 10. 27.

2. Sometimes to commit a thing as in trust, when a [Page 211] thing is commited to some and not to others, so Luke 12. 48. Luk. 23. 46. and so Acts 14. 23. Acts 20. 32. So Paul com­mitted the charge to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1. 18 so 1 Pet. 4. 19, &c. Either Timothy was to lay open doctrines, such things as be had heard from Paul, viz. the truths of the Gos­pel of Christ, or else he was to commit them to some that is to appoint some to whom he might intrust those truths with as publike Treasurers, to dispense them out.

Ans. 1. We conceive that a committing the truths of the Gospel which he had heard from Paul doctrinally, is intended in this place.

1. The word is often used only for a committing things doctrinally to others, as Mr. Collings granteth; and seeing it will bear this sense, there must be some speciall reason in the Text to restain it unto the other sense, else an argument from the word taken in the other sense, cannot be cogent.

2. That the word is in this place to be taken onely for a committing Gospel truths to them doctrinally appeareth.

1. Because the end of this committing Gospel truths to them is, to make them [able] to teach o­thers: suppose there were any such act to be per­formed in ordination as a committing the Gos­pell by the Ordainers to the ordained, yet this committing of it to them could not make them able to teach others, unless they will say that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are conferred in ordination, which cannot be proved. Nay, they cannot warrantably ordain any, but such as before were able to teach o­thers, and therefore the ability is not conferred by ordination.

But this committing is to make men able to teach others, as the words do plainly shew, 2 Tim. 2. 2. The same commit thou to faithful men, who [shall be able] to teach others. He doth not say commit them to men [Page 212] that [are able] at present to teach others, as if the abi­lity were to be antecedent to this committing the things to them; but who [shall be able] in future time, or for the time to come; so that this committing is to make them able. Many that are faithful, are not suffici­ently instructed to teach others, and therefore he bids Timothy teach them the way of God more perfectly, as they did Apollo, Act. 18. 26. that they may be able to teach o­thers. And so this proveth an argument against him. Those that are faithful, and so well instructed in Gos­pel truths, that they are able to teach others, may and ought to lay forth their abilities that way. But many un-ordained men are such, Ergo,

2 Because it doth not appear from other Scriptures, that any such committing of Gospel truths (as he speak­eth of) by men, is required unto a call, no not to a call to office: Election and Ordination are both compleat without it. We read not a word of it, Act. 6. Act. 13. & 14. The Lord doth commit the Gospel to Officers, and make them Trustees thereof, for such a Church as a man by his last Will and Testament doth commit his child, and an Estate to maintain it with, to some faith­ful friend: but we find nothing in the Scripture of mans committing the Gospel to man, but doctrinally Paul in a doctrinal way committed that charge to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1. 18. for Timothy was a Minister before, and therefore this committing it to him, could not autho­rize him to preach.

Obj. If Timothy were onely to commit them to some, that is, to declare them to some, and set them before their eyes, what means the resurrection of faithful men, & men able to teach others: Surely Timothy was to preach those truths, not only to such as were faithful, but to such as were unfaithful, that they might learn to be faithful, not only to such as were able to teach others, but to such as were to be taught; therfore it must follow, that it is the other committing that is meant.

[Page 113] Ans. 1. It is not said, commit them to such as [are able], but who [shall be able]; it is the committing these Gospel truths to them that maketh them able, and therefore it is in a doctrinal way onely.

2. That Restriction is necessary, as well to shew that unfaithful & unconverted ones are not fit to be Preach­ers, as also to shew that more then faithfulness is ne­cessary to fit a man to teach others, viz. gifts or abi­lities, as the following words shew, they must be [able] as well as faithful. Many faithful men are not able to teach others, and so though they be faithful, yet they need to have Gospel truths committed to them in a doctrinal way, to render them able for that work; and therefore this doth not make it follow that the other committing is meant.

Ans. 2. Suppose the other committing be meant, then it may be understood of Preachers by Office, and it is not exclusive (as Mr. Shepherd observeth) but private men gifted may do it; other Scrip­tures allow them that liberty.

Though the Apostle speaketh de re [teach others] and not expressely, de modo, of the manner of performance, authoritatively, office-wise, &c. yet the manner must necessarily be understood, else it will not help him at all. For some teaching of others, he cannot deny to be allowed to ordinary believers, to whom the Gospel is not committed in that sence he pleadeth for. He will grant that a private Christian may privately teach o­thers; it is the teaching publikely by persons gifted un­ordained, which he opposeth. And the Text speaketh no more of that, then of preaching office-wise; we may as safely read it thus, Who shall be able to teach others [office-wise]; as he may read it thus, Who shall be able to teach others [publikely.]

Arg. 5. Whosoever may lawfully preach the Gospel, and interpret Scriptures, may warrantably require a [Page 114] maintenance competent for them, of the Church to which they so preach, 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mat. 10. 10. All Gospel labourers are worthy of their hire; but they are Gospel labourers, Ergo, Gal. 6. 6. But all those members in a Church that are gifted, cannot require a compe­tent maintenance of the Church in which they are, ac­cording to Scripture rules; Therefore they cannot lawfully preach the Gospel ordinarily.

Ans. The Scriptures alleaged, speak of a constant preaching, so as to make it a mans work, or calling to preach, Mat. 10. 10. the Apostles were to make it their employment, and 1 Tim. 5. 18. he speaketh of Officers, whose work and calling it was, v. 17. The elders, &c. Gal 6. 6. he that is constantly taught, is to communicate to such as do constantly teach him, and if by ordinarily he intendeth thus much, then we grant his Major, That whosoever may lawfully make it their work and cal­ling, constantly to preach the Gospel to a Church, may warrantably require a maintenance of the Church to which they so preach.

But his Minor is very faulty both in the matter and form. There is in it, Fallacia tertii argumenti, the third argument is changed, it is not assumed in the Assumption as it is in the Proposition, but there is a change not onely in the sence, but even in the tearms. His Major saith, they may require a maintenance of the Church [to which they so pre [...]ch]; and his Minor saith, they cannot require it, of the Church [in which they are] We say, they may warrantably (by Scrip­tures he alleageth) require a maintenance of the Church to which they so preach, i. e. to which they constant­ly preach, making it their work and calling so to do, and this is all that his Minor can deny from that Ma­jor, and in that sence we deny his Minor. None of the places quoted do prove that they may require a maintenance of the Church [in which they are]; but [Page 215] they may prove that they may require it of the Church [to which they so preach]. But then,

1. It concludeth not, that they may require a main­tenance when they preach but occasionally and not constantly; which is often the cause where many gifted men are in a Church. They cannot all constantly preach to the Church in which they [are] as members; there cannot be time or opportunity for them all to speak, or for others to hear constantly. There were many brethren gifted in the primitive Churches, as Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. yet it will hardly be proved that they might all require a maintenance of that Church.

2. If a Church hath many gifted men, and they be desired to preach constantly to other Churches, or to the world, they may require a maintenance of those that are constantly taught by them, though they cannot require it of the Church in which they are, as mem­bers. And thus it doth not tie ungifted brethren to maintain all those that are gifted, but onely such as constantly preach to them, which is a duty they may be able to perform. If men preach occasionally at Lec­tures, may they require a maintenance competent for this? or might those Disciples, Act. 15. 32, 33. require a maintenance for their occasional preaching. Where there are many gifted men in a Church, they cannot all exercise constantly, but only occasionally to that Church, and so cannot require a maintenance.

His sixth Argument about Mission we answered before.

His seventh Argument, That the Churches of Christ in all ages have rejected this opinion and practice, we deny. But we are to follow Churches no further then they follow Christ, and the primitive Churches we have shewn practised what we have pleaded for.

Thus we have answered objections against the preaching of gifted men un-ordained.

CHAP. XI.

Concerning Election, as belonging to a particular Church.

HAving shewed, That Office is a Relation to a par­ticular Church, and that some men who are not ordained Officers, may preach; we shall now proceed to speak something concerning the requisites to an Of­ficer, about which the opinions of men are various, some place the essence of the call to Office, in Election, others in Ordination. We shall pass over what our brethren in their Jus Divinum Minist. Evang. lay down, concerning an immediate call to the Ministery, and shall reply onely to what they say, about a medi­ate call. Many Arguments here they level against the Congregational way, which we cannot but account a way of Christ, and this hath been a great provo­cation to us, to this undertaking. The main thing they drive at, is to prove,

1. That the essence of a call to office, doth not con­sist in Election, but in Ordination.

2. That it belongeth to a Presbytery to Ordain.

We shall proceed to their Propositions concerning Election.

Proposit. 1. ‘That the Election of a Minister doth not by Divine right belong wholly and solely to the Major part of eve­ry Jus Divin. Mi­nist. pag. 127. particular Congregation.’

To prove this, they undertake to examine the Texts brought for Election, and to shew what mischiefs will (they say) inevitably follow from the Assertion.

1. The first Text for the peoples Election is, Act. 1. 23. from the choice of Mathias into the office of an Apostle, by the 120 Disciples there present. Against this they have several Objections.

[Page 217] Object. 1. Those words, and they appointed two, do in all probability relate to the Apostles, and not to the disci­ples; it is said, vers 17. he was numbred with us, that is with the Apostles, not with the disciples, and so vers. 21. and vers. 5. 22. with us Apostles, and then followes, And they appointed, that is, the Apostles, and not the 120. Disciples.

Answ. 1. It was the 120. Disciples that the exhor­tation was given to, by Peter about chusing an Apo­stle, Ergo, It was the 120. Disciples that did chuse.

That Peters Sermon, purposely to put upon a choice, as the scope, end, drift and design of it, should be directed to 120. and that but eleven of that number, should be intended to be the chusers; when no Chara­cters are given in the Sermon, to limit it under the 11. scundeth very harsh. The exhortation is not given to the 11. more then to the rest of the 120. as appears ver. 15. In those dayes Peter standing up in the midst of the Disciples, said (and the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty, &c) The persons spo­ken to were [the Disciples] and the number of the Disciples is said to be [about an hundred and twenty.] And that the Holy-Ghost would not passe over the history without mentioning the number (though in a parenthesis) is very remarkable to notifie that the 120. were to act in the choice; because, chusing was but the yielding obedience to Peters admonition; and if all spoken to, had not been to act therein, the notifi­cation of the number had been needness, and why was the speech directed to any more then the eleven? It cannot he gathered from the speech that onely the eleven were to chuse, it doth not signifie or give a knowledge that some should chuse and some not, and therefore all the 120. were to concur in it.

2. It is no way improper that [with us, ver. 17. 21, 22] should be understood of the Apostles onely, and yet [Page 218] the twelve Disciples to be intended vers. 23. when it is said [they appointed two] For, the former verses hold out the words of Peter, the person speak­ing, but the latter holdeth out the practise of the persons spoken to upon the exhortation vers 23. they appointed two, now the persons spoken to, were the 120. ver. 15. if the question be asked, who appoint­ed two? the answer is. vers. 23. [They] i. e. They that Peter Preached to and exhorted to the work, and that was the 120. [They] i. e. the Disciples, [they] i. e. the 120. for they were spoken to ver. 15. about chusing, and therefore [they] appointed two.

3. The same persons by whose common consent Mathias was numbred among the eleven Apostles, were they that appointed or chose them: for, it is as im­proper that ver. 26. should relate to the 120. as v. 17. 21, 22. Now, themselves interpret ver. 26. of the 120. they say the word [...] here must neces­sarily be taken for the general consent and approbati­on of the whole company; and therefore ver. 23. re­ferreth to the whole company also.

Object. 2. The whole and sole power of chusing was not in the people, for they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apostles, vers. 21, 22. of those men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, &c.

Answ. 1. The direction was given before the Election, and therefore the Election might be wholly and solely in the particular Congregation not with­standing that direction: if a Minister Preaching be­fore the chusing of Parliament men shall tell the peo­ple that they ought to Elect men searing God, &c. or if the Magistrate telleth the Electors that the Elected must be so qualified, will any say, therefore the Election doth not belong wholly and solely to the major part of the people? So, Peters giving a word [Page 219] of direction before the choice, vers. 21, 22. doth not hinder the Election from the appertaining wholly and solely to the major part of the 120. Disciples; For the Election was in order of time after that direction.

2. This would evidence rather that it was the 120. Disciples, and not the 11. Apostle only, that were the Electers; For, will any say that Peter had a Superi­ority or power over the other Apostles to limit and di­rect them in their choice? did not the other Apostles know as well as Peter, that one was to be chosen out of that company? it were too Popish an assertion to say that Peter had such a power over the other Apostles as to guide, direct, limit and determine them in their actings; which must be in this case, if the guidance and direction were such as hindred the persons guided and directed from having the whole and sole power of chusing. For, it is Peter that is the person speak­ing (not the eleven Apostles as they suggest.) vers. 15. Peter stood up and said and if the Apostles had been the onely Electors (and not the 120. Disciples) then Peter had such a power over them; for it is certain, that to whom it did belong to chuse, them Peter direct­ed, vers. 21, 22. how to chuse; whom should he direct else? And if the direction were such as hindred their having the whole and sole power of chusing who were guided and directed, then Peter was over them; nay, this will deny the other Apostles to be the Electors as well as the 120. Disciples, and then they con­tradict their first objection, from vers. 17. 21. 22. 23. that saith, they appointed, that is, the Apostles; now it must not be the Apostles neither. But, because it was the rest of the 120. rather then the Apostles that needed direction about chusing; therefore they were the Electors.

Ob. 3. The people cannot (in any good construction) be said [Page 120] to have chosen Mathias any more then Barsabas, for they appointed two, the truth is, Mathias was chosen by God himself, and by God onely, ver. 24.

Answ. It is certain that the Disciples had a stroak in this matter, and went as far as any humane suffrages could go, where the office was extra­ordinary, ver. 23. They i. e. the Disciples appointed two. The Election of two, was given to the Disciples, one of which was certainly determined should be the Apostle. But the Election of the one, or final deter­mination which of those two should be the Apostle, this did belong to God onely, and thence chusing is attributed to God. vers. 24. Shew whether of these thou hast chosen.

And if God onely had not thus chosen him, he should have wanted an Immediate call of God, and so had not been an Apostle. But the Disciples did chuse, and then God chose also.

And if the Lord would grant thus much to men in the case of an extraordinary Officer, let men beware, of abridging the people of this liberty, in the case of ordinary Officers, or of making such a light matter as they do of the peoples Election.

2. The second Text alledged for the peoples Electi­on is, Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons, where the whole and sole power of chusing is put into the hands of the people; and therefore the choice of a Minister belongs by Divine right wholly & solely un­to the people. Against this they have two objections.

Object. 1. The people had not the whole and the sole choice of the Deacons, but were herein guided, directed and limited by the holy Apostles, they were limited to the number of seven, and to the company out of which those seven were to be chosen, and to certain qualifications which must be in these seven as we are confident that if the brethren had failed in any of these particulars, the Apostles [Page 221] would have refused to have laid their hands upon them.

Ans. 1. It is plain that the Apostles referred the E­lection wholly and solely here to the people; Ast. 6. v. 2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples unto them, and said v. 3. Look [ye] out among you seven men, v. 5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and (they) chose Stephen. What can be more evident? [the whole multitude] are said to [chuse.]

2. The Apostles guiding, directing and limiting the choice doth not hinder the peoples having the whole and sole power of chusing the Deacons.

1. Because those directions and limitations were antecedaneous to the Election, even in order of time before it, and therefore had no ingrediency into the Election, as any part thereof: a Judge of As­size and a Jury have the whole and sole power of determining cases, and yet there were Laws and Rules prescribed before-hand, by which they are to walk, and which they are to observe in their deter­minations.

A Corporation hath the whole and sole power to chuse its Officers. Mayor, Bayliffs, &c. and yet there are certain rules and Laws to direct and limit them therein.

2. Because the same Rules, directions, and limi­tations, are left in holy Writ to be observed in all Elections to whomsoever the power of chusing doth appertain; and therefore if the Apostles guiding, directing, and limiting the choice of Deacons did hinder the peoples having it, then also it doth de­ny any on Earth to have the whole and sole power of Election; for any that are Electors, are under the same obligation to walk by those rules in all substan­tials, as much as the people then were, onely they recei­ved the directions immediately from the mouth of the Apostles, others in ages since, receive them mediately, or by the written Word.

[Page 222] And the people may have recourse to that word for them now. If they will grant that all other requisites to Election, belong to the major part of a particular Church, besides the prescribing of Rules, and limit­ing to qualifications, in the choice, it is as much as any that we know of, plead for; Christ who is the onely Law giver hath prescribed these in his word already, to whom alone it belongeth; it is a whole and sole power of Election according to those Rules of Christ that is contended for. And it is observable that when the Apostle writeth to Timothy and Titus he giveth such directions, and limiteth to certain qualifications in the constituting of either Elders or Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. ver. 2, 3 &c. A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, &c. ver. 8. Likewise must the Deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, &c. so Titus 1. vers. 6, 7, &c.

And therefore if these things were written to Timo­thy and Titus as Church officers (as our brethren would have it) then, the whole and sole power of Election belongeth to no body, neither to the people nor the Presbyters, if a being guided, directed and limited can hinder it▪ for, as the people were guided and limited, 1 Act. 6. So then were the Presbyters. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Yea, if those Epistles were written unto Timo­thy and Titus with the reference unto Ordination, then this objection will prove, that the whole and sole power of Ordination doth not belong to Presbyters as much as that the power of Election doth not belong to the major part of the Church; for, then Timothy and Titus were guided and limited about Ordination as well as the people were, Acts 6. about Election.

3. If the Apostles would have refused to have laid their hands upon them, if the brethren had failed in any of those particulars; yet at the utmost that can prove no more but this, that they should have wanted [Page 223] Ordination, it doth not at all deny that the whole and the sole power of Election belongeth to the people: Election is antecedent to, and compleat without Or­dination, and hence it is distinguished from it, Act. 6. v. 5. they chose Stephen; there is election, v. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them; there is Ordination, and it is distinct from, and in order of time consequential to Election; and there­fore if the Apostles had refused to ordain them, that could not have denyed the people to have the whole and sole power to Elect them.

But in such a case it is supposable, that by the per­swasion of the Apostles, the people would have re­voked their first, and have made a second choice, when they were convinced that they had failed in the former, and so may Churches do now, by the perswa­sion of others. And in case the people had refused to make a new choice, and the Apostles had refused to ordain those that were chosen, what the event would have been, as that Text doth not, so it is not apper­taining to the present question to determine; and how such a refusal to ordain those that were not qualified according to the word, doth deny the people to have the whole and sole power to Elect such as are qualifi­ed according to the Word, we see not.

And where such a failing is, if the Election be rendred frustraneous, it seemeth to be the want of a due observation of Gospel rules in chusing, rather then the want of Ordination, that doth make it void. Besides, whether such an Election be not void with­out Ordination, and whether Ordination be not fru­strate without a precedent Election (seeing Election is pre-required, Act. 6.) are things equally difficult to determine.

Obj. 2. But suppose that the people had the whole and sole choice of the Deacons, yet it will not follow, that there­fore [Page 224] they should have the whole and sole choice of their Mi­nisters, for it is a certain rule, Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirmative. It is no good way of arguing to say, that because a man is able to do the lesser, therefore he is able to do the greater. Now the office of a Deacon is inferior to the office of a Presbyter, &c.

Answ. 1. Our brethren use the same Argument from the lesser to the greater Affirmatively, and take it from this very instance of Deacons. Surely they might take such Coyn, as they pay to others.

‘To Prove Ordination of Ministers to be an Ordinance of Christ, in Jus Divin. Minist. p. 1. pag. 158. this very book they use this Argu­ment.’

[In the very choice of Deacons which was but an in­ferior office; and serving onely for the distribution of the temporal estates of people, the Apostle requires, that they should not only be Elected by the people, but also ordained to this Office, much more ought this to be done in the choice of persons who are called to the work of Preaching and dispensing Sacramental myste­ries, a service of all others of greatest weight and worth.]

These are their own words, in which the Reader may see that they argue not onely from the lesser to the greater, but even to the greatest, and that Affir­matively.

The Argument is the same, and as forcible if we apply it to Election; and say thus,

In the very choice of their Deacons, which was but an inferiour Office, the people had the power of Election; much more ought they to have the choice of their Pastors, who are to be exercised in the work of Preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries, which are services of all others of greatest weight and worth.

[Page 225] 2. An Argument from that which is both lesser in it self, and also in probability, to that which is greater, may not be valid Affirmatively: we grant it is no good way of arguing to say, because a man is able to do the lesser, therefore he is able to do the greater.

Our brethren are mistaken, if they think that we argue thus, the people are able to chuse Deacons, Ergo, they are able to chuse Pastors. That the people have abilitie to chuse their Pastors, is not the immediate conclusion of our Argument from Act. 6. but, that Christ hath granted the people a liberty or power to elect their Pastors, this is it which we strictly conclude thence, and in the second place we may argue; That because Christ hath granted them liberty or power to chuse their Pastors, therefore he hath given them ability to do it.

These are two distinct questions. 1. whether the peo­ple have abilitie to chuse their Pastors? 2. whether Christ hath granted the people, or a particular Church liberty and power to chuse them; It is the latter of the two, which we determine Affirmatively from Act. 6. If their abilitie to chuse their Pastors be questioned, we have many other Mediums to prove that by, as John 10. v. 4. The sheep follow him (i. e. Christ) for they know his voice, v. 5. And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voyce of strangers and v. 14. 27. Whence it is evident that not only Church-officers, as Pastors and Teachers, but the sheep of Christ who are to be fed or Taught, even they have abilitie to di­scern whether it be Christs voice, or the voice of stran­gers which they hear, whether they be such Teach­ers as they are to follow, or such as they are to flee from, and what can be required more to give abilitie for Election, but a knowledge what Teachers they are to own, and who are to be avoided? our Bre­thren at other times will grant, that the peoples choice maketh a man their Minister, their Pastor, and how [Page 126] could this be, if they had not ability to chuse? and why is it that they here argue against their having the whole and sole power of Election? if Officers lay claim not onely to Ordination, but also to part of Election, it will be next unto nothing that they will leave to the people.

3. An Argument from the Lesse to the Greater, in probability or in the causes of it, though the thing also be greater in it self, yet is valid affirmatively in Divine things: from that which is less credible, lesse likely, hath less apparent grounds and causes for it, to that which is more credible, more likely, hath more apparent grounds and causes for it, is a good way of arguing, and that affirmatively; and therefore it is not a certain rule which our Brethren give, that Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirma­tive.

The Scripture is frequent in such arguings, as Mat. 6. v. 26. Behold the fowls of the Air, your heavenly father feedeth them, are ye not much better then they? v. 30. If God so cloath the grass of the field, which to day is, and and to morrow is cast into the oven; shall be not much more cloath you, O ye of little faith? Luk. 12. v. 6, 7. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God, but even the very hairs of your head are all numbred, fear not therefore, ye are of more value then many sparrows, Luk. 11. v. 13. If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him.

The Argument from the Less to the Greater affir­matively, is urged in all these instances; from the Lords taking care of the Lillies of the field, and the fowls of the air, which are of less value, he argueth that he will take care of his own people, who are of Greater value, or far better then they. From [Page 227] earthly Fathers providing for their children, he affir­meth with a much more, that our heavenly Father will provide for his children, things far Greater in them­selves. And the same is our Argument, from Act. 6. If the Lord would have the people have the whole and sole choice of their Deacons, who were to take care of their bodies and worldly goods, much more would the Lord have the people have the whole and sole choice of their Pastors and Teachers, who are to take care of their souls; as Dr. Ames saith, There are more and more weighty causes requiring the consent of the Church, in appointing Pastors, then in appointing Dea­cons.

Indeed the spiritual welfare of souls is promoted or hindred, according to the sutableness, or unsuta­bleness of the Teachers; as the comfort of the natu­ral life would many times be lost, if a man should be forced to take a woman to be his wife without chusing her, or a woman were forced to have a man for her husband that she did not chuse; yea, though the par­ties might be gracious that were so taken unchosen: So, the comfort of the spiritual life would often be lost, if such Pastors were obtruded upon Churches as they did not chuse, and many temptations they might be exposed to in the case of unsutable Pastors, more then in the case of unsutable Deacons; and therefore the whole and sole power of chusing Pastors, apper­taineth to the Church.

But you may take it thus; If the Apostles would not have so much as Deacons made without Election by the Church, much less would they have Pastors ob­truded upon them without their Election, or then they would not make them Pastors without their having the whole and sole power of chusing them; and then it is Argumentum a minori ad majus Negative.

[Page 228] 3. The third Text alleaged by us, for the peoples Election is, Act. 14. 23, When they had created them by suffrages Elders in every City. Against this they al­leage several things.

Object. 1. Though the word [...] signifieth pri­marily and properly, to chuse, by listing up of the hands, as [...] signifieth to chuse by stones or counters, yet al­so it oftentimes signifieth simply to chuse, or to appoint, or to ordain, without the use of the ceremony of lifting up of bands; thus it must necessarily be taken, Act. 10. 41.

Ans. 1. It being granted by themselves, that [...] signifieth primarily and properly, [to chuse by lifting up of the hands]; [...]ence we are to stick to that, unless some special reason forbids it. As Dr. Ames saith in answer to Bellarmine; ‘We are not to recede from the native signification of any word, in inter­preting Scriptures, unless it be manifestly repugnant to the sence of the context; let our Brethren shew a reason why, in this place, it must not be taken pro­perly.’

2. As the said Dr. Ames observeth, ‘No example can be given from the Metaphorical sence, but Act. 10: 41. where by Analogy it is transferred from men to God; and as he goeth on, Quid autem in hominum usu significet vox aliqua, non debemus aut possumus ex eo sensu statuere quem habet Deo tributa: sed contra, quiae primo creaturis imposita fuerunt hujusmodi nomina, & po­stea adres divinas imperfecte notandas applicata. Other answers they may find to this objection, given by Dr. Ames in the same place.

3. As for Act. 10. 41. unto witnesses [chosen before] of God, as the word must be taken for a chusing with­out the use of the ceremony of lifting up of hands; so also it must necessarily be taken there for a chusing without laying on of hands; for, as God properly hath no hands to lift up, so neither to lay on; and there­fore [Page 229] if [...], must be taken Act. 14 23. in the same sense that it is Act. 10. 41. then it cannot be meant of Ordination by laying on of hands.

4. If it doth signifie simply to chuse, appoint or constitute; still it proveth, that the whole and sole power of chusing Elders belongeth to the people whether it were with or without the lifting up of hands.

5. If the word [...] be understood of Ordi­nation by imposition of hands, then it must be granted that there is expresse Rule and example in the New Testament for the peoples ordaining by laying on of hands; for not onely here, is it given to the peo­ple, or Church [...] but also, 2 Cor. 8. 19. who was also [chosen] of the Churches to travel with us [...]. It is not said he was chosen of the Elders or Officers, but of the Churches; and therefore if it signifieth an ordaining by impo­sition of hands, then the Churches may so Ordain.

Object. 2. Whatsoever is meant by [...], yet certain we are that the persons that did [...], were Paul and Barnabas, and not the people; for it is said expressely, And when they had ordained them Elders, This they must needs be Paul and Barnabas; it is six times used of them in five verses, vers. 21: 22. when they had Preached, &c. they returned to Lystra confirm­ing the souls of the Disciples, and ver. 5. 23. when they had ordained, &c. and had prayed they commended them to the Lord, and vers. 14. After they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came, &c. and they Preached, by all which it appears that the persons that did ordain were Paul and Barnabas, &c.

Ans. 1. As Paul and Barnabas are spoken of and noti­fied by [they] in some verses, so the disciples are also spoken of in others, v. 20. [The Disciples] stood round a­bout him, &c. yea in the verse foregoing that alledged, [Page 230] the Disciples are mentioned twice. vers. 22. Con­firming the souls of [the Disciples] and exhorting [them] to continue in the faith, &c. vers. 23. And chu­sing them elders by suffrages in every Church, or when [they] had chosen them elders by suffrages in every Church, &c. [They] may have reference to [the disciples] as well as to Paul and Barnabas, for the Disciples were spoken of in the very verse before, when [they] i. e. the Disciples, they that were confirmed, when they had chosen them elders, &c.

2. Saith Doctor Ames, ‘we do not de­ny that Paul and Barnabas did give Bell. Enerv. F. 2 l. 3. c. 2. their suffrages, but that [they onely] gave them. If this [they] must needs refer to Paul and Barnabas, yet it may include the Disciples also, and therefore it is too hasty a conclusion, that the per­sons that did [...] were Paul and Barnabas, and [not the people] where elders are in Churches, they may give their suffrages with the people, though they do it not as officers, but as members. And then it runs thus, wher [they] ie. Paul and Barnabas with the rest of the Disciples, had chosen them elders by suffrages in evary Church, &c.’

3. They i. e. Paul and Barnabas may be said [...] because they went before the Disciples in the Election, and yet the whole and sole power of chusing might be in the people: it might be the voyce of the major part of the Church, that was the determining Rule who should be chosen, yet the officers might be said to chuse, because they regulated and directed in the choice; as in a Parliament and other Assembles the Chair-man moderateth and ordereth proceedings, and yet the major vote carrieth it, and possibly against him. ‘It is observed, that it is very fre­quent, when things are done by a Ainsworth. on numb. 21. 21. multitude where one is chief, that the [Page 231] on is ascribed either to the multitude, or to him that is chief indifferently, as they made peace with [David] and served him, 1 Chr. 19. 19. or they made peace with [Israel] and served them, as another Prophet recordeth it, 2 Sam. 10. 19. So [Jehoiadia he] brought forth the Kings son, and [he] put the crown upon him, 2 Kin. 11. 12. Or [they] brought forth the Kings son, and [they] put upon him the crown, 2 Chr. 23. 11. and [they] of­fered burnt-offerings. 1 Chr. 16. 1. or [David] offered burnt-offerings, 2 Sam. 6. 17. So Deut. 2. 26. Moses saith, [I] sent messengers unto Sihon King, and Num. 21. 21. And [Israel] sent messengers unto Sihon King of the Amorites &c. So it may be ascribed to Paul and Bar­nabas that they chose elders, Act. 14. 23. and yet the power of chusing might belong to the people: And therefore if this [they] must needs be Paul and Barna­bas, yet I cannot deny the people to be the chusers, or it wil not follow thence, that the people did not chuse, any more then in the forementioned places making peace with Israel will deny making peace with David; or that the peoples being the [they] 2 Ch. 23. 11. 1 C. 16. 1. will make it follow that Jehoiada and David acted not, or had not a power of acting therein, whereas the actions are ascribed to them 2 Ki. 11, 12., 2 Sam. 6. 17.’

4. It cannot be meant of a chusing or ordaining on­ly by Paul and Barnabas, as may appear.

1. Because the word [...], is never used in all the Scripture for Ordination or imposition of hands; and therefore (without a special reason) it cannot admit of such a sense in this place.

Nay, we cannot find that any Authors before Lukes time, did ever use the word, for such ordaining; and what reason can there be to take it in this place, in a different sense from its constant usage both in Scri­pture and all writers?

2. Because there are other words used in Scripture [Page 232] for Ordination and imposition of hands as [...], that aptly expresse the action, which this word doth not. And who can conceive that Luke would use the word here, in such a sense as was unheard of be­fore, when other words are not wanting by which the thing might better be signified?

3. Because the proper and native signification of the word forbideth that Paul and Barnabas should be the onely persons that did [...] for, the word signifieth to chuse or create by suffrages, and they being but two, there could be no place for suffrages.

That a choice should be said to be made by most voyces, or the lifting up of the hand in token of chusing, and yet but two to give their voices, is not imaginable. And that the choice should be made amongst a multitude, or in the presence of an Assem­ly, as here it was [in every Church,] and yet but two to be the persons chusing, is still more unconceivable. ‘Saith Dr. Ames. Nullum exemplum dari potest Bell. Ener. F. 2. p. 97. ubi [...] significat in coetu eligere, it a ut suffragium unius, aut duorum tantum expecietur.

4. Because the thing intended by [...] in this place must be Antecedent to and distinct from, ordain­ing by prayer with fasting, for the words run thus, Act. 14. 23. And when they had chosen them elders by fuffrages in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, &c. the Apostle plainly distinguisheth these actions 1. They chuse elders 2. prayed with fasting. He menti­oneth two acts, and chusing is the first, or before the fasting and praying, and therefore the chusing (whe­ther it be with, or as our brethren would have it, with­out lifting up of hands) cannot be Ordination, which consisteth in prayer with fasting which are here said to be consequential thereunto. [...] here, can­not expresse the whole of Ordination, for then there were a Tautologie in the Text; our Brethrens Third [Page 233] assertion is, ‘That Ordination of Mini­sters Jus Divin. Min. p. 170. ought to be by prayer▪ fasting, and imposition of hands;’ and if [...] compre­hendeth all these, then the words [...]ound thus, [And when they had prayed, fasted, and laid their hands on Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting] As such vain repetitions are not found in holy Writ, so they are unpleasant to the very ear; And, seeing the supply of Churches with new Officers, is the thing un­doubtedly spoken of, hence the praying and fasting, ex­pressely mentioned in this Text, cannot rationally be deemed to be any other then that which was usual in such cases of ordaining Officers; and if so, then [...] doth not expresse the whole of Ordination, for prayer is the chiefest part, if not the whole of it, and that is mentioned by it self after. Neither can it de­note only imposition of hands; for, generally in the new Testament, laying on of hands with Ordination, is set after prayer & fasting, as Act. 6. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them; so Act. 13 3. and onely in this Text should that order of words & actions be in­verted, which is the more unlikely, because it is such a sense as the Scripture never useth it in, nay, it is against the very importance of the word; for it denoteth a lif­ting up of hands, not a laying down, or on, of hands.

It remaineth that the word [...], must be ta­ken for a chusing by suffrages, or simply for chusing, and either way it could not be Paul and Barnabas only that did [...], as appeareth.

5. Because the power of Election or chusing of Offi­cers is never (that we can find) given to the Officers, but is given to the people, Act. 6. We desire Scripture, that Election or chusing of Officers, doth belong to Officers only, else Paul & Barnabas could not be the only persons that did [...]. None can shew any Scripture for ob­truding an Officer upon a Church, without its chusing of [Page 234] him, and therefote it cannot be restrained to them, as if they were the only chusers, but we must interpret it by other Scripture phrases, where actions seem to be limited to a few persons or to one single person, and more concurred or were Co-acters, if not the sole in­struments therein: several instances we gave be­fore, we shall adde one or two more, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of [my hands]; Here [my] hath as clear a reference, and doth as much limit the action to Paul, as in the other place [they] can limit or restrain the chusing to Paul and Bar­nabas; and yet others, a Presbytery, concurred with Paul, for he saith, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; so Joh. 3. 26. & 4. v. 1, 2. Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disci­ples. Because it was by the command and direction of Jesus Christ, that his Disciples did baptize, there­fore Jesus is said to baptize, when the Disciples onely were the Administrators of baptism. So, Paul and Barnabas may be the [they] who are said [...], to chuse by suffrages, because by their command or di­rection, Elders were chosen, although possibly Paul and Barnabas did not vote at all, or concurre in the least in the act of chusing, but left that wholly to the Churches. And taking it thus, many inconvenien­cies that attend other interpretations will be avoided, and the requisites to those new Officers, are clearly found in the Text. Here is,

1. Election in its proper place, before Ordination, as it was, Act. 6. v. 5, 6. The Deacons were first cho­sen, And after that they prayed and laid on hands. So here by the direction of Paul and Barnabas, the peo­ple first chose Elders in every Church by suffrages, or lifting up of hands; and thus the native signification [Page 235] of that word is retained, and the peoples priviledge preserved, to whom the chusing power doth belong; for by their own grant, they could not be their Mini­sters, their Pastors, their Shepherds, without their chu­sing of them, and these were to be made their Pa­stors, their Elders, for such are said to be created in every Church; therefore here was an appropriating of these Elders to those Churches, by their chusing of them, and [...], so aptly expressing, so undenia­ble a requisite to such a matter as the Apostle is trea­ting of, we wonder that any should offer to vex and trouble the Text, by forcing a sence upon the word, which the Scripture knoweth nothing of.

2. Ordination, which is holden forth by those words [And had prayed with fasting]. And thus we have removed the objections against the Scriptures alleaged for the peoples having the whole and sole power of Election.

Their second Argument to prove, that the power of Election of Ministers, doth not by Divine right be­long wholly and solely to the Major part of every particular congregation, is drawn from the mischief that (they say) will inevitably flow from this asserti­on. And four mischiefs they speak of.

Obj. 1. It is certain that every one that is to be made a Minister, is first of all to be tryed and proved, whether he be fit for so great an office, 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let these also be proved, &c. these also, that is, the Deacons as well as the Bishops: the Bishop therefore is to be tryed and ex­amined, whether he be apt to teach, whether he be able to convince gain-sayers. Now there are many Congregations, wherein the Major part are very unfit to judge of Ministe­rial abilities, and if the whole and sole power were in them, they would set up Idol-Shepher ds instead of able Shepherds.

Ans. 1. That persons ought first to be proved whe­ther [Page 236] they be fit for such an Office, before it be confer­red upon them, we grant: i. e. A knowledge or good experience, that they are furnished with such qualifi­cations, as the Gospel requireth such Officers should have, ought to be attained before Election unto the of­fice. If they intend by it, a formal examination imply­ing the superiority of the examiners, & the subjection of the examined, the Text doth not witness that such a probation is required. If a Church by observation of a mans conversation, by hearing his doctrine, by its own familiar converses with him, and others report of him, hath gained a knowledge or experience of his fitness for the work; this is all the proving that can necessa­rily be enforced hence.

2. It was referred to the Church to judge of the qualifications of Deacons, Act. 6. v. 3. Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom. This implyeth, that they were a­ble to discern whether they were so qualified or not, else it had been in vain to put them upon looking out such. And it is as easie to judge of most of those quali­fications required to be in an Elder, 1 Tim. 3. as it was of those required in a Deacon, Act. 6. The people are able to discern whether a man be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hos­pitality, v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and therefore onely their ability to try whether they be apt to teach, and able to convince gain-sayers, can be questioned; and we have clear proof of a Churches proving Deacons, let our Brethren shew as clear proof for a Presbyteries pro­ving Elders.

3. We desire Scripture grounds to evidence that any true Churches of Christ, consist of such members, as the Major part are unfit to judge of Ministerial abilities: this we deny, and they give us their bare word for the proof of it. This being unproved no such mischief as [Page 237] they suppose, doth ensue upon the peoples having the whole and sole power of chusing.

4. The Sheep of Christ are said to know his voice, Joh. 10. v. 4. & v. 5. A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; and this importeth their having ability and liberty to judge what Teachers they are to Elect, and what Teachers they are to reject, and the sheep of Christ who are hearers, are thus to judge of Teach­ers. Surely this implyeth their fitness to prove them, both whether they be apt to teach, and able to con­vince gain-sayers.

Obj. 2. There are some Congregations wherein the Major part are wicked, and if left to themselves wholly, would chuse none but such as are like themselves.

Ans. 1. This will as well deny it to belong to the Eldership, as to the Major part of a Church; for, there are many wicked men who are ordained, & so are (ac­cording to our brethrens principles) made Elders, and if they associate, are a wicked Eldership, and if left to themselves, would chuse and ordain none but such as are like themselves. Surely our Brethren cannot deny the Election of Pastors to a wicked Congregation, & yet grant it to a wicked Eldership. And if they say it­belongeth onely to a good Eldership to act therein, we may as well say, it belongeth onely to such a Congre­gation, the Major part whereof is good.

2. We do not say the power of Election of Pastors doth belong to such a Congregation, the Major part whereof is wicked, but to such a Church, the Major part whereof is visibly godly: if the Major part of a Congre­gation be wicked, we suppose then it is no true Church. If once it were a Church, yet now it ceaseth to be so, or is unchurched, or else the Minor & better part is to be deemed the Church, By Congregations, surely they mean Parishes & our brethren know that though some pleaders for the peoples power of Election, have granted [Page 238] that there are true Churches in some Parishes, yet they never said (that we can find) that Parishes taken collectively, are true Churches. Because the major part of many parishes are wicked, therefore we deny that they are Churches of Christ, or that the power of Election of Officers doth appertain to the Major part of the Parishioners. We cannot find that they are in a capacity to have Officers over them, until they be a Church, and so are uncapable of Elec­ing.

They suppose a Church or Congregation sutable to Presbyterian Principles, and then deny the Election which is according to Congregational principles, to belong to it.

Obj. 3. There are some, wherein the Major part pos­bly may be heretical, and will never consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister.

Ans. 1. The answers to the former objection will serve here also. Possibly a Presbytery may be heretical, and so the Presbytery will not consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister; they will not deny that an Orthodox Eldership may act in an Election, because an heretical one may not; and why should they deny a Church, sound in the faith, a power of E­lection, because an heretical one hath it not.

2. Let them prove that the Gospel owneth any Congregation as a true Church of Christ, capable of having Officers set over it by a Presbytery, if the Ma­jor part be heretical.

Are not men to be cast out of the Church for heresie? did our brethren ever read of a true Church of Christ, the Major part of which consisted of Heretiques? if not, why do they put the case?

3. By the same Argument we may prove, that the power of Ordination doth not belong wholly and solely to a Presbytery, for the Major part of that, pos­sibly [Page 239] may be heretical. Because an heretical Presbytery may not ordain, they will not infer that therefore the whole and sole power of Ordination doth not belong to an Orthodox Presbytery: and because an heretical Congregation may not Elect Pastors, why would they infer, that therefore the whole and sole power of E­lection doth not belong to the Major part of a Con­gregation which is sound in the faith?

Obj. 4. Sometimes there have been great dissentions and tumults in popular Elections, even to the effusion of blood, as we read in Ecclesiastical story; sometimes Con­gregations are destitute of Ministers for many years, by reason of the divisions and disagreements thereof.

Ans. 1. In cases of want of Pastors, who can shew any Scripture rule to warrant their obtruding Pastors upon a Church without Election? if dissentions in Churches be sinful, a Presbyteries obtrusion of Pastors upon Churches, would be sinful also.

2. We say with Dr. Ames, ‘We never read that dissentions and tumults did arise among those that were Orthodox, in the chusing of Pastors qualified according to Christs appointment.’

3. If dissentions and tumults, even to the effusion of blood, have attended some popular Elections, yet they were but accidental to them; the giving the whole and sole power of Election to a Church, doth not necessarily cause, but only occasion such evils; and so this is no argument against popular Elections, Rom. 7. 8. Sin took occasion by the Commandment; yet this doth not speak against urging the Commandment. Christ is a stone of stumbling to some, and the Gospel an occasion of tumults, when it was preached by the Apostles, Asts 14. 19. the people stoned Paul for preaching the Gospel. But this will not prove that the Apostles had not power to preach Christ and the [Page 240] Gospel. Saith Dr. Ames, ‘Instituta Dei non sunt mutanda propter incommoda Ames Beller. Enerv. F. 2. l. 3. c. 2. quibus sunt obnoxia; sed illa incommoda sunt cavenda & curanda propter institu­ta, quae observare tenemur.’ So much for the first Proposition.

CHAP. XII.

Concerning Election, as Essentiall to a call to Office.

THeir second Proposition is, Proposit. 2. ‘That the whole essence of the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election without Ordination.’

Before we proceed to any Arguments, we shall pre­mise three things.

Premise 1. That if we should grant that the essence of a call to Office doth consist in Ordination, and not in Election. Yet,

1. This would not overthrow the Congregational way. it would not deny Congregational Churches to be true Churches, for they must be true Churches before Officers can regularly be set over them, whether by Election or Ordination.

Nor would it deny Officers in those Churches, to be true Officers of Christ, or to be rightly constituted; for, Ordination as well as Election is used in the Con­gregational way, and so the Essence of the call is not wanting there, whether it consists in the one or the other.

Indeed, if it could be proved to consist in Ordina­tion, then one principle of most Congregational men would fall, but the way would stand still. It is not such an inseparable principle, as the Congregational way standeth or falleth with it.

[Page 241] 2. This would not deny the lawfulness of gifted mens preaching without Ordination: for, though the Essence of the call to Office did consist in Ordinati­on, yet something else might give the Essence to a call to preach. The written word may warrant gif­ted men in their preaching (though unordained) as well as it doth in their hearing, praying, private exhor­ting, &c.

If Ordination doth constitute an Officer that doth not speak against the preaching of gifted men, who do not assume the Office of the Ministery. Unlesse they can prove all preaching to be an incommunica­ble work, or act of Office; this (if granted) will not forbid their preaching. They are without the Essence of a call to Office, yet have what is essential to a call to preach.

Premise 2. By [Ministerial call] in their Proposition, we understand [a call to Office] and we suppose so they take it, because they restrain the very work of preaching to Officers.

Premise 3. That though we deny Ordination to be of the Essence of the call to Office, yet we assert it to be a necessary adjunct of such a call; Officers ought not to be wholly, or altogether without Ordination, yet the Essence of a call to Office is compleat with­out Ordination. These things being premised, we shall give some grounds to evidence, that the whole Essence of a call to Office doth consist in Election, i. e. with acceptation; and then answer the Arguments used against it. Our Proposition is this.

Propos. That the whole Essence of a call to Of­fice, doth consist in Election without Ordination.

Arg. 1. If Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before, then it gives the whole Essence of the call to Office without Ordination. But Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before. Ergo, Election [Page 242] gives the whole Essence of the call to Office, without Ordination.

The Major they cannot deny, it being clear in it self, and also because they use such a Medium to prove that Ordination gives the Essence of the Ministerial Office, because (they say) it makes a man a Minister that was not one before. Jus Divinum Minist. p. 164.

The Minor, That Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before, we prove from Act. 14. 23. And when they had chosen, or created them Elders by suffrages in every Church, &c. Whence we observe,

1. That Election or chusing here mentioned, made them Elders who were none before: [...] signifieth to chuse by lifting up of hands, and it is not said, when they had chosen men afterward to be made Elders, but [when they had chosen them Elders]; which plainlysheweth, that it was this chusing that made them Elders. And our Brethren say that the word sig­fieth to chuse, or to appoint, or to ordain; and they tell us, they could cite multi­tudes Jus Divin. Min. pag. 129, 130. of Authors, where the Greek word [...] is used for discerning, ap­pointing, constituting, and that without lifting up of hands. Whether it was with or without lifting up of hands, is not material in this Argument; that the appointing, constituting act is expressed by that word, themselves clearly grant.

Junius & Trem▪ renders it thus, Et constituerunt eis in omni caetu Seniores: Some thus, Quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros. When they had created them by suffrages, Elders in every Church. From all which we gather, that they which did [...] they did create, make, constitute, or appoint those Elders.

2. That not Paul and Barnabas onely, but the peo­ple did [...] this we proved before. The word [Page 243] cannot be denyed to signifie Electing or chusing, so it is taken, Act. 10. 41. unto witnesses [chosen before] of God, &c. 2 Cor 8. 19. [chosen] of the Churches, &c. it denoteth such a chusing, as is a constituting, creating act; and let our brethren shew any Scripture that will prove, that Paul and Barnabas, or any of the Apostles, did or might warrantably assume the power of Electi­on or chusing ordinary Officers for any Gospel Chur­ches; without this can be evinced, what shadow of reason is there to limit Election or chusing to Paul and Barnabas in this place, if our former reasons be considered?

Especially seeing the words of the Text do not necessarily restrain it to them, but rather give it to the several Churches; for if the question be asked, [who were the persons that did [...]] the Text doth plainly answer, [they in every Church.] It runneth thus, without any wresting of the sence, [In every Church they chose or created Elders by suffrages]. And the phrase is frequent in our ordinary speech? we usu­ally say, They chuse them Majors, Bayliffs, Burgesses, by voyces in every Corporation; or they chuse them Parliament men by suffrages in every County or Shire; and yet we understand by such expressions, that the people or Free-men themselves in the Corporati­ons, and the people themselves in the Counties or Shires are the chusers, and not others for them. The people in the Corporations, Counties or Shires, are the [they] that answer to the question. So every Church doth aptly answer to the question in this place. So that the Text seemeth to us to determine every Church to be the they that did [...] and not Paul and Barnabas onely.

There is no need that [...] should be trassan­ted[according to the Church] to further this inter­pretation; the present translation [in every Church] [Page 244] will serve as well and better to this sence. Neither wil its being [...] not [...] speak against this, for [...] sig­nifieth himself, as John 4. 2. Jesus himself baptized not, &c. [...] Ephes. 2. 14. Luke 24. 39. and therefore in the plural number, it is aptly rendred themselves, and therefore it is not improper to read it thus, And they chose, or created to themselves Elders by suf­frages in every Church. And so Election by a Church, i. e. being compleated by the parties acceptation who is chosen, is that which maketh a man an Elder who was none before, and therefore gives the whole Essence of the call to Office, without Ordination.

Arg. 2. If Ordination doth not give the essentials of the Ministerial Office, then Election doth: for our brethren say, it is agreed on all sides, that the outward call of a Minister doth consist onely in his Election or Ordination. See Jus Divin. Minist. pag. 164. But Ordi­nation doth not give the essentials of the Ministerial Office, Ergo, Election doth.

That Ordination doth not give the essentials of the Ministerial Office, we shall prove by three Arguments.

Arg. 1. That which doth not set a man over a Church of Christ, or commit it to his charge, that doth not give the essentials of the Ministerial office, or of the outward call to Office. But ordination doth not set a man over a church of Christ, nor commit it to his charge, Ergo, Ordination doth not give the essentials of the ministerial Office, or of the outward call to office.

The Major is evident.

1. Because committing of a Church to ones charge or setting him over it, is the formal cause of office, and so the relation of office cannot have a beeing without it; for, forma dat esse.

He that is not set over some Church of Christ is no officer of Christ; this is the specificating distinguishing character of Offiers, which differen­ceth [Page 245] them from such as are no Officers, 1 Thess. 5. v. 12. Wee beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and [are over you] in the Lord, &c. 1 Tim. 3. v. 5. If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he [take care of] the Church of God? In these places, [being over, and taking care of the Church of God] expresse the nature of Office.

2. Because, If Ordination doth not set a man over a Church, or commit it to his charge, then it doth not lay him under obligation to the work of Office, nei­ther are any people under obligations to duty towards him by ordination as they are towards an Officer; for a being over them, is that which putteth under such mutual obligations, Acts 20▪ 28. They are comman­ded to take heed to the flock or Church over which they are made overseers, Heb. 13. v 7. Remember them that have the rule over you, &c. v. 17. obey them that have the rule o­ver you, and submit your selves, &c. No flock or Church may groundedly challenge such ordinary and constant feedings, from any other, but those that are over it; and onely those that are over the flock can groundedly challenge this obedience and submission from it; for, the mutual duties are required expressesly under that notion. All in it that are not over it, are required to obey those that are over it, and therefore if Election setteth over, and giveth the charge of a Church, then election layeth the person elected under obligations to act as an officer, and layeth the Church electing under obligations to the performance of duties towards him as towards an officer. All which may fully demon­strate, that if ordination doth not set over a Church, then it doth not give the essentials of the ministerial of­fice or of the outward call to office. The Lord would not command duty towards those that are over a Church as towards officers, if they might be over it and yet be no officers, or not have the essentials of an [Page 246] outward call to office upon them, which they might, if election setteth over, because that may, yea accor­ing to gospel order ought to precede or go before or­dination, Act 6. vers. 5, first, The Church did chuse, and then, vers. 6. They were ordained.

Jus Divinum, Our brethren say, That it is agrea­able to the word of God, and very convenient that they that are to be ordained, be designed to some particular Church or Ministerial employment. And a little after they adde, we ordain none without a title.

So that according to their principles and practices, election may and ought to be Antecedaneous to ordi­nation. And therefore if election doth set a man o­ver, and give him the charge of a Church, then it will follow either that a man may be actually an Officer before and without ordination, and then ordination doth not make a man an officer, or the essence of the call to office doth not consist in ordination, but in e­lection. Or else, a man may actually be set over and have the charge of a particular flock or Church com­mitted unto him, and yet he actually be no officer, (which is contrary to, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Hebr. 13. 7. 17.) For, election, and so the setting over the Church, may be before ordination.

The Minor, That ordination doth not set a man over a Church of Christ, nor commit it to his charge, we prove thus.

1. Because without Election, a man cannot be over any flock, though he hath submitted formerly to Ordi­nation: if no Church of Christ hath chosen him, then he cannot truly say of any Church, that he is over it. We ask which is he over? and why over one more then another when he want Election from all? A man that formerly took up Ordination, if by a Patrons unjust usurpation of a power, or by [Page 247] the peoples withdrawing subjection, he be dispos­sessed of the flock he was supposed to be over, or by his own voluntary act he leaveth that people, before any other hath called him, possibly he may be a moneth, or a year before a new Election; we ask what Church is he over by his Ordination in this In­terval, betwixt his departure from one flock and his coming to the other? If he be over or hath the charge of any Church, then he ought to feed and take the oversight of it, and that ought to obey him. Heb. 13. ver. 7. 17. of what Church will he require this obedience? and why of this more then of another? he may challenge a power for the exercise of his Of­fice in that Church he is over, & let him but try to put forth a such power in any Church in such a case, & he will quickly find by experience that he is over none.

If he be over no Church and yet was formerly or­dained, then it is plain that Ordination doth not set a man over a Church, or else that Ordination in such a case is lost; for so long as that which setteth a man over or giveth him the charge of a Church hath its continuation, so long he must needs remain Actually over it.

2. Because if Ordination doth set a man over a Church, then there is a necessity of a frequent repeti­tion and iteration of Ordination: For, a man by his Ordination can be set over onely one particular Church at once, and so if he removeth to ten several places in his life, he must so often have a new Ordi­nation.

Our brethren strongly assert the law­fulness of an Officers removing in three Jus Div-Min. pag. 154. cases, when he cannot have his health where he is, if he be denyed competent maintenance, and if the glory of God may be in an eminent manner advanced.

[Page 248] Some of these cases may fall out to one Officer. 4. 6. 8. or 10. times in his life, and if he removeth so often, either he was set over, and had the charge of all these Churches (which he removeth to) committed to him, by his Ordination, or not. If not, then Ordi­nation is not that which setteth a man over or giveth him the charge of them; for, he is ordained and yet is not over some of them. There may be Ordination and yet that be wanting which setteth over them. If Ordination did it, then so soon as ever he was Or­dained he must needs be over them, and have the charge of them. If the cause actually existeth, the effect must needs exist also, and then he ceaseth not be over that Church which he is removed from; Surely he is as much over that, as he is over the rest which he shall afterward remove to.

If they will say, he is over and hath the charge of so many Churches, let them prove it. It doth not sound like Gospel order, that one officer should be set over many Churches, one Pastor have the charge of many flocks at one and the same time, and this by Ordination but once used: their own Arguments in their Jus Divin. Minist. against Episcopacy will forbid this.

Object. If they should say that Ordination setteth him over the universal Church, or maketh him a habitual officer to any or all particular Churches, and the peoples Election maketh him actually an officer to, or setteth him actually over them as their Pastor, their Minister.

Answ. This (as we conceive) cannot be.

1. Because we cannot find one Text of Scripture to prove, that any ordinary officer is set over or hath the charge of a Universal Church; or that he is over any but a particular Church.

2. Because it is not proved that the Gospel knoweth any such habitual officers: and how in propriety of [Page 249] speech we can mention an habitual setting over, we see not. Either a man must be actually over a Church, or else not be over it at all. Either he must actually have the charge of it, else not have the charge of it at all. And how a man can be an officer to such a Universal Church as they assert, and yet be no Officer to any particular Church would be considered; a man after his Ordination may lose his relation to, or may cease to be over any particular Church, either by the peoples rejection or otherwise, and in such a case, it will be hard to him to be an Officer. He is actually over no particular Church, and so must be an habitual Officer onely, no actual officer at all; and if Ordina­tion doth not make a man an actual officer, surely it maketh not an officer at all, for to be no actual Officer, and to be no officer, seemeth to us to be the same.

3. Because all that he is over he must feed and give an account for, Act. 20 28 Heb. 13. 17 He cannot ordinarily feed, nor watch for the souls of the Universal Church (without neglecting his particular Church) and there­fore that cannot be deemed the flock or Church he is set over: therefore the setting him over so many Churches must not be by Ordination, or else must be by a frequent repetition and iteration of it (which we grant though we deny the Essence of the Call to consist in it) but this will not agree with our brethrens principles.

For, if such a repetition and iteration of Ordination be admitted of, then either a man is an Officer only to a particular Church, and as often as he removeth, so often he ceaseth to be an officer, and is made an of­ficer again as often as he receiveth a new Ordination; or else Ordination is not an office-making act, for there can be no making of him an officer by iterating ordination, who is made an officer already and hath not lost that relation; and if the Essence of the Mini­sterial [Page 250] call doth not consist in Ordination, we have what we contend for.

We may conclude with this,

Every man that is actually set over, or hath the charge of a particular flock or Church committed to him, he hath the Essentials of the Ministerial office. But every man who is Elected by a Church of Christ, and hath accepted of the choice (though as yet unor­dained) is actually set over or hath the charge of a particular flock or Church committed to him; for Election with acceptation setteth over, Ergo, every man who is electd by a Church of Christ and hath accept­ed of the choice (though as yet unordained) hath the Essentials of the Ministerial office.

And this is our first Argument to prove that Ordi­nation doth not give the Essentials of the call to of­fice.

Argum. 2. That which by the will of Christ, is to be consequential unto a mans having the whole Essence of the call to office, that cannot be intended by Christ for the giving the essence of that call, or that cannot give the Essentials of the call to office. But Ordina­tion, by the will of Christ, is to be consequential unto a mans having the whole Essence of the call to office. Ergo, Ordination cannot be intended by Christ for the giving the Essence of that call, or cannot give the Essentials of the call to office.

The major is evident, for doubtless Ordination is to be used according to the will of Christ; it is Christ that instituted it, and so his will is the deter­mining Rule about the way and order that it is to be used in, and none can cross his will therein without sin; and therefore, if by his will, Ordination be to come after a mans having the whole Essence of the call, then it cannot give the Essence to that call; for that which is consequential or after in its own production, [Page 251] that cannot give a being to that which is before it. Unlesse ordination it self hath a being, it cannot give a being to such a call. If the call to office hath it's essence, before ordination hath any being upon a par­ticular person, then there is something else that giveth the essence unto the call, and so ordination cannot give it.

The Minor we prove from Act. 13. v. 2. 3. The Holy-Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them a­way. Whence we observe.

1. That Ordination was here used, in all the Acts of it, and requisites to it in those dayes; here was, 1. Fasting. 2. Prayer. 3. Imposition of hands. No other acts are found to be belonging unto Ordination when any mention is made of it, Act. 6. ver. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them, Act. 14. 23. And had prayed with fasting, &c. So that no Acts were omitted in this that usally appertained unto Or­dination.

2. That the ordaining of these persons was con­sequential unto their having the whole Essence of the call to office; this appeareth,

1. Because Paul and Barnabas were the persons here ordained who were immediately called to office by God, Gal 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, &c. He had been an Apostle by men, if this his Ordination had given the Essence to his call to office.

As Master Hooker observeth it implieth a contradicti­on to be mediately and immediately called.

2. The Text expressely declareth that they were before called to that they were now ordained unto, Act. 13. vers. 2. whereunto [I have called them] Their call was Antecedaneous to this their Ordination, [Page 252] and so received not its Essence from it.

3. That by the will of Christ, Ordination is still to be consequential unto a mans having the whole essence of the call to office; this followeth upon the two forementioned particulars; For, here is a plain ex­ample of Ordination as coming after the whole Es­sence of the call to office. Now, if this example be a binding Rule to us still, then it is undenyable that by the will of Christ, Ordination is still to be con­sequential, unto a mans having the whole Essence of the call to office. And that this example is a binding Rule to us still; we prove thus.

1. Because the ordainers act herein as ordi­nary; it is the Rule our brethren give us. Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 161. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary elders, we should be left at uncertainties, and every man might do what seemed good in his own eyes, which would tend to confusion, and the dissolution of the Church; these are their own words. Now in this example, Acts 13. 2, 3. If they were ordinary Elders, that were the persons or­daining, then they must needs act as ordinary elders, or else not as Elders at all, for if they were not extraordi­nary elders, their actings could not flow from a relation which they had not. If they were extraordinary Teach­ers as Barnahas and Saul (the persons ordained) were, (who are also reckoned up, and called Prophets or Teachers. v. 1.) The Act was ordinary, viz. Ordain­ing. 2. The main work was ordinary to which they were ordained, viz. Preaching of the Gospel. 3. There is nothing in the Text that doth evidence the order to be extraordinary, any more then the act it self. Its no more said, that the coming of Ordination after the call to office-work is extraordinary, then that the Or­dination it self is extraordinary.

[Page 253] 4. This order of Ordination after the call to office, doth not (that yet we can find) crosse any other Text of Scripture, and therefore it can­not in faith be concluded that this order is ex­traordinary. Enough is said to prove that their acting was Ordinary in this Ordination, and therefore if any will assert that this particular, viz. the order of the act was extraordinary, let them prove it.

2. Because in this example, Ordination had the same uses and ends, as it had when ordinary Officers were Ordained: Jus Divinum Minist. pag. 160. Our Brethren say, That Apostolical examples in things ne­cessary for the good of the Church, and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them, have the force of a Rule. And surely so far as Gospel examples are or­dinary, so far they have a perpetual reason and equity in them, and if the uses and ends of this Ordination were ordinary, then this example thereof, hath the force of a Rule. And what extraordinary ends ima­ginable could it serve to, Paul and Barnabas being the persons Ordained? Nay, separation for the work whereunto they were called was the use and end of this Ordination, as appeareth, v. 2, 3.

If it be enquired what work they were called to. we may see, 1 Cor. 1. v. 17. Christ sent me not to bap­tize, but to preach the Gospel. Paul telleth us that it was the preaching of the Gospel he was called to, and therefore it was this work that he was Ordained to. His Commission was larger and extended further in respect of the persons who were the objects of it, then ordinary Officers Commissions now, but that is not material in this case, his Ordination was to the same work (viz. preaching the Gospel Office-wise) which ordinary Officers are still to be ordained to. And v. 3. They sent them away, i. e. freely let them go, [Page 254] though they would gladly have enjoyed their labours still, yet they consented to their departing. We sup­pose none will think that this sending a way, doth im­ply any such Mission to preach as they usually plead for from Rom. 10. 15. the word will not enforce any such sending, it is used, Mat. 27. 21. Whether of the twain will ye that I Release unto you? Acts 26. 32. Luke 2. 29. Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart. So that according to the ordinary usage of the word, it may be rendred thus [They Released them, or let them depart] and therefore nothing can be gathered hence for the belonging of Mission to Ordination.

That fasting and prayer here served to any extra­ordinary ends which in ordinary Ordinations they a­vailed not to, cannot be proved, and surely the pray­ing was not in vain, it was not a bare act of obedi­ence to the will of God, but they might expect a re­turn of these prayers as well as in any other Ordina­tions. As for Imposition of hands, that it served to any other uses or ends, then in Ordaining of Dea­cons, Acts 6. 6. will hardly be proved.

Object. But if this Ordination had ordinary uses and ends, and so this example may be a binding rule as to Or­dination it self, yet how doth it prove it to have the force of a Rule in its being consequential to the call to Office.

Ans. 1. When so many things are ordinary about an Act, there must be some special reason to render it probable that other things are extraordinary.

2. It proveth that the ordinary uses and ends of Or­dination have their attainment after the call to office, and therefore Ordination hath its place and order after the call to office also, If separation to the work of Office, appeareth by this Text to be the prox­imate end of those Acts which are called Ordination, until a man be an officer he cannot orderly be separated to the work of office; and because the separation must [Page 255] be consequential to the call to office, therefore the Ordination by which a person is supposed to be sepa­rated to that work, must needs be consequential also, and so it is, an ordinary order, and therefore the ex­ample is a binding rule to us in the order as well as in the act of Ordination.

Ordination here was compleat in its acts, and in its uses and ends; and therefore the giving the essence to the call to office is not the proper use, or ordinary end of Ordination. The outward call to office and Or­dination are separable one from the other, for Ordi­nation can attain its end, when such a call to office is before it. And if this will be granted, we have what we contend for in this question.

Object. 2. This Ordination might be used not for the proper end whereto it served, when ordinary Officers were ordained, but for an example, to shew the necessity of Or­dination, and it is not said, separate me Paul and Barna­bas for the Office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, Acts 13. 2, 3.

Ans. 1. Some end there must be of this ordination, and that it served here onely for an example, or for any other end then usually it served to, is not proved.

2. It cannot be an example of the necessity of Or­dination for the giving the Essence to the call to Of­fice, (which is the thing here contended about) because, that was not given by this Ordination; If the main use of Ordination were to give the Essence to the Mi­nisterial call, then this example failed in the chief thing wherein it should have been exemplary. How could the Church of Antioch take this as a pattern to shew the necessity of Ordination unto the giving the Essence to a call to Office, when it was not used for any such end in the pattern? it could not be an exam­ple of that which was not done by it. If we grant it to be an example of Ordination to the work of of­fice, [Page 256] yet that will not prove that Ordination is essen­tial to the call to office, but rather that it is to come af­ter that call.

3. It is true, it is not said, separate them for the office but for the work, let any prove from scrip­ture that ordination doth separate to the office of the Ministry, as Office is distinguished from the work. What work was it that Paul and Barnabas were separated for? Surely if it were to any, it was to the work of their office, and yet they had the whole Essence of their call to office before; and therefore we may grant Ordination to the work of office, and yet deny Ordination to office, or deny it as essential to a call to office. This may be an example of the one, and not of the other.

4. It is not like that the Church at Antioch was un­acquainted with Ordination, so as to need this for a first example thereof; And who can think that Paul and Barnabas should be with the Church at Antioch a whole year before this, as Act. 11. v. 25. 26 & 12. v. 27. & 13. v. 1, 2, 3. and yet they be strangers to Ordination?

5. May not we conclude more safely, that it is an example binding to the use of Ordination after the declared call to office, and onely to the work of the Ministery, then they can conclude it to be an example of Ordination to office, seeing no call to office was here given by it?

Object. 3. But Paul and Barnabas were extraordi­nary Officers, and so could not have an ordinary or medi­ate call to office by their Ordination, and that may be a spe­cial reason, why it had not the same use to them as it hath to ordinary Officers: and besides this Ordination was by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13. 2. 4. it was an extraordinary thing, and therefore not sufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon.

Ans. 1. We cannot yet see it proved that ordination [Page 257] served to any other uses and ends when ordinary offi­cers were ordained, then now it served to, when these extraordinary Officers were ordained: if it attained here all the ordinary ends, that it was intended by Christ for, then giving the essence to the call to office is none of the ordinary ends of Ordination, for that was not attained here; and so, neither the extraordinary office of the persons ordained, nor the extraordinary call which they had, who were the persons ordaining, can in the least hinder its serving to the purpose we al­leadge it for. Let them prove that Ordination attained any other ends (then it did here) when ordinary Offi­cers were ordained.

2. The extraordinariness or the immediateness of the call to ordain them, doth prove neither the order of Ordination after the call to office to be extraordinary, nor its falling short of attaining any of the ordinary ends which it serveth to. The Apostles had an extraor­dinary call to their office, and yet in the ordaining of Deacons, Act. 6. 6. Our brethren (we suppose) will not say that either the end of Ordination, or the order of it was extraordinary. So upon this immediate call they fasted, prayed, and laid on their hands, Act. 13. 2, 3. yet if the acts were not ordinary, then Ordination it self in the acts of it, must be concluded to be extra­ordinary and so to be ceased, and as well may the or­der, uses and ends of it be ordinary, as the acts.

The Apostles had an immediate call to preach the Gospel, and yet that work is ordinary, and to be per­formed for the same ends and purposes, by those who have no such immediate call thereunto, as they had.

And this is our second Argument to prove, that Or­dination doth not give the essential of the call to office.

Arg. 3. From the nature of Ordination.

Take this discription of it.

Ordination is the solemnization of an officers call, or [Page 258] the Solemn separation of an officer by prayer and fast­ing to the work whereunto he is called.

1. For its general nature, it is [solemm Separa­tion.] 1. Not such as was of the Temple, vessels, garment in the time of the Law, from common use, which would render civil imployment unlawful to of­ficers, not onely as hindering their resign ation to the word and prayer, but also in it self by vertue of that Separation, Acts 6. ver. 2. 4. Paul was an officer and did Preach, Act. 11. ver 25, 26. and yet was ordained after, Acts 13. ver. 2, 3. and so he was separated as much from worldly employments, before, as after his Ordina­tion. 2. Nor such as is mentioned, Rom. 1. 1. viz. A selecting or determining a person to office, for this is done in Election with acceptation. But as is the Sanctification of creatures, viz. meats and drinkes unto not onely a lawful and common use, but holy, 1 Tim 4. 5. such is the separation of an Officer (but more solemnly performed) to his special work, in Ordination.

2. For its Act, it is prayer; this we take to be the Essential act of Ordination, or that which giveth the Essence to it, as Augustin saith, Ordinare, quid est aliud nisi orare?

There are but three things, which ordination can be imagined with any shaddow of Scripture evidence to consist of, viz. 1. Fasting. 2. Prayer. 3. Imposition of hands: the places alledged for Ordination, men­tion no more but these three, Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 14.

1. As for fasting; that is no act of worship, but is dispositive to prayer which is an act of worship, and therefore fasting though it be a necessary requisite to some ordinations, viz. of elders, Act. 13. 2. Act. 14. v. 23. yet it cannot be deemed Essential, nor necessary to all ordinations; we do not read of any fasting at the or­daining [Page 259] of Deacons, it is said, Act. 6. ver. 6. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Here was a compleat ordination, without any men­tion of fasting. We suppose none will assert fasting to be an Essential part of ordination, if they will, let them prove it.

2. As for imposition of hands, it is questionable whether it be still continuing or not. Many think its use was extraordinary, and now ceased: and it is certain that it was used in those dayes for the collation of ex­traordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghost, Act. 8. ver. 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy-Ghost; the giving of the Holy-Ghost was through the laying on of hands, as is more plainly inti­mated, ver. 18. Also it was used in blessing others, Mat. 19. ver. 15. Christ laid his bands on the little children, Mark 10. ver. 16. And he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them and blessed them. It was used with ordination of officers in those dayes, but the end of it might be, the collation or giving of the Holy-Ghost, or some greater measure of its gifts, unto those officers, and so it might have onely a tem­porary reason for its use; neither doth that precept, 1 Tim. 5. ver. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man, pro­hibit this acceptation of the phrase; for many that were no officers had extraordinary gifts conferred up­on them, Act. 6. ver. 14. 17. and 10. ver. 44. 45, 46, 47. much more might officers receive such gifts; and Stephen and Philip the Deacons who had hands laid on them, Acts 6. 6. did great wonders and miracles quick­ly after, Acts 8. 6, 7. ver. 8. However if imposition of hands had not such an extraordinary use, when of­ficers were ordained, yet,

1. We deny that imposition of hands was a right or ceremony by which the office was conveyed, Act. 13. ver. 3. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them, [Page 260] and yet (as we proved before) no office was con­veyed thereby, for they were officers before, and ver. 1. They are called Prophets or Teachers. By this it is plain that its use in those dayes when officers were or­dained was not to put the office upon them. Indeed if this were the use thereof, then such as want imposi­tion of hands, are no officers, and this would deny many Preachers in Scotland to be officers, because it is frequently omitted there.

2. We deny that imposition of hands was any Essential or integral part of Ordination in the Apo­stles dayes. ‘Our brethren, when they undertake to prove, that Ordination ought to be with imposition of hands, yet promise that it is not their purpose to enquire whether it be an Jus Divin. Mini. p. 173. Essential part of Ordination without which it is null and void, or an inte­gral part, without which it is deficient and imper­fect, or onely an inseparable adjunct. We deny that it was any more then an adjunct, or a consequential circumstance, and hence, Acts 6. vers. 6. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Not before, nor in the time of praying, but after it, they laid their hands on them, this was the last. Also Acts 13. 3. Prayer, was before it; and there­fore this did not come in, until the Essential part of Ordination was over; seeing themselves durst not assert it to be an Essential part of it, either that praying which is Antecedaneous to it, must be the only Essential act, or else Ordination hath no Essenti­al act at all.’

Our brethren say that it is a Rite and Ceremony borrowed from the old Testament, and the place they alleadge to prove its use in Ordaining or appointing unto office in old Testament dayes, is Num. 27. 18. 23. Moses did so ordain Joshua, but its said, Deut. 34. ver. 9. [Page 361] Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, [for] Moses had laid his hands upon him, &c. which intima­teth that there was a collation of the gifts of the Spi­rit by Moses laying on of his hands; and therefore if they will borrow it thence, we must not impose hands until we can confer gifts as Moses did.

And seeing imposition of hands was no Essential part of Ordination, hence (if it were not of that ex­traordinary use, to confer gifts) then it was onely a sign or circumstance, to declare who the party was, that was solemnly ordained by the foregoing Prayer. Let them prove, that it was assigned by the Lord to any other end, when it was used upon the occasion of Or­dination. If it were onely a Declarative sign, then it is a matter indifferent, not necessary, nor the omis­sion of it sinful, any more then the omission of other circumstances; then, it is as sinful to omit lifting up of hands in chusing officers, because, Acts 14. 23. [...] implyeth that rite, as well as [...] doth the other, and it is probable that imposition of hands, was omitted at the Ordaining of those Elders, Acts 14. 23. for there is mentioned onely fasting and prayer besides the peoples chusing by lifting up of hands. If Gospel examples in things which have a perpetual reason and equity in them, have the force of a Rule, as to the Substantials of them, yet not as to all circumstantials, for then Deacons must not be chosen under the number of seven, be­cause seven were chosen and Ordained, Act 6. ver. 3.

And if we had many Gospel examples of chusing officers by lifting up of hands, yet we should think that it were no sin to omit that, and use some other rite to signifie a choice, for the Lord hath not bound us up to such circumstances; and so it is a thing in­different whether we use or not use imposition of hands.

[Page 262] 3. As for prayer, that is the Act which giveth the Essence to Ordination: seeing it is neither fasting, nor imposition of hands, that give the Essentials to it, hence it must needs be prayer, Acts 6. verse 6. when they had [prayed,] Acts 13. vers. 3. When they had fasted and [prayed] &c. And they that will deny prayer to be Essential to Ordination, let them prove what it is when they can:

Neither is it the end of the praying on this oc­casion, to obtain direction from the Lord whom to chuse or call into office, as if it were dubious and questionable whether any of the persons should be officers or not; this could not be the intend­ment of it, for they were chosen, before this praying, Act. 6. vers. 5. They chose, &c. vers. 6. whom they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, &c. Acts 13. 2, 3. They had their call first, and prayer was made for them afterward. So that the determination that they should be officers, did precede the praying, yea they were officers before it; And therefore the ends of the praying must needs be such as these, viz. That the Lord would give his approbation of the choise, and own the persons chosen as his officers, granting them all ne­cessary qualifications, that may fit them for, and all his promised blessings of assistance, protection and suc­cesse in the work whereunto they are called. A Solemn praying unto God, for these ends, on the behalf of a person chosen into office, before his entring upon the work which his office obligeth him to, is all the Ordination that the Gospel own­eth.

And this being Ordination after a long Digression, we shall now shew, how the nature of Ordination doth forbid its giving the Essence of the outward call to office. And two Arguments will arise hence.

[Page 263] Argu. 1. If Ordination consisteth in action which is performed to God onely, then it cannot give the Essence of an external call to office, from men. But Ordination consisteth in action performed to God onely. Ergo, Ordination cannot give the Essence of an external call to office, from men.

The major is plain, There must be some external act put forth by some men, towards or upon others, else it is impossible that the being of an outward call should be brought in, by them, upon these. It were apparently false, to say, we gave such a per­son his external call to office, when no act passed from us, upon the person himself; our acting to­wards another, on his behalf will not do it; as for example, if a man should Petition the Supream Magistrate, for his yielding approbation to a persons acting in a work he is chosen to, and for his ex­tending such favours to him, as he useth to afford unto persons in such places or offices; it would be concluded that this Petitioning could not give him his call to his office, being no act put forth upon him, but to another for him; either he was an officer before, and onely a confirmation is desired, or else the call to the office is still wanting, and is to be given, not by the Petitioner, but by the Supream Magistrate, who is Petitioned.

So, if Ordination consisteth in such an action as is not put forth, upon the person himself, but to­wards God onely for him, then it cannot with any reason, be conceived, that it doth bring in the be­ing of an outward call upon him; especially if Or­dination consisteth of such an action as hath no colour of a causual vertue in it, to leave the impres­sion of an office-right upon him, viz. Prayer: In prayer we refer all to God, in a petitionary way, and nothing is done in or upon a person prayed for, unlesse God [Page 264] doth it; our praying for him can make no alteration of state or relation, if any thing be done that way, it is God who is prayed to, that doth it; and there­fore when Prayer is made in a way of Ordination, it must be said either, that the person was before called by men to office, and then Ordination being frequent, cannot give the call, or else that the call from men is to come after prayer, and then let them shew what act sequent to, and distinct from prayer, doth give the call. Or else it must be said that the call to office is given by prayer, and then it is God that giveth the outward call, for prayer is directed to him onely, and so we come to Minor; That Ordina­tion consisteth in action performed to God onely; this is evident, because it consisteth of prayer as its Essen­tial act (as we proved before) and prayer being a part of worship, cannot without Idolatry be performed to any, but God onely.

And it imposition of hands (the onely act a­bout Ordination put forth upon the person chosen to office) did give the Essence to the call to office, then, not Ordination it self, but an adjunct of it should give the outward call, yea then the want of laying on of hands would speak the Ordination a Nullity.

Argnm. 2. That Action which cannot be per­formed in faith, before an outward call to of­fice hath passed upon a man, that cannot give that man his outward call to officer. For, if the call to office be passed upon him before, then that Action which followeth after, cannot be said to give it; and no action is to be per­formed until it can or may be performed in faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 23.

But Ordination is such an action, as cannot be per­formed in faith, before an outward call to office hath [Page 265] passed upon a man; for, how can one pray in faith, or what warrant hath he from the Word (which is the Rule of faith) to justifie his praying to God for his approbation of, and blessing upon a person in a work of Office, before he can conclude that he is so much as outwardly called into that Office, to do that work? if one can groundedly conclude that he is called outwardly thereunto, then he was called before the praying, and so before Ordination, which consisteth in prayer. Ergo, Ordination cannot give that man his outward call to office.

3. In the description of Ordination, we have also the Object, and that is [an Officer, or one that is already called outwardly unto Office]

1. Not such as are only gifted men, we see no war­rant for the ordaining all Preachers to Office-work. The work of Preaching may be performed by gifted men, but they are not so to be ordained, until they un­dertake an Office.

2. Not persons to be made Officers, but such as are already Officers, they are the objects of Or­dination. We find no rule for ordaining men, there­by to make them Officers in respect of their out­ward call, but they that are actually Officers, are cal­led to Office, before they are to be ordained, Act. 13. v. 2, 3. They were first called, and then ordained, Ergo, they did not receive their call from or by Ordina­tion.

4. In the description we have, the end for which Ordination is performed, and that is the Officers do­ing the work whereunto he is called; so Act. 13. 2, 3. their solemn admission or induction into the work of preaching, as Officers to the Gentiles was by Ordi­nation; the obtaining Gods approbation and bene­diction, are the chief ends of prayer.

[Page 266] And thus we have finished our description of Ordi­nation, and our Arguments to prove, that Ordinati­doth not give the Essentials to the Ministerial office; and therefore that Election with acceptation doth.

CHAP. XIII.

Wherein many Arguments are answered, which are brought against Election, as giving the Essence to the call to Office.

OUr brethren in their Jus Divin. Minist. produce seven Arguments, whereby they endeavour to prove,

That the whole Essence of the Ministerial call, doth not consist in Election without Ordination. We crave leave to reply briefly to their Arguments.

Arg. 1. ‘Because our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their as­sertion (as we can find) nor do we think Jus Divin. Min. p. 134. that any can be brought.’

Answ. 1. Many weighty Arguments grounded upon Scripture, they may find in Mr. Hookers Survey, Part 2. c. 2. p. 66, &c.

2. We refer them to our foregoing arguments, where we have brought one express Scriptute to prove it, viz. Act. 14. 23. and other reasons, which by Con­sequence from Scripture do evince it.

Arg. 2. ‘Because that those very Texts fore-menti­oned, which are the chief (if not the onely) Texts that are brought for po­pular Jus Divin. Min. p. 134. Election, do seem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this assertion. When Mathias was made an Apostle, it was not the Election of the people that did constitute him an Apostle. All that the 120 did (if they did [Page 267] that) was to set two before the Lord, but it was God that did constitute and appoint Mathias to be the A­stle. In the choice of Deacons, the people nominated seven persons to be Deacons, but it was the Apostles Ordination, not the peoples Election, that did con­stitute and make them Deacons; so saith the Text expressely, Act. 6. 3. [...] Look ye out among you seven men, whom we may appoint, or constitute over this business. The essence and substance of the Dea­cons call, is placed not in the peoples nomination, but in the Apostles Ordination. As for Acts 14. 23. they that did [...] were the Apostles and not the Churches; it rather proves, that the Apostles Ordi­nation was that which did constitute Elders in eve­ry Church.’

Answ. 1. We have produced Arguments from other Scriptures besides these, to prove that the whole es­sence of the Ministerial call is in the peoples Election, to which we refer the Reader.

2. As for the instance of Mathias, Acts 1.

1. It holdeth forth as much against Ordination gi­ving the essence to the call to office, as against Electi­on: for seeing (as they say) it was God that did con­stitute and appoint Mathias to be the Apostle, hence, it was not Ordination by a Presbytery that did it. And here was an half Election, Act. 1. v. 23. They appointed two, but not a syllable about Ordination, or imposi­tion of hands, and therefore this is as contrary to their assertion, that the call consisteth in Ordination, as to ours, that it consisteth in Election, if contrary to either.

2. If Mathias his not being constituted an Apostle by the peoples Election be contrary to our assertion, that Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeri­al call, then Pauls not being constituted an Apostle by Ordination, Act. 13. v. 2, 3. must needs be contrary [Page 268] to their assertion, that Ordination gives the Essence of the Ministerial call. There is the same reason for the one, as for the other; for as Mathias was Elec­ted, and yet not constituted an Officer thereby, so was Paul ordained, and yet not constituted an Officer there­by; and the latter must needs be as much against them, as the former can be against us.

3. This was but half an Election, and that is the reason why it did not constitute Mathias an Apostle, as appeareth, because the chusing of the one (which was by God) was the constitutive act, Act. 1. v. 24. Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, v. 26. therefore if the people had chosen but one, but Mathias onely, that had been a constitutive act, but that could not be, for then the call should have been mediate, and so he had not been an Apostle; but the Lord sheweth how highly he would have Election esteemed, in that he would have the people chuse two, one of which he would constitute an Apostle, when the call was to be immediate. And indeed, the people might have chosen but one, and yet the call might have been immediate, if Election had not been the constitutive act, but in that the Election of the one made him an Officer, it strongly evidenceth that Elec­tion is that which giveth the essence of the call to Office.

There was a compleat Ordination in all the acts of it, Acts 13. 2, 3. and yet that was not constitutive, and that speaks more against Ordination giving the essence to the call to office, then this can against its consisting in Election.

3. As for Act. 6. there is granted to the people a power to chuse, v. 5. And the saying pleased the whole multi­tude, and [they chose] Stephen, &c. here was not a bare nomination, but an Election [they chose] which is far more then to snominate, and frequently expresseth [Page 269] the constitutive act of an Officer in Scripture, as John 6. v. 70. Jesus answered them, have not I chosen you twelve, Luke 6. v. 13. He called unto him his Disci­ples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he na­med Apostles, Act. 1. v. 2, 24. So that the being chosen, made, or gave the essence to the immedi­ate call of Officers, and surely this is expressed, alluding to that which maketh the mediate call. Christs chusing did constitute Apostles, and therefore chusing is that which constituteth other Officers. Will any say, that Christ did but nominate the twelve to be Officers? Surely he constituted them Officers, by his chusing of them. But we shall speak more fully to the objection from Acts 6. and shew how we are to understand those words, v. 3. whom we may appoint; when we answer their argu­ments about Ordination.

As for Acts 14. 23. we have sufficiently proved before, that they that did [...], were the Chur­ches, and that this holdeth out, that the es­sence of the call is in Election; we referre the Reader to our former answers to that objection.

Arg. 3. ‘All those Texts which we shall hereafter bring for the asserting of the Divine right of Ordination, do prove that Jus Divin. Min. p. 135. the essence of the Ministerial call doth consist in Ordination, and not in Elec­tion: there are more and more clear Texts for Or­dination then for Election, and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct, but an essential constituent of the Ministerial call.’

Ans. 1. If they intend, all those Texts which they alleadge to prove their first assertion, viz. That Ordina­tion of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ, p. 157. they are much mistaken, in saying, that all those Texts do prove the essence of the ministerial call to corsit in Ordin. Act. 13. 1, 2. [Page 270] 3, 4. is one Text insisted upon there, and that proveth that Ordination doth not give the essence to the call, for there it did not Other Texts they all eadge to prove that assertion speaks of laying on of hands, as 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Heb. 6. 1, 2. but that this Imposi­tion of hands giveth the essence to the call to office, they prove not, neither do our brethren assert it, when they come to their third assertion, which is about lay­ing on of hands.

If by [all those Texts] they mean, all the Texts alleadged for their second assertion, pag. 164. we shall speak to them in their place.

2. They are (as we apprehend) as clear Scriptures for Election as for Ordination. What can be more plain then, Act. 6. v. 5? The saying pleased the whole multitude, and [they chose] and in regard the Apostles there did give Rules to the multitude to regulate their choice, and mentioned divers qualifications that ought to be found in the persons chosen, v. 3. Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost, and wisdom, &c. Hence we conclude, that all those places which largely set forth the qualifications of Officers, have respect to Election. As for Deacons, when the Apostles here laid down their qualifications, they di­rected their speech expressely to the Church or multi­tude of the Disciples, and that purposely to inable them to make a due Election; and therefore when Paul writeth to Timothy about the qualifications of Dea­cons, 1 Tim. 3. v. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. it cannot with found reason be concluded, that his end was to translate the use of his directions to Timothy or Officers only, when the Apostles end in laying down like Rules, upon a like occasion, was, to help and regulate the people in their choice of the very same Officers: if this were his inrent, which example should we follow? the Rules and qualifications about other Officers, viz. Bishops [Page 271] or Elders are not limited in their use, more to Timo­thy and succeeding Officers, then these about Dea­cons, which are undoubtedly extended to the people, Act. 6. v. 3. And therefore we conclude, that these di­rections were given to Timothy, not chiefly to order his own practice by, about Ordination, but that he might (as the Apostles did) give them forth in a doctrinal way to the people, to order their practices by, about Elections either of Elders or Deacons. And seeing the Apostles do so much insist upon, and are so copi­ous in the laying forth these Rules, the great use of which, are to regulate Elections (which are before Or­dination) hence, there are as clear Texts for Election as for Ordination.

Arg. 4. ‘We argue from the nature of popular Ele­ction; Election by the people, properly is nothing else but their designation of a person that is to be made their Minister, or that is already a Minister to his particular charge: it is not simply a making of him a Minister, but the making of him a Minister of such a place; this appears in the Election of Deacons; all that the people did by Election, was onely to design the persons, and to set them be­fore the Apostles, but it was the Apostles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons. This likewise appears from Deut. 1. 13. the peoples taking of men, did not give them the essentials of their Office; they nominated the persons, but it was Moses that made them Rulers. If the people have no Office-power belonging to them, how can they by Election make an Officer, &c? Nihil dat quod non ha­bet nec formaliter nec eminenter. Why then did the Apostles take so much pains to return to Lystra, Ico­nium, and Antioch, to ordain them Elders in every Church? Act. 14. 21, 23. and why did Paul leave Ti­tus in Crete, to ordain Elders in every City? Tit. 1. 5. [Page 272] why did they not spare their journey, and send to the people to make their own Ministers by Election? can we imagine that they took such pains onely to adde an Adjunct to the Ministerial call, &c?’

Answ. 1. Election is more then a designation to a particular charge or place; for Election with accepta­tion, bringeth in such a special relation as the person chosen is over, and hath the charge of the chusers committed to him thereby: and it must needs be an Office-making designation which setteth a man over those which he was not over before.

A man may nominate a woman to another to be his wife, and no relation may arise thereupon; but that act which setteth a man over a woman as her husband, is that which giveth being to a relation, which had no foundation before. So Election setteth over a peo­ple a Church, and so maketh a man an Officer, as well as their Officer.

2. They conclude beyond their proof, when they say, all that the people did by Election of Deacons, was to design the persons to their particular charge, and set them before the Apostles, Act. 6. 6. it is said, they chose them, Acts 6. 5. and we shewed before, that chusing denoteth a constitutive act. Neither doth that Text say, that, the Apostles praying and laying on their hands, was it that made them Deacons. They were (as we suppose) made Deacons by Election, and the appointing at the utmost was but to the work, not to the office of Deacons.

3. As for Deut. 1. 13. we might make a question whe­ther the peoples Election of Church-officers be not a further act, then here was granted them about their civil Officers; for, the designation of the persons to their particular charge (which our brethren in this ob­jection grant is Election) was not till after this nomi­nation, nay, was performed by Moses, v. 15. Or we [Page 273] might tell them what learned Ainsworth saith on the place, Here the people gave them, and after in ver. 15. Moses gave, that is, made them heads: for when things are done by many under the government of one prin­cipal they are said to be done by them or by him, as 1 Chro. 19. 19. compared with 2 Sam. 10. 19. So 2 Kin. 11. vers. 12. with 2 Chron. 23. 11. and 1 Chron. 16. 1. with 2 Sam. 6. 17.

But we rather answer thus, The cases do not run paralell, for Moses was the Supream Magistrate and so might reserve such a power to himself in the con­stituting of civil officers, as neither a Presbytery nor a Church can claim about the constitution of Ecclesia­stical officers: whether it belongeth to the Church by Election, or to Presbytery by Ordination to give the call, yet it is but an outward call that they give to Church officers; a far greater power is put forth in the creating or constituting civil officers. Neither Or­dination by a Presbytery nor election by a Church, do answer Moses act; onely Christs acts in making Churches officers, do answer Moses acts in making civil officers, because onely Christ is King of his Church, as Moses was the Supream Magistrate over Israel. So that we may say it is not Election nor Ordination, but Christs act onely, which in the sense of, Deut. 1. 13. doth make Church officers, and there­fore this place will not serve at all to their pur­pose.

4. Is is usual in civil Corporations, for the Free­men (who are no officers) by their Election, to make their own officers.

It is very usual for them to Communicate an office power, and to give the Essentials of a call, to their Bayliffes and other officers, when yet the Freemen cannot act or exercise an office-power, but are in subjection unto those officers which by their election [Page 274] they give both place and power to; and why then should this be such a riddle to any? Either the Free­men in such cases have office-power vertually or else they that have it not either formally (for so the Freemen have if not) nor virtually, yet may communicate office-power. If they will say they have that power vertually, then so hath a Church, and by election may give the Essentials of a Mini­sterial call, as well as the Freemen can by election make civil officers to rule over themselves.

5. It is well observed by some learned men, that if the people have not office-power either formally or ver­tually, yet they may by election Communicate office­power Ministerially: they may Ministerially give what they never had, viz. As Ministering to him who hath power and vertue of deriving it; as a man not having a penny of his own may give an 100l. if the King make him his Almoner. Thus the Church deriveth office-power as taking the person whom Christ descri­beth, and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church.

It is very ordinary, for those that are lesser or infe­riour, to communicate a power that rendreth the re­ceiver, greater in place, power, and dignity then the giver of it; thus Free-holders and o hers by chusing do make Parliament men and Burgesses, though they be far inferiour to the persons chosen, &c. and therefore that rule, nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec emi­nenter, is not universally true.

6. It doth not appear, that the main or chief end of Paul and Barnabas in their journey to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, was, to ordain elders: it is said, Act. 14. ver. 21, 22. They returned again to Lystra, and to Iconi­um and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith; and that we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of [Page 275] God. So that the Confirmation and establishment of those Saints in the faith, and the encouraging them to patience and perseverance seem to be the principal ends of their undertaking this journey, and therefore it is a vain question, [why did they not spare their journey and send to the people to make their own Mi­nisters by election?] Though there had not been one Minister to be ordained, yet their journey could not well be spared, for then the souls of the disciples would have wanted Confirmation, and it is easie to imagine that they would have taken more pains then they did in this return, only to have confirmed their souls; and their concurrence in Ordination is menti­oned as one of the last things they did, ver. 23. and that may be but an Adjunct to the Ministerial call for all that is yet said against it. And it is not made the sole end of Pauls leaving Titus in Crete, that he should or­dain elders, for it is said, Tit. 1. ver. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders, &c. If there had been no elders to have been ordained, yet it had been needful that Titus should be left in Crete to set in order other things that were wanting, and still Ordination may be but an Adjunct, of the ministerial call.

We do highly esteem of Ordination, as an appoint­ment of Jesus Christ, yet we would not give it a higher place, then Christ hath set it in, we cannot find that Christ hath made it of that use to give the Essence to the call to office, and we cannot but fear that many do too much magnifie and even Idolize that Ordinance of Christ.

Arg. 5. If election gives the Essentials to a Minister, then may a Minister elected administer the Sacraments without Ordination. For as Master Hooker well saith in another case, He that hath compleat power of an office, and stands an officer without exception, he can­not [Page 776] justly be hindred from doing all acts of that office: for to be an officer compleat without an office, or be­ing compleat in his office, yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his office, implies a contradiction; for its all one to say a man is implies a contradiction; for its all one to say a man is bound to a rule, and yet by a rule he should not do it.

Forma dat operari, effects depend upon the form, not upon extrinsecal circumstances.

Ans. We deny the consequence. Although election gives the Essentials to a Minister, yet it will not follow that a Minister elected may administer the Sacraments without Ordination; for Christs will is to be our Law; if Christ hath required the adding but of an Adjunct before the doing some special works, with­out sin, no man can do those works without that Ad­junct. If Christ hath pre-required Ordination before the administration of the Sacraments, what is man that he should say, one may administer them without Ordi­nation, though that be but an Adjunct to the call unto office.

That which Master Hooker speakes is onely this, that [he cannot justly] be hindred from doing all acts of office, if he hath the Essentials of office upon him; and this may be granted, for, if Christ re­quireth Ordination as Antecedaneous to the admini­string of the Sacraments, then, he is [unjustly] hin­dred who either refuseth or is denyed Ordination, He is not according to rule hindred from doing what be­longeth to his office, but by breaking that Rule, which requireth his submitting to Ordina­tion. The reason serveth to Master Hookers purpose, but not to our brethrens, in this Argument.

And upon second thoughts, we suppose they will not say, that one may act in administrations with­out such Adjuncts as Christ hath pre-required unto acting in them, especially seeing themselves durst not [Page 277] assert imposition of hands to be more then an Ad­junct to Ordination, and yet urge it as a duty to receive it, and endeavour to prove it a sin to re­fuse or omit it.

Argu. 6. ‘If the whole Essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in election, Jus Divin. Mini. p. 137. then it will follow that a Minister is on­ly a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called, and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place. That this consequence is neces­sary they endeavour to prove, by its being confessed by Master Hooker, and the new England Ministers in some of their books.’

Answ. If the whole Essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Ordination (as our brethren judge) will it follow, that a Minister is onely a Minister to the Universal Church to which he is (as they suppose) Ordained, and that he cannot act as a Minister to any other? If so, how can he preach to Pagans and Indians, who are no members of any Church, when Preaching is a Pastoral act in their sense? why may not we extend Pastoral acts to them that concur not in Election, as well as they may extend them to such as concur not in Ordina­tion? But they proceed to the proof of their Minor, and give many reasons against that.

That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation, (they say) is an Asserti­on.

‘Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late Jus Divin. Min. p. 138. years.’

Answ. If the Gospel holdeth forth so much, surely then it is an Assertion heard of many hundred years ago; & if it were taken for granted and not qu [...]stioned in the Primitive times, and through the overspreading [Page 278] of Popery the truth were hidden since, it is a mercy that within these late years, it or any other truth is come to light. As many Authors may be cited, who many hundred years ago asserted errors, and yet this will not prove that we are to receive them as Gospel truths; so if no antient Authors could be cited for this, yet that will not prove it to be an error, neither would the citation of many for it, prove it to be a truth, and therefore we must to the Law and to the Testimony for the clearing of it.

2. ‘Contrary to the practice of the brethren themselves with whom we Jus Divin. Min. p. 138. dispute; it is acknowledged by all of them, that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act, and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher; and yet it is ordinary, both in Old England and in New England, for members of one Congregation, to receive in another Congrega­tion. If we may argue from our Brethrens practice, we may safely conclude, That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation.’

Answ. 1. This is an Argument rather against our practice, then against the assertion it is levelled at: If we practice against our own principles, that doth not prove that our principles are unsound.

2. But we answer further, Ministerial or Pastoral acts have for their Objects some things that are com­mon, some things that are special and proper. Some things are common to men as men, as the Word and Prayer, which all men may join or have communion in, unless in some particular case disinabled. Some things are common to Church-members as such, namely, ad­mission to the Lords Supper, Rom. 16. 1. Church-coun­cel and care to be acted towards such, by a more especi­al obligation then towards other men, seeing every new relation is a foundation to further Communion. [Page 279] If the right of a man as a man, be sufficient to claim the priviledge of hearing with a Church, not consi­dering whether he be of this or that place or Church, then also, may not the claim of a consederate with a particular Church, be sufficient to a priviledge in breaking of bread, not considering whether of this or another Church, for his right is as confederate, not as a member of this or that Church?

Some things are special and proper, wherein the liberty and jurisdiction of the Church doth consist, as admission of members, excommunication, Election of Officers, &c. Acts of power which issue necessarily from the gift or resignation of every one to another, and to the whole, whereby it is, that common privi­ledges are by them injoyed after a special manner, who have interest not onely in the good dispensed, but in the power dispensing; not in the objects of a Ministe­rial act onely, but in the Ministery. As, suppose a Father at set times giveth instruction to his children, who also is a Master, and teacheth his Servants, at which times the children and servants of the neigh­bour-hood attend upon him, and receive instruction, this man performeth the duty of a Father, and of a Master to his own children and servants, who have in­terest in him as so related, the other partake in the good which is given forth, yet not under those relations which are the grounds of those ministrations; for, the same man is under special obligations, to give in­structions to his children, and to his servants, by the Law of the relation of a Father and a Master, and is to give instruction to his neighbours also, by the Law of love or charity; but his omitting or neglecting to give such instructions to children, is no breach of the Law of his relation as a Master, but of his relation as a Father, and his neglecting to give instruction unto neighbours, is no breaking the Law of his relation [Page 280] as a Father or a Master, but of the common Law of love or charity; and when he giveth these instructions to his children, he doth not put forth any act of the relation of a Master therein, or if he giveth them to his servants, he doth not put forth any act of the re­lation of a Father therein, &c.

So, if Pastors and Teachers do preach and admini­ster the Sacraments to their own flocks which they are over, they act as Pastors, as Teachers, as Officers to them therein, because the Law of their relation bindeth to such duties towards them, and the failing of them were to break the Law of Office-relation; but if they perform these acts to any, not of their own Congre­gations, they do not act as Pastors, as Officers to them therein; for they stand in no such relation to them, and if they refuse to perform such acts to those not of their own Congregations, they do not break the Law of their relation as Pastors or Officers, but they sin against the Law of the general office of charity, which bindeth to seek the promoting of our neighbours good to the ut­most of our ability and capacity. And as it is frequent­ly found that O [...]ficers, as in Corporations, &c. may ex­tend some priviledges and immunities to some which they are no Officers to, which none but such as are Of­ficers have power to afford, so in this case.

3. ‘It is an assertion contrary to Scrip­ture, for the Scripture tells us. 1. That Jus Divin. Min. p. 138. there is a Church general visible. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church general visible, and but secondarily in this or that particular Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11, 12.’

3. ‘That every Minister hath a double relation, one to his particular Church, another to the Church ge­neral visible; he hath a vertual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be [Page 281] lawfully called. Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture, under a general notion, to shew the indefi­niteness of their office. They are called Ministers of God, 2 Cor. 6. 4. Ministers of Christ, 1 Cor. 4. 1. but never Ministers of the people.’

Ans. 1. If by Church should be meant, a general visible Church, yet it would not follow, that those Officers might act in any part of that Church, but onely where they are fixed, as we shall shew afterward.

2. If they be never called Ministers of the people, to be sure they are never called Ministers of the Presbytery.

3. They are called [Elders of the Church] Act. 20. v. 17. which is as much as to say, Elders of the peo­ple.

4. The speaking of Officers under a general notion, doth not prove the indefiniteness of their Office, or the extent of it beyond a particular congregation; for, if they might not preach or administer the Sacra­ments to any out of their own congregations, yet it were proper to call them Ministers, of God, of Christ, of the New Testament, of the Gospel, Ministers in the Lord, and Embassadors for Christ.

4. ‘This assertion, that a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his Jus Divin. Min. p. 140. own congregation, is contrary to found reason.’

They mention seven consequences hereof.

Object. 1. Hence it will follow, That when a Minister preacheth in his own Congregation, to members of another Congregation, he doth not preach to them, nor they hear him preach as a Minister but as a gifted brother. And that at the same time he preacheth as a Minister by vertue of his office to those of his own Congregation, and to others of an­ther Congregation then present, onely as a gifted brother, ex officio charitatis generali, cut of the general office [Page 282] of charity, which to us is very irrational.

Answ. If by [as a Minister] they mean [as an Offi­cer] then, we see no absurdity in it, to say that he preacheth to some as an Officer, as under a special re­lation to them, as over them in the Lord, and at the same time preacheth to others not as an Officer, or not as over them, or in any such relation to them. A man at the same time may give instruction to some as a Fa­ther, to others as a Master, to others as a friend and neighbour, as we shewed before. So that a man may act under one relation to some, and not under that, but another relation to others, in the very same act, without any absurdity.

Obj. 2. ‘Hence it will follow, that when a Minister preacheth out of his own Con­gregation, Jus Divin. Min. p. 140. he preacheth onely as a private Christian, and not as an Ambassador of Christ, and when he acts in a Synod, his actings are the actings of a private Christian; and when he preach­eth a Lecture out of his own Congregation (though it be in a constant way) yet he preacheth onely as a gifted Brother. Now what a wide door this will open to private men, to preach publickly and constantly in our Congrega­tions, we leave it to any indifferent man to judge.’

Ans. 1. We deny that in any of the cases mentio­ned, a man facteth as an Officer; his Office-power is not drawn out in his preaching out of his own Con­gregation, or when he acteth in a Synod, or preach­eth a Lecture constantly in another Congregation. Our brethren have given us nothing to prove, that he acteth as an Officer in any of them.

2. Yet we deny, that it doth necessarily follow, he must act as a private Christian therein: if he acteth in a Synod, he may act as a publick Messenger, and yet not act as an Officer; for such as are no Officers may be sent to act in such a meeting, as the Presbyteri­ans [Page 283] themselves grant; and though comparing them with Officers whose actings are constantly in publick, they may be called private Christians, i. e. compara­tively, they are not persons so publick in their actings as Officers are, yet they being chosen by a Church (which is a publick assembly) to act in a Synod, in a publick work, hence they may not act barely as pri­vate Christians in such works. If the brethren in a Church, act in a Synod (as they did generally at Je­rusalem, Act. 15. v. 22, 23.) we suppose they will not say, that the brethren generally are Officers, or act as officers, yet either they must grant it, or else as­sert that men may act in a Synod not as Officers. And then either they act as private Christians, or else as publick persons in those occasional publick employ­ments.

So when a Minister preacheth out of his own Con­gregation, and when he preacheth a Lecture constant­ly, he may be said to act as a publick person, because his work is publick; and so he acteth, not barely as a private Christian, yet not as an Officer, for then he might be actually an Officer to three or four flocks or Churches, because he may lawfully keep up so many Lectures constantly, and without asserting Episcopacy, he cannot be said to be actually an Officer to so many flocks at once. As, to the preaching of private men, we have spoken to that before.

Object. 3. Hence it will follow, That when a Minister baptizeth a child, he baptizeth him onely into his own Congregation. For if he be not an Officer of the Catholick Church, he cannot baptize into the Catholick Church, which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13.

Answ. 1. If by baptizing [into a Church] they mean, a making one a member of a Church by baptism, we deny that a Minister baptizeth (in that sence) either in­to his own Congregation, or into a Catholick Church; [Page 284] for if baptism giveth admission either into a particular or a Catholick Church, then while baptism remaineth valid, the party remaineth a member of that Church, for so long as he hath that upon him which giveth membership, he must needs be a member, as Mr. Hooker saith, where the form is, the formatum must needs be. And then either Excommunication doth make bap­tism a nullity, and render the person who is excom­municate, unbaptized; or else Excommunication doth not eject a person out of the Church, because it doth nullifie baptism, which (they say) giveth member­ship.

And this may answer their Argument, to prove that a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible. Jus Divin. Min. p. 139. They say, ‘He that can Ministerially admit or eject a member into, or out of the Church-Catholick visible, is a Minister and officer of the Church-Catholick visible. But every Mi­nister, by baptism or excommunication, admitteth or ejecteth members into, or out of the Church-Ca­tholick visible.’ Therefore, &c. We deny the Minor; If we grant such a Catholick visible Church, yet we cannot grant that a Minister by baptism admitteth in­to that Church; for then, if Heathens be converted at a great distance from any Church or Officer, what­ever glorious profession they make, yet they are not to be deemed members of that Catholick visible Church, until they be baptized, which soundeth very harsh, if those belong to Satans visible king­dom, who are without that Church, as they inti­mate in their next objection. And also then it will follow, either that Excommunication doth not eject a man out of the Catholick visible Church, and then the other part of their Minor is fals, or else that Excommu­nication maketh baptism a nullity, and then re-bapti­zing must be asserted, because there may be a re-ad­mission [Page 285] after excommunication upon repentance, wit­ness the incestuous person, 2 Cor. 2. v. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Or else a man may have that upon him, which maketh one a member of the Catholick visible Church (viz. baptism) and yet be no member thereof: he may have that which admitteth and giveth the formal being of membership, and yet be no member, which is a con­tradiction.

If an excommunicate person be no member of the Catholick visible Church, then he must be re-bap­tized if ever he be admitted a member thereof, if ad­mission into it be by baptism.

Also we deny, that a Minister by Excommunication ejecteth out of the Catholick visible Church; the person may eject himself out of it (if there be such a Church) by renouncing or contradicting his former profession, which (if any thing) made him a member thereof, before Excommunication, and so may lose his membership in the Catholick Church, before he loseth membership in a particular Church; or however, he may be ejected with, and not by Excommunication. And how a mans being ejec­ted out of a particular Church, by Excommunica­tion, should make him no member of the Catho­lick visible Church, if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church, doth not make a man, no Officer to the Catholick visible Church, we find not.

2. We may assert, that a Minister baptizeth onely [in] a particular Church, i. e. only such as are mem­bers [in] some particular Church or other, and yet not assert, that he baptizeth onely [into] a particular Church, much less, onely [into his own congregati­on]. This baptizing [into his own congregation onely] may seem to intimate.] that if he loseth his relation to that particular Church, then he [Page 286] must also lose his baptism (which it is supposed) was onely into that. But if that be driven at, it falleth as heavy upon themselves, if such a baptizing into a Church were granted; for, then, if a man be baptized into the Catholick visible Church, if he be ejected out of that (which they say he may be by excommuni­cation) then he must as much lose his baptism there also.

3. As for 1 Cor. 12. v. 13. It speaketh of the baptism of the Spirit into the mystical body of Christ, not of water baptism into any visible Church at all; for the words are these, [For by one Spirit are we all bap­tized into one body.]

Object. 4. ‘Hence it will follow, That a Christian, who by reason of the unfixedness of his civil habitation, is not admitted into a particular Congregation, hath no way left him to have his children baptized, but they must all be left without the Church, in Satans visible King­dome.’

Answ. 1. We deny (as before) that baptism admit­teth into Christs Kingdom, or delivereth out of Sa­tans visible Kingdome. By vertue of the Cove­nant they are Co-members with their parents of the visible Church before baptism.

2. Some will grant, that Offiers may baptize in such cases, by vertue of membership in the Catholick Church, as well as they may baptize members of o­ther particular Churches, because baptizing is an act purely Ministerial in it self, and doth not necessarily imply his being over, or being an officer to those it is performed towards.

3. We rather answer thus, that a Christian, not­withstanding the unfixedness of his habitation, yet ought to join as a member with some particular Con­gregation or other, and so the difficulty vanished: those that joined to the Church at Jerusalem, Act. 2. v. 41. 47. yet were many of them men of other Coun­tries, [Page 287] as appeareth, vers. 5. 9. 10, 11. and though they had no fixed habitations there, yet they listed them­selves as members and were baptized at Jerusalem, vers. 41. when they cannot (by reason of the unfixed­ness of their habitations) enjoy such constant Com­munion with a Church, as they would, yet they are to joyn with some Church, and hold as much com­munion with it as they can, else a wide door is open to multitudes to keep from under discipline altogether: for, if they offend, what Church can call them to an account, or passe a censure upon them in case of ob­stinacy?

Object. 5. According to this assertion, there is no way left us by Christ for the Jus Divin. Min. p. 141. baptizing of Heathens, when it shall please God to convert them to the Christian faith. We will suppose an hundred heathens converted we demand, by whom shall these be baptized? not by a private Chrictian. To baptize is an act of office. Not by a Minister, for a Minister (say they) cannot perform any Pastoral act (such as this is) out of his own Congre­gation. Neither can these hundred converts chuse a Minister, and thereby give him power to baptive them; for they must first be a Church before they have power to chuse officers, and a Church they cannot be till baptized: neither can they joyn as members to any other Church and thereby be made capable of Baptisme by that Minister into whose Church they are admitted. For in the way of Christ a man must first be baptized before he be capable of being outwardly and solemnly admitted as a member of a par­ticular Church. The three thousand were not first added to the Church and then baptized, but first baptized and thereby added to the Church, Ast. 2. 41.

Answ. 1. The difficultie of such a case (if there be any in it) will be found in their way as well as in ours; for, if an hundred heathens be converted, we may [Page 288] ask, by whom shall these be baptized? not by an of­ficer, for a Minister or officer is set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. not in the world; suppose it be the Ca­tholick visible Church that is there intended, yet still the Church is the boundary of Office, it reacheth no further then that, and the hundred converted heathens are no members as yet of the Catholike visible Church, because (say they) persons are admitted into that Church by Baptisme; and these are not yet baptized. What have officers who are set in the Church, to do to perform an act of of­fice, to such as are no members of any Church? if they have an habitual power to Act as Ministers in any place of the world, yet that power extendeth no further then the Church, for then they must have a threefold relation, one to the Church Catho­lick, another to a particular Church, and a third to the world, and all as officers.

2. Christ hath left these wayes for the Baptizing such as are converted from heathenisme to the Chri­stian faith, either they may joyn as members to some Church, and so be made capable of baptisme by the Minister of that Church into which they are admitted, Or they may joyn together as a Church, and so call an officer who may baptize them.

We see no inconvenience in asserting that they may be a Church, before they be Baptized, the onely place alleadged against it, doth not say that they were first Baptized and thereby added to the Church, but the words are these, Act. 2. 41. Then they that gladly re­ceived his word, were Baptized, and the same day there were added about three thousand souls. They might be added to the Church, either before, or after baptisme, and yet all this might be said, and therefore it can­not prove that they were added by baptisme. Their being Baptized was rather a sign of being added, [Page 289] then that by which they were added. Christs way is expressed, Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore, and Disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. they are to be first disci­pled, and then baptized; and a disciple properly is one in Christs School, his Church, Act. 8. ver 3. com­pared with Act. 9. v. 1. & lest any should say that the di­scipling of them was by baptizing them, those two are plainly distinguished, John 4. ver. 1. Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John. Here is a difference put between making a Disciple and baptizing him. And therefore such converts may orderly become a Church or Church-members, before they be baptized, we have proved that they are not admitted by baptisme, and themselves will grant that they are Church-mem­bers immediately after it, and therefore surely their admission is to be before their baptisme.

Object. 6. Hence it will follow, That a Minister Preaching out of his own Congregation, cannot Lawfully and warrantably prononnce the blessing after his Sermon; for, to blesse the people from God is an act of Office, and to be done only by an officer, Nu. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26 compared with Revel 14. 5. Deut. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Eph. 1. 2.

Answ. 1. We do not judge, that the Levites did blesse as types any more then they did pray or exhort as so; nor that blessing should cease now Christ is come to blesse, any more then other acts in which Christ is chief, but they were appointed to bless as they did minister, Deut. 10. 8. 1 Chron. 23. 13.

2. Blessing is an act of office (we grant) and to be performed by an officer, but not onely: to exhort is an act of office, yet some not in office may exhort as we have proved, and might do so under the Old Testa­ment without offence to the Levite, Act. 13, ver. 14, 15. we have read that the Jewes had in their Synagogues a Pew or Seat on purpose for brethren to speak out of, where they that had any thing to offer, did place them­selves, [Page 290] and set, until the rulers therein did give liberty of speech; in which Seat Paul was noted by them, and not as an Apostle but as a brother among them, and they sent unto him that sat viz. in the Speakers place. In like manner blessing is an act of office, it was per­formed by the Levites but not onely, David did blesse, and he was no Levite, 2 Sam 6. 18.

3. Though blessing were to be performed by office onely, yet being an act of a common nature, which all have right in who are blessed of Christ, it may be put forth by vertue of communion, which case hath been already spoken to by us.

Argu. 7. ‘If the whole Essence of the ministerial call consisteth in Election Jus Divin. Min. p. 144. without Ordination, then it will neces­sarily follow, that when a Minister leaves or is put from that particular charge to which he is called, that then he ceaseth to be a Minister & becomes a private per­son, and that when he is elected to another place, he needs a new Ordination, and so toties quoties, as often as he is elected so often is he to be ordained.’

Ans. If by [Minister] they mean [an officer] we grant the consequence thus far, that if he leaveth or be justly put from that particular charge to which he is called, then he ceaseth to be an officer, and when he is elected to another place, he needs a new Ordination; we can see no inconvenience in granting this consequence, If by Minister they do not mean an officer, then they speak nothing to the question in hand, which is onely about a call to office; we deny that either election or Ordi­nation giveth the call to gifted men to Preach. But we suppose they speak of the call to office, and then al­though we deny that an officer leaving, or being un­justly put from his particular charge becomes a private person (for by Christs allowance he may still act in the publick work of preaching, which may denominate him [Page 291] a publick person) yet we grant he ceaseth to be an of­ficer when the relation to the particular Church cea­seth. But this seemeth to them a very great absurdity, and contrary to sound Doctrine, which they endea­vour to prove diverse wayes.

Object. 1. Because every Minister hath a double relation, one to the Church Jus Divin. Min. p. 145. Catholick indefinitely, another to that parti­cular Congregation over which he is set. Ordination is to the Essence of the Ministerial office, and not onely in re­ference to a particular place or charge. The Reverend Assembly say that the Ministery was given by Jesus Christ to the general Church visible which they prove from 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 4, 5. compared with ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16. of the same Chapter. Now if Ministers be seated by Christ in the Church Catholick as well as in their particular Churches, then it followeth, That they have a Relation as Ministers to the Church Catholick, and though their relation to their particular Church ceaseth, yet their Ministerial relation ceaseth not, because they were officers of the Church Catholick, and there doth still remain in them a power in Actu primo to dispense all the Ordinances of Christ, though their call ad actum secundum, five exercitium pro hic & nunc (as Master Hudson phraseth it) ceaseth. Even as every private Christian hath also a double relation, one to the Church general, and another to the particular place whereof he is a member; and when he removes from his Con­gregation he doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church (for then his baptisme should cease, for every baptized person is a member of the Church) but onely of that particular Church: a Minister of the Gospel; when he leaves his particular Congregation, he con­tinueth still to be a Minister, though not their Mini­ster, and needs no more to be ordained a new, then a private Christian to be baptized a new; because neither [Page 292] Ordination nor baptisme do stand in relation to the parti­cular Congregation, but to the Church Catholick.

Answ. 1 Part of this makes the question, the proof of the question, for, their proposition is, That the the whole Essence of the ministerial call doth not con­sist in Election without Ordination; and part of the proof is, because Ordination is to the essence of the ministerial office.

2. Their illustration (for a proof it is not) doth run them unavoidably into Anabaptisme, which them­selves cry out so much against: for, they plainly as­sert these two things. 1. That if a man ceaseth to be a member of the visible Church, then his baptisme cea­seth. 2. That every baptized person is a member of the Church.

From these we conclude, That every person justly excommunicate is an unbaptized person; for, he is ceased to be a member of the visible Church; and (say they) when a man ceaseth to be a member of the visi­ble Church, then his baptisme ceaseth; and it follow­eth from the second also, for we argue thus,

Every baptized person, is a member of the Church; No excommunicate person, is a member of the Church; for, they say every Minister by excommunication ejecteth out of the Church Catholick visible. Jus Divin. Min. p. 139. Ergo, No excommunicate person is a baptized person.

If no excommunicate person be a baptized person, then if upon repentance one be re-admitted into the the Church, he must also be Rebaptized, or else be in the Church unbaptized. And re-admission, up­on repentence is commanded, 2 Corinth. 2. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, &c.

This mistake of theirs, we suppose ariseth from their asserting that Baptisme doth admit or make to [Page 293] stand in relation to a Church; whereas baptizing is not into a Church neither into a particular nor into a general Church, as if that gave a being to a relation unto either; but Baptizing is, to or into the Name of Christ; baptisme is a solemn sign of a persons taking the Name Christ upon him, or of his being engaged under, and to make profession of, and own that Name in all wayes, and for all uses and ends that it serveth to, Mat. 28. 19. baptizing them to or into the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost, Acts 8. 16. 1 Cor. 1. ver. 12, 13, 14, 15.

And hence, although a person be baptized in a Church, yet when he leaves that Church or ceaseth to be a member of it, yet his baptisme ceaseth not. If by excommunication he be ejected out of the Church, yea if he ceaseth to be a member of the Catholick visible Church (if there be such a one) yet he doth not lose his baptisme, that remaineth as a testimony against him, as a solemn sign of his engagement for the Name of Christ, which now he denyeth: as if a man hath Covenanted under his hand and seal to pay an Annuitie, &c. to such a person; if afterward he refuseth to make payment thereof, yet his hand and seal will evidence against him; so will baptisme against those that cast off the profession of Christs Name; and upon this ac­count if a Christian leaveth one Congregation and joyneth with another, yet he need not be baptized a­gain; because he did not receive baptisme as a sign onely of his being engaged for the Name of Christ whilst he walked with that Congregation, but for ever: the case is not alike for Ordination for if a man after he be ordained proveth wicked, scan­dalous, or heretical, he may be excommunicated and deposed, and losing his office, he loseth his Ordination [Page 294] especially if Ordination did give the Essence to the call to Office, surely he hath not that upon him still, for then he might be an Officer of Christ, when he is no member of any Church of Christ, but he doth not lose his baptism. And besides, it is not proved, that his Office reacheth beyond a particular congre­tion, whereas his baptism doth.

3. We deny that an Officer hath a double relation, one to the Church-catholick, and another to his par­ticular congregation: the places cited, do not prove that he hath a relation as a Minister to a Church-ca­tholick; as for 1 Cor. 12. 28. If a Church-general vi­sible were intended there, yet it would not follow, that any mans relation as an Officer doth extend so much as habitually, or in actu primo, to the utmost bounds of that Church; for, it may properly be said, There are set in the Common-wealth, Justices, Con­stables, &c. Yet will any conclude hence, that Justi­ces sustain a double relation, one to the Counties wherein they live, and another to the whole Common­wealth? or that Constables have a double relation as Constables, one to the parish where they live, another to the Common-wealth, or that they have a power in actu primo, to do the Office of Constables in all places of the Common-wealth? So an Officer may be said to be set in the Catholick visible Church, because that particular Church to which he is an Officer, may belong to that Catholick-Church, and yet his office may extend no further then his particular congregati­on, he may have no relation, so much as in actu pri­mo, to any other Church.

He cannot be denyed to be set in the Common­wealth, who is set in any one place or Parish which is in it; and so an Officer may be said to be set in the Church-catholick, who is set in any particular Church which appertaineth to that universal, and yet the office [Page 295] may be bounded by that particular Church, may reach no further, and therefore the being set in the Church­catholick, cannot enforce a relation as an Officer to to that Church, without which no double relation.

As for Ephes. 4. The Apostle speaketh either

1. Of the mystical body, one in spirit and faith, over which never any were set as Officers in the whole, part of it being in heaven when the Apostles were on earth; nor in part, if so, then with or with­out its own act; not without, for, as office and autho­rity is Christs gift as our fountain, so the Churches call is the means thereof; answer of the Assembly to the reasons against the instance of the Church of Je­rusalem, p. 12. not with its own act, for they that never met, nor can meet unto a Church act, put forth none. Ergo, though Officers be given [for] the mystical Church, yet they have not relation [to] it, as Officers over it in the Lord. Or,

2. Of the integral body, which is one by consent and agreement; as the body of Antioch is one, and the body of Ephesus is one, the unity of the Spirit to be kept there, &c. We see no absurdity to say, God hath given to or set in the Church, viz. this and that Church, Apostles, Evangelists, for the edifying of the bo­dy, sc. this and that body. And whatever we have in notion, we can find no Church in existence or action, but must be a particular Church; as, it is proper to say, Satan persecutes man, though there be no Catho­lick man to persecute, because he persecutes this and that man; so to say, God careth to edifie the Church, the body, though no Catholick body or Church, but this and that particular.

Object. 2. If a Minister, when he removes, or is re­moved from his particular Congregation, ceaseth to be a Minister, then it will follow,

1. That if the Church that called him prove heretical, [Page 296] and wickedly separate from him, that then the sin of the people should nullifie the office of the Minister; Or

2. If the Church refuse to give him competent main­tenance, and starve him out from them, or if the major part unjustly combine together to vete him out, that then the covetousnesse and injustice of the people should make void the Function of their Minister. Or

3. By this Doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or a Nation to un-minister all their Mini­sters, which things are very great absurdities and con­trary to sound Doctrine.

Ans. 1. As to the two former particulars, though such Churches do hainously sin against the Lord, and com­mit wickedness at a great height, and must expect that the Lord will reward them according to their works, for separating from and nullifying of the office of such, as Christ hath set over them, upon such accounts; yet we know not but that in such cases, the sin of the people may nullifie the office of the Minister, it doth debar him from the exercise of his office, and why may it not make void the office? Suppose upon taking up some wicked principles, they cruelly murther or take away the life of their officer, surely he ceaseth then to be an officer, and if their sin can nullifie his office in such a way, why not by an unjust separation from or rejection of him?

2. If a peoples sinful rejection of their officer doth not nullifie his office, we suppose the reason is not because his office-power extendeth beyond that parti­cular Congregation, but because he is, de jure and of right, still over that Church as its officer, though he be hindred by their sinful actings from the exercise of his office amongst them: as a lawful Prince may by an un­just invasion be disabled for the exercise of Govern­ment in his Kingdom, though he yet be the Supream Governour, and may recover his right when he can. [Page 297] But if a Minister voluntarily removeth, or be rejected by the people, when either of these are upon just grounds, then surely the relation between them ceaseth, and so he ceaseth to be an officer.

3. As to the third thing, they grant that a peoples rejection of a Minister, maketh him cease from be­ing their Minister; and this openeth as wide a door for the people of a City or Nation to un-minister themselves, or to leave themselves without any Mi­nisters, as the other assertion doth to un-minister their Ministers; & if the people of a City or Nation will be so wickedly disposed, as to withdraw subjection from, or reject all from being their Ministers, what advantage can there be in their having the name of office upon them, when they cannot exercise their office there? and if they be unjustly rejected, and lose their office there­by, they may become Officers again in other places, as well as if they be but put out from being their Mini­sters.

Object. 3. ‘Because there is no Scrip­ture to warrant the iteration of Ordina­tion Jus Divin. Min p. 147. in case of removal. The Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church, and Titus was left in Crete to ordain Elders, &c. but there is no mention made of any command for reiterated Ordination, neither indeed can it be; for Ordination be­ing a setting a man apart to the Office of the Ministery (as we shall hereafter prove) and not onely to the exercise of it in such a place, though the local exercise should cease, yet his office still remains, and therefore needs not be reiterated.’

Answ. 1. There is no Scripture (that we can find) to evidence that a man is an Officer to any more then a particular congregation, and if his office extendeth no further, then in case of removal he ceaseth to be an officer, or becometh no officer; And here;

[Page 298] 2. All those Scriptures that warrant the Ordinati­on of any Officers, do warrant the iteration of Ordi­nation, in case a man becometh an Officer again to any other Church. As in a corporation, if Bayliffs or other Officers having served their whole time, do be­come no Officers, and afterward the same persons come into the same Offices again, the same Law that requi­red such ceremonies to be used in the investment of all such Officers, doth require the iteration of such ceremonies upon a new entrance into those Offices, though the Law doth not require it under the notion of an iteration. So all those Scriptures that warrant the ordaining of all Church Officers, must needs war­rant the re-ordaining of such, as after a becoming no Officers, do take up office a new again, though the Scriptures do not mention it under the notion of an iteration of Ordination, but under the notion of or­daining Officers at their first entrance into office. Take it thus,

Major. All that assume office in the Church, ought to be ordained. All the Scriptures that prove Ordinati­on of Officers to be necessary, do prove this; and our brethren cannot deny this Proposition, unless they will give up the whole case, and say that some may assume office in the Church without Ordination, and surely then gifted brethren may preach without it.

Minor. But those that remove to take the charge of a new Church, they assume office in the Church. For, upon a removal they became no Officers, because their office extended no further then their particular Church, and now they become Officers again, in ta­king a new charge.

Conclusion. Ergo, Those that remove to take the charge of a new Church, ought to be ordained.

When the person ceased to be an Officer, his Ordi­nation (which was an adjunct of his office) ceased al­so, [Page 299] and then he was considered as without Ordinati­on, and he taking up office again, is ordained again, because else he assumeth office without Ordination as really as if he had never been ordained.

3. If any example could be shewn of an ordinary Officers removal from one Church, to become an Of­ficer to another Church, we do suppose, it would give an example of the iteration of Ordination.

4. Ordination is not a setting apart to the office of the Ministry, but of such as are already Officers, to the work of their office. We do not say that Ordi­nation is a setting apart to the exercise of office in such a place, but to such persons, or to such a Church; that Church may remove to another place, or meet at a great distance from the place where now it is seated, yet he acteth as an Officer towards it there.

5. As for Act. 13. 2, 3. thus much may be conclu­ded from it, viz. That when Officers are called by the Lord to the work of office amongst a people, not before committed to them, or when they take a new charge upon them, they are to be ordained.

If this example hath not the force of a Rule in the grounds and ends of it, what use is it of to us for our direction or imitation? if it doth not oblidge, us to use Ordination upon an occasion of like nature, it is binding (as an example) in nothing: for what may be alleadged against its being exemplary in this, will as well deny it to be exemplary in other things, and then why do our brethren alleadge it at all for Or­dination? If Ordination were needful for Paul and Barnabas, upon their taking a new charge for office­work, when yet they ceased not to be Officers upon the coming of this new call, but onely had their Commis­sion inlarged by it, then much more is Ordination needful for ordinary officers, upon their taking a new charge, seeing they do cease to be Officers upon such [Page 300] removals. If this Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, were (as they say) by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, that may speak, that in these dayes we are not to expect such an extraordinary immediate call to ordain Officers, but it doth not deny it to be a a binding example to us, in all that was ordinary in it. Now it is ordinary for Officers to have a call to a new charge, as Paul and Barnabas had here; and the ends of this praying for them were ordinary, viz. that the Lord would afford his special presence to, and blessing upon them in office-work in their new charge, and therefore it doth warrant the iteration of Ordination, in case there be a removal to a new charge.

Object. 4. If the whole essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in popular Election, then will two other great ab­surdities follow. 1. That Ordination can in no case pre­cede such Election. 2. That there must be Churches before there be Ministers.

Answ. We know no absurdity in asserting these, but let us hear how they would prove them to be ab­surdities.

We conceive many cases may be put, in which Or­dination may lawfully go before Election, we shall onely give two instances.

1. When an ordained Minister removes upon war­rantable grounds, from one charge to another, the peo­ple to whom he removes, chuse him not as one that is to be made a Minister, but as one already made, and now to be made their Minister, &c.

2. When there is a necessity of sending men (as there is now in New England, for the conversion of Heathen people) we think it very agreeable unto Scripture rules, that these men should be first ordained before they be Elected by the Heathen to whom they are sent. And the reason is, because that the conversion of souls is the proper work of the Ministery. When Christ went up in­to [Page 301] heaven, he left not onely Apostles, Prophets & Evan­gelists, but also Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the e­difying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 11, 12. And the of­fice of ordinary Ministers is to be Embassadors for Christ, and in Christs name or in Christs stead, to beseech people to be reconciled unto God.

Where it may be had, there we conceive it is most agreeable to the Word, that men should be first ordain­ed before sent; hereby they shall go with more au­thority, and shall have power to baptize those whom they do convert, which otherwise they cannot lawfully do, &c.

They grant liberty to preach, as Probationers be­fore Ordination, yet here they say men cannot law­fully baptize, without he be ordained; whence we infer,

1. That according to their own principles, bap­tizing is more limited to Officers, then preaching.

2. That men may act as Embassadors of Christ, though they be not ordained: for if they preach but once as Probationers, either they act as Embassadors of Christ, and then Ordination doth not make them such, or else there is some preaching warranted by Christ, not as his Embassadors, and then gifted men, though no Officers, and without power to baptize, and though they be not Embassadors for Christ, yet may preach.

2. They assert a Mission here, which is no part of Ordination, for they say [it is most agreeable to the Word, that men should be first ordained before sent]. There is a sending then, which is distinct from, and may be subsequent to Ordination; and why then do our bre­thren so often assert sending and ordaining to be all one? or how will it appear, that any other sending is intended, Rom. 10. 15. then this which themselves grant, Ordination may be before?

[Page 302] 3. When an Ordained Minister removes upon war­rantable grounds from one charge to another, he is to have a new Ordination, but a new Election is to precede this new Ordination. The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister, and making him their Minister, if by Minister they intend an Officer.

4. When there is a necessity of sending men for the conversion of Heathens, we deny that they are sent forth as Officers, or that they ought to be ordained to make them Officers, before they be sent. If such as are Officers, and have been ordained, do take a journey and preach unto Heathen people, it is not in the capacity of Officers, for those Heathens are of no Church; but they act as persons gifted, and warran­ted by Christ to lay out their gifts in such publick works, for such ends. The conversion of souls is the work of the Ministery, not the proper work, so as the Lord useth none but Ministers therein; Parents, and Masters, and Neighbours, may be converting instru­ments as well as they. Ministers are lights, not by vertue of Ordination or Office, but illumination and gifts; if men in darkness be ordained, yet they are in darkness still: Officers are not made lights when made Officers; they were lights before, therefore to shine in the exercise and improvement of their gifts, and might have been Embassadors to the world, though they had not been Officers to a Church.

Gifted men are Embassadors in a general sence, for Christ, and in Christs name and stead are to beseech people to be reconciled unto God, for (as we have proved) they are warranted and commanded by Christ to preach.

We desire some Scripture-proof, That Ordination may in any case precede Election to Office.

Object. 2. It will also follow, That there must be Chur­ches [Page 303] before there be Ministers, which is against Scripture and sound reason: we do not deny but that there must be a Church before their Minister; but not before a Minister: the Church Entitative is before a Church Ministerial, but yet a Minister must needs be before a Church; for every Church must consist of persons baptized, (unbaptized per­sons cannot make a Church) and therefore there must be a Minister to baptize them, before they can be made capable to enter into Church-fellowship. Our Saviour Christ chose his Apostles for the gathering of Churches, there were first Apostles before Churches, and afterwards the Apostles or­dained Elders in these gathered Churches, and one great work of these Elders, was to convert the neighbouring Heathen, and when converted, to baptize them and gather them into Churches; and therefore Elders as well as Apo­stles were before Churches: And whosoever with us holds, That none but a Minister in office can baptize, must needs hold, that there must be ordinary Ministers before Chur­ches, and that therefore the whole essence of the Mini­sterial call, doth not consist in the Election of the Church.

Answ. 1. That a Church must needs be before a Mi­nister or Officer is evident, because if one be made a Minister, an Officer, it is to a Church; that is necessa­rily presupposed, before one can be made an Officer to it.

2. If Apostles were before Churches, yet seeing their call was extraordinary and Immediate from God, that doth not prove, that ordinary Officers (who are called by men) are before Churches, and the contrary is evident, Act. 14. 23. When they had chosen them Elders by suffrages in every Church, &c. the Chur­ches must needs be before the chusing Elders in every Church. Neither can it be proved, that these were Elders before they were their Elders, or that ever any ordinary officers were before Churches. Suppose un­baptized [Page 304] persons could not make a Church, yet the utmost it could amount to, would be but this, that there must be a Minister before this or that Church, it would not follow thence, that there must be Mini­sters before Churches in general, or before any Chur­ches: for, look upon any Church, and if it be said, there was a Minister before this or that Church, to bap­tize the persons which it consisteth of, we may say, then there was a Church before that Minister, for he could not be an officer unless it were to some Church, because Officer and Church are Relatives: if it be said there was some Minister before that Church, else the persons therein could not have been baptized, we may answer, to there must be some Church before that Minister, &c. and still Churches are before Ministers, until we come to the Apostles dayes, if the line of suc­cession holdeth so far, and if that line breaketh before we ascend so high, then where the stop was made, ei­ther the person baptizing was no Minister, and that cutteth the throat of the objection, for then they be­ing baptized by one that was no Minister, after their baptism they might become a Church before any Mi­nister; or else the person baptizing was a Minister, and then it must be said, he was a baptized person and yet no Church-member, or else a Minister, and yet an unbaptized person; a Church-officer, and yet no Church-member; for if he were a Church-member, then Church was still before the Minister: and how could he become a Minister, if a Church were not before?

If the line of succession holdeth to the Apostles dayes, their call was extraordinary, and they being the onely Officers that were before Gospel Churches, it speaketh nothing at all against Election of the Church, as giving the whole essence of the call to ordinary Officers, and it is the call of ordinary Officers onely, [Page 305] that this question is about, whether that consisteth in Election or not.

3. That a great work of ordinary Elders was to convert the neighbouring Heathens we grant, but that they acted as Elders in their conversion, we deny: that ordinary Elders did baptize then when converted, be­fore their being gathered into Churches, is a thing which they have not given us any Scripture-proof for. A Church is not to suffer persons in it to continue un­baptized, but we conceive unbaptized persons may make a Church, and then either by Communion with other Churches, or by chusing and ordaining an Of­ficer for it self, persons in it may be baptized; and thus we may hold, that none but a Minister in office can baptize, and yet need not hold that there must be ordinary Ministers before Churches, which to be sure, the Gospel speaketh as little of, as of unbapti­zed persons making a Church. And so we have an­swered their arguments against Election as essential to the call to office.

Two Arguments of Mr. Hookers they undertake to answer, by asserting that Officers as such, do sustain a relation to a universal Church, and by distinguish­ing between the persons which give being to a Mini­ster as to be their Minister; and those which give be­ing to him as to be a Minister, but because neither the assertion nor the distinction, are proved to have any sooting in Scripture, therefore we passe them over.

CHAP. XIIII.

Wherein is shown that the Essence of the Ministerial Call doth not consist in Ordination.

OOur Brethren in their book called Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 140. &c. endeavour to prove that Or­dination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. If Ordination be taken in a right sense, & by [Ministers] be nnderstood [officer] we can own the Assertion, and therefore we shall not here excep against their Argu­ments which they produce for the proof of it; but we proceed to their second assertion. viz

Assertion. ‘That the Essence of the ministerial call doth properly consist Jus Divin. Min. p. 164. in Ordination.’

This they strive to make out by diverse Argu­ments.

Argu. 1. ‘If Election doth not give the Essentials of the Ministeral office, Jus Divin. Minist. then Ordination doth; for the outward call of a Minister (as it is agreed on all sides) doth consist only in his election or Ordination. But election doth not, &c. as we have formerly shewed by diverse Arguments, Ergo, Ordination doth.’

Answ. Election doth give the Essentials of the out­ward call of a Minister, (as we have formerly shewed by diverse Arguments, to which we refer the Reader) Ergo, Ordination doth not.

Argu. 2. ‘If Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before, then Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 164. &c. it gives the Essence of the Ministerial office But Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before.’

Ergo, &c.

That this is so appears,

[Page 307] 1. From the Ordination of Deacons, Act. 6. 3. look ye out seven men, &c. whom we may appoint over this business, [...] is to put a man into an office which he had not before. Thus it is said of Joseph, Acts 7. 10. And he made him Governour over Egypt, &c. [...] &c. This act of Pharaohs did not confirm him in that office which he had before, but conferred upon him an of­fice he never had. The like we read, Deut. 1. 13. &c. Thus Exod. 18. 21. Thou shalt provide able men, and place such over them to be Rulers of thousands, &c. It was Moses his placing that did give them the formalitie of Rulers. The Hebrew word in Exodus and Deut. is [...] which answers the Greek word [...] 1 Tim. 1. 12. where it is said [...] and it was the Apostles appointing Deacons that did make them Deacons: all that the people did was to set seven men before the Apostles whom they by Ordi­nation made Deacons.

2. This appears also from Tit. 15. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest Ordain elders in every City, is [...] & constituas; and ordain or appoint: Titus was not left only to adde an Adjunct to the Ministerial call, or to establish and confirm those in their places that had right to them before, but he was left [...] which is all one as in a civil sense, [...] or [...] as one saith, or [...] constituere & preficere rectores & judices, to constitute and make rulers and Judges; thus it is said Luke 12. 42 who then is that faithful steward whom his Lord shall make Ruler &c. [...] This Act of the Lord of the house is that which gives the formal being of a Ruler unto this Steward. And it is Ordi­nation that doth [...] and is essentiale constituens of the Ministerial office.

Ans. 1. Election is undoubtedly given, the people, [Page 308] Act. 6. ver. 3. 5. And the saying pleased the whole, and [they chose.] And, electing or chusing in Scripture sense doth expresse the putting a man into an office which he had not before, as certainly as it can be supposed that this appointing can do it. As Luk. 6. 13. He called unto him his disciples, and of them he [chose] Twelve whom also he named, Apostles &c. So, John 6. 70. Acts 1. ver. 2. 24. Christ did not barely no minate and design the Twelve by chusing them, but conferred upon them an office they never had before, did give them the formality of officers, did constitute and make them officers by chusing of them; and from these examples we may as safely conclude that the peoples chusing Deacons was that which made them Deacons, and conferred their office upon them; as they may conclude either from the word [...] or from Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. Luke 12. 42. Tit. 1. 5. that Ordination doth it. For, if they say that appointing doth in these places expresse the office-making act, so may we say doth chusing in the other places, expresse as fully the office-making act also.

If they say that [...] &c. is to con­stitute and make Rulers and Judges, we may as well say, To chuse is to constitute and make Apostles, and therefore to chuse Elders or Deacous is to constitute and make them such, there is as good reason for the one as for the other.

2. But two Scriptures our brethren insist upon to prove that Ordination maketh a man a Minister that was none before.

The first Scripture is Act. 6. v. 3. which they strength­en with others, as Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. which speak of appointing unto Government. But they know that the appointing, Acts 6. 3. was not unto Government or Jurisdiction over the Church. [Page 309] Deacons were helps, not Governments, serving tables; officers in the Church, not over it, as wid­dowes also.

And can they indeed think that Ordination made them Deacons and Election made them Deacons of that Church, or that they were made Catholick Deacons and such as at Antioch, Ephesus &c. might have challenged the oversight of, or power to pro­vide for the poor as thereunto appointed, or officers therein, vel in actu primo?

The second Scripture is, Tit. 1. 5. That thou mightest Ordain; but they will not say that Titus might Ordain alone, but with a causal concurrence of the Eldership, we crave leave to adde, and of the brethren of the whole Church, for they fasted and prayed working together in every thing except im­position of hands, which is not an Act, but a sign of Ordination, not necessary but left free, so Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, part. 1. cap. 14.

To appoint therefore is not pro imperio determinare, or by vertue of pretended power and authoritie to im­pose one to be a Ruler in or over the Church. Supream Magistrates may appoint Judges, Justices, &c. whose Commission is Essentiale constituens, to their office the people willing or nilling the same, Ministers are for­bidden doing so, 1 Pet. 5. ver 3.

But to appoint in those Scriptures, (if it doth de­note onely fasting, prayer or imposition of hands after Election) is, to Solemnize a call to office, or Solenniter approbare; a Kings Coronation or a Magi­strates ritual investment may be called the Ordina­tion of a Magistrate. The Solemnization of a Ma­trimonial contract between man and woman the Ordination of a husband and of a wife, although the Essentiale constituens, of the relation lie in the [Page 310] contract, not in the solemnization. So in this cause, the act which hath but the nature of an adjunct, ha­ving the name of the principal act. Yet is not an of­ficer bound to approve of whatsoever shall be order­ed by the Church, 1 Tim. 5. 22. If the Church sin in Election, let not Timothy sin in ordination, approbation, &c. It is also considerable that Act. 6. 3. speaketh not of an appointment to office, but to the work of the office.

Arg. 3. ‘If ordination be the sending of a man forth with power and autho­rity Jus Divin. Min. p. 166. to preach the Gospel, and admi­nister the Sacraments, then it is that which gives the essence of the Ministerial office. But ordination is so, Ergo, The Minor (they say) is pro­ved from Rom. 10. 15. And how shall they preach ex­cept they be sent? this sending is an authoritative Mis­sion to preach the Word as Cryers and Heralds (for so the word [...] signifieth) and also as Embassa­dors are sent forth by their Prince with their letters missive and credentials, which appears by the words immediately following; as it is written, How beautiful, &c. it must be understood of such an authoritative send­ing, which was to continue to the end of the world, for the Apostle in that Climax of his, makes it as necessary and perpetual, as calling upon the name of the Lord, as believing and hearing the Word.’

Answ. We deny their Minor, neither doth all that they have said, prove, That Ordination is a sending of a man forth with power and authority to preach the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments.

1. We deny that Ordination and Mission are the same things: that Text alleadged, Rom. 10. 15. speak­eth of Mission or sending, but not one word about Ordination, and therefore it is far from proving that Ordination is a sending a man forth with power and [Page 311] authority to preach, &c. unless they can prove, that they are all one, (which we conceive they can never do) if an authoritative Mission were intended, such as Cryers, Heralds and Embassadors have, yet that would not evidence that Ordination giveth power and au­thority to preach and administer the Sacraments.

2. We deny that the power and authority to preach and administer the Sacraments, is received by mission or sending. the act of the person sending, doth not compleat mission, without the objects to whom he sendeth. The end of Mission is not to give a call to, or justifie the lawfulness of a mans preaching or admini­string the Sacraments; but that a Preacher may justi­fie the lawfulness of his preaching to such a people, i. e. such specifically considered, not numerically. As, if a Jew should deny it to be lawful for any to preach the Word unto Gentiles, we may prove it lawful to preach unto the Gentiles, by or from mission, because Christ hath said, Mat. 28. 19. Go ye and teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. This Mission will prove it lawful for any particular persons in any Nation, in any Church, in any place, to be preached to, but mission will not warrant any particular Preacher in publishing the Gospel unto such particular persons, in this or that place. We deny that mission giveth a man his Commission or authority to preach; and if the Apostles Climax did make it as necessary and perpe­tual as calling upon the name of the Lord, as belie­ving and hearing the Word, yet that would not prove it. The utmost that is said by the Apostle is, they can­not (i. e. not orderly, not warrantably) preach, except they be sent, and it may as well be said, they cannot orderly or warrantably preach and administer Sacra­ments, except they be gifted, except they have those qualifications which are required unto Officers, 1 Tim. 3. v. 1, 2, 3, &c. yet we suppose they will not say, that [Page 312] those gifts and qualifications do give power & autho­rity to preach and administer the Sacraments; if that will be granted, then they give up the case wholly, for a man may have those gifts and qualifications before, and so without Ordination, and so (by that rule) may have power and authority to do those acts although unordained. Such gifts and qualifications are necessarily and perpetually required unto Offiers, as well as mission, and so, by the same medium that they prove mission to give authority to perform such acts, may we as strongly prove such gifts and qualificati­ons to give authority thereunto.

3. We deny that the giving of that mission spoken of Rom. 10. 15. belongeth to any man whatever, un­less it be meant of the providential sending. It be­longeth to Christ onely to send, it was he that said, Mat. 28. 19. Go, &c.

We desire some Scripture-proof, that it appertain­eth to a Presbytery, or any man to give Mission, if that cannot be produced, then sending is far from be­ing that which giveth the power and authority to preach, or the outward call to office, which must be given by man.

Arg. 4. ‘If Ordination be that which gives the Ministerial office, then the Jus Divin. Min. p. 167. essence of the Ministerial call consist­eth in Ordination. But Ordination is that which gives the Ministerial office.’

‘That this so appears, from 2. Tim. 1. 6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands; and by, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. By laying on of the hands, is meant, the whole work of Ordination, and by gift is meant, docendi officium (as most interpreters [Page 313] say) office of the Ministery,’ and the power and au­thority conferred thereby upon him. ‘The Greek word [...] is often taken not onely for the grace by which we are fitted for an office, but for an office unto which men are through grace fitted. Thus it is taken, Eph. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 6.’

‘And thus it is here to be taken, Paul by Ordina­tion, did not onely declare Timothy to be an Officer, and confirm him in that office which he had before collated upon him, by the choice of the people, but he together with the Presbytery, gave him the gift, or office of the Ministery.’

Answ. We deny the Minor, The Texts alleadged do not prove, that Ordination is that which gives the Ministerial office.

There are three things that need proof, and if any one of them want it, their Argument cometh to nothing. 1. That by laying on of hands is meant Ordination. 2. That by Gift is meant Office. 3. That this gift is given by Ordination.

1. It is questionable whether by laying on of hands here be meant Ordination; for that ceremony was used upon other occasions as well as in Ordination. Laying on of hands was used in the Collation or conveyance of gifts, frequently when there was no Ordination, as Act. 8. 17, 18. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost, Act. 19. 6. Timothy might have gifts conferred upon him, although there were no Ordination, and if there were no Ordination, it is far from proving that the Ministe­rial office is given thereby.

2. It is to us clear, that by Gift is not meant Office; several reasons are given by Mr. Hooker to evidence this, that by gift is meant those spiritual abilities by which he was fitted and furnished for his office.

1. The word [...] doth most commonly signi­fie [Page 314] such gifts and graces as the Lord bestoweth upon us, & not office: and without special reason we may not re­cede or depart from the common signification of a word. They have given us no reason to evince that it must be taken here for office, and not in its usuall signification, and therefore it is a feeble argument, which hath no better proof.

2. The nature of the Expressions forbid, that by gift should be meant office; for (as Mr. Hooker obser­veth) a man is not said to stir up his office that is in him, but to stirre up the grace that is in him, being put into office. We are not wont to speak thus, Forget not the [...]ffice that is in you; a man is not onely more properly, but more truly said to be in his office; nay, the very nature and reality of the thing requires this also; An Office is a relation adjoyned to a man, not inherent in him, &c.

3. The person exhorted to stir up the gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and not to neglect the gift, 1 Tim. 4. 14. was Timothy, who was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. v. 5. Do the work of an Evangelist, &c. and therefore his office could not be collated upon him, ei­ther by the people, or by the Presbytery; let it be pro­ved that an extraordinary office could be conveyed by an ordinary Ordination, if not, then by Gift can­not be meant Office; and therefore their Argument is altogether without proof, for, the Ministerial office is not there said to be given by Ordination; And them­selves interpret one of the Texts of extraordinary gifts, using these words; ‘[If Timothy had any extra­ordinary gift that was given by the imposition of the Apostles hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift that is in thee, by the laying on of my hands; as it was in those times usual for extraordinary gifts to be con­veyed]’ Why in one place of the same book, they should understand by Gift, extraordinary gifts, and in [Page 315] another place, Office, in interpreting the same Text, we know not. And whereas they say there, ‘That imposition of hands now, confers as much as the imposition of hands by the Presbytery did to Ti­mothy, viz. the office of a Presbytery.’ It is not pro­ved that an office was conferred upon Timothy by laying on of hands, and if any were, it must be the Office of an Evangelist, for that was Timothies office, and surely our brethren will not say, that the extraordina­ry office of an Evangelist is conferred now by Ordi­nation, which must be, if by the Gift were meant Office, and that were conferred by imposition of hands, and as much were conferred now; for surely that which made him an Evangelist, made him a Pres­byter.

3. If by Gift were meant Office, yet it is onely said to be given [with] the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: it is seldom that [...] signifieth [by]; and however, it cannot be restrained to that significa­tion, and therefore no Argument can safely or forci­bly be fetched thence, for most properly it is rendred [with], and that doth not intimate any causal vertue, but onely a connexion or concurrence, such as a con­comitantial adjunct may have. If laying on of hands denoteth Ordination, and be but a meer adjunct to the conferring of the gift, yet it may properly be said to be given, [...], 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and therefore it doth not prove that Ordination giveth the Ministerial office.

Their first Argument to prove, that the essence of the Ministerial call doth consist in ordination, is divided into three parts.

Ob. 1. The persons that are said in Scri­ture to Ordain, are either Apostles, Pro­phets, Jus Divin. Min. p. 169. Evangelists, or Presbyters. And [Page 316] this is a sufficient argument to us to prove, that it is Or­dination that constitutes the Minister, and not Election. For it is not likely, that Christ would appoint his Apostles, and his Apostles appoint extraordinary and ordinary El­ders to convey onely an adjunct of the Ministerial call, and leave the great work of conveying the office-power un­to the common people.

Answ. 1. Whether it belongeth so to Officers to or­dain, as none else may do it, we shall shew afterward.

2. If onely Officers might ordain, yet that were no proof to us, that Ordination constitutes the Minister; for, the office-relation which is introduced by the call, or by that which constitutes a Minister, is a relation to the people or to a Church, and therefore the people or a Church must needs convey the office-power; for one relate gives being, and the essential constituting causes to another. Relata mutuo se ponunt & tellunt tam in essendo, quam cognoscendo. They are not made Officers over, or to the Ministers that do ordain them, the relation is not between Officers and Officers, but between Officers and a Church, Act. 20. 28. and therefore if Ministers onely may ordain, yet they do not constitute the Minister thereby; for then Relate should not give being to each o­ther.

And although Ordination be but an Adjunct to the outward call, yet that adjunct consisting chiefly, if not onely, in prayer, and the blessing and success of the Officer in his work, depending wholly upon the Lord, who in Ordination is prayed to for it; hence it is not unlikely that Christ would imploy Elders in adding such an adjunct, and yet leave the great work of conveying the office-power as to the outward call unto the people.

[Page 317] Object. 2 ‘The solemnity used in Or­dination is, prayer, fasting. and imposi­tion Jus Divin. Min. p. 169. of hands: we do not read the like So­lemnitie expressed in Scripture in Electi­on, and therefore it is against reason to think, that Electi­on should constitute the Minister,’ and give him all his Essentials, and Ordination onely give him a ceremonial complement.

Ans. 1 Ordination (so far as man acted in it) did consist in such Solemnitie; and reason will rather give it, that the call should consist in something else, and that Ordination should be but the Solemnization of a call, and not the call it self; for it is improper to assert that a call consisteth onely in Solemnities, and that any other acts concurred in Ordination in those dayes, besides those which they mention, cannot be proved.

2. Prayer is the chief, if not the onely act wherein Ordination doth consist, and reason tells us, that a call must go before praying for the blessing of God up­on a man in a work, which is the fruit and effect onely of the call.

Object. 3. The blame laid upon Timothy if he should lay hands suddenly upon any Minister, is very great. For hereby he makes himself impure, and becomes ac­cessary to the sins of those whom he makes Ministers. Now we may thus reason, where the greatest blame lies for unworthy men coming into the Ministry. Surely there must lie the greatest power of admitting men into the Ministery, else the blame is not just.

But the greatest blame is laid upon the Ministers. Ergo. If the constituting cause of the Ministerial call did lie in Election, The ministers may well ex­cuse themselves and say, we do but ordain, we do but give an Adjunct, &c.

Ans. 1. That blame is laid upon Timothy, if he should [Page 318] lay hands suddenly upon any man, we freely grant; but that the greatest blame is laid there, for unworthy men coming into the Ministery, they have not proved, neither can we find a syllable that way in the Text they alleadge, 1 Tim. 5. 22. The Apostle is not there comparing the acts of Ministers in undue Ordinations, comparing the acts of the people in undue Elections, and then casting the greatest blame upon the Ministers, and therefore their argument is altogether without proof. Timothy is injoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man, and therefore he should have sinned if he had done it; and so Act. 6. 3. the people are injoyned to Elect or chuse men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wis­dom, and therefore they should have sinned also, if they had chosen men that were not so qualified, and the blame laid upon the people in case they chose per­sons without such qualifications, was very great also, Mat. 7. 15. The people are warned to beware of false Prophets, and a great danger is intimated, in case they did not take heed of them, they would make a prey upon them like ravening wolves; and surely there is a like danger in electing such to be Prophets as in re­ceiving such when they are gotten into the place of Prophets, and therefore a great blame laid upon the people, in case they elect such, so John. 10. v. 5, 8. and how doth it appear then, from what they have said, that the greatest blame is laid upon the Ministers?

2. Where Officers are, they are to guide and direct in and about Elections, and if the people erre in chu­sing for the want of their guidance, to help them to make a better choice, or if they by laying on of hands do testifie their approbation of a bad choice, the grea­test blame may be laid upon the Ministers, for un­worthy men coming into the Ministery, yet that will not prove that they have the greatest power of admit­ting men into the Ministery: it may prove, that in such [Page 319] cases Ministers are in the greatest fault, because they do not by counsels, directions, and perswasions, seek to prevent such undue Elections, or because they did not wash their hands of such guilt, by refusing to or­dain them; but as they may be justly and greatly blamed upon such accounts for bad Elections, and yet the chief power of Election doth not reside in them, so they may be more blamed for yielding approbati­on to such undue Elections by ordaining, or laying hands on them (whereby they involve themselves in their guilt, and make themselves accessary to their sin, as really as if the whole power of Election resided in them) and yet the chiefest power of admitting men into the Ministery may not lie in the Ministers, but in the people: and therefore in undue Ordinations the Ministers cannot (as they would intimate) well excuse themselves, and say, that they do but give an adjunct, for by adding such an adjunct, they espouse the peoples sinful act in making a corrupt choice, and so become as guilty, if not more guilty them the people. They have power to suspend their own acting in Ordinati­on, though they have not power (but by counsel and perswasion) to hinder the peoples acting in an irregu­lar Election.

Thus much in answer to the Arguments alleadged for the proving that the essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Ordination.

If any would place the essence of the call partly in Election, and partly in Ordination, they must hold as we do, That a man is an Officer to a particular Church or Congregation onely: For, so often as a man re­moveth from a particular Congregation, so often he loseth Election, which (that assertion saith) is part of the essence of the call to office, and therefore must needs wholly cease to be an Officer, toties quoties; for, take away any part of the essence of a thing, and that [Page 320] thing can no longer subsist. That is denyed to be of the Essence or being of a thing, which it can subsist or have a being without. It is a contradiction to say that Election is part of the Essence of the call to office, and yet a mans call to office can subsist without Ele­ction. It is as much as to say, Election is of the being of a call to office, and yet is not of the being of it, for that call can have a being without it. Therefore if Election giveth part of the Essence of a call to of­fice, then so often as a man removeth and so looseth his Election, so often he ceaseth to be an officer, and so often as Election is iterated so often he is made an officer, again, and then there must be an iteration of Ordination also.

If any should say, That Ordination giveth the Es­sence of the call to be a Minister, and Election giveth the Essence of the call to be their Minister; we desire they would prove their distinction to be Scriptural; and then it would follow, That a man may be their Minister, before he be a Minister, for he may have Election before Ordination, Act. 6. ver. 5, 6. and also, then a man may be a Minister, an officer, and yet not be their Minister, or have none that he can war­rantably challenge a power over as an officer, or re­quire obedience from, towards him as an officer; for he may lose his relation to the particular Congre­gation he was over, and all Congregations, either because they have Pastors of their own, or upon other accounts, may deny him leave or liberty to put forth acts of office amongst them. It is contrary not onely to those rules that require duty from them as officers, Act. 20. 28. but also contrary to the very na­ture of office, which consisteth in a being over some or other; in such a case there must be overseers and yet none to be overseen, &c. we conclude therefore that the Essence of the call to office doth consist in election and not in Ordination.

CHAP. XV.

Wherein is proved that Ordination doth not so belong to a Presbytery, but that a Church or the people may in some cases lawfully act in it.

‘Our Brethren proceed to a Third Assertion, viz. That Ordinati­on Jus Divin. Min. p. 170. of Ministers ought to be by prayer, fasting and imposition of hands, And their chief drift in this, is to prove, that Ordination ought to be with imposition of hands.’

And because we have spoken briefly to that already, and shewed that it is like laying on of hands was, of extraordinary use, for the conveyance of gifts, or onely an indifferent significant Ceremony to declare who the party was, that was solemnly ordained, and so may without sin be omitted, or the end of it may be attained without its use; by some other sign it may be declared who the person is; also because themselves do not assert it to be any more then an inseparable Adjunct to Ordination, therefore we shall not spend time about this, onely take a Rule, which may serve as part of an answer to most, if not all their Argu­ments for imposition of hands. viz. That it is usual in Scripture to expresse things, by that which is neither necessary nor of constant use about them, So [Chain] is put for bondage and suffering, Act. 28. 20. I am bound with this chain, Jud. ver. 6. [Key] is put for power, authority, Government, Isai. 22 ver. 21, 22. [Rod] is put for correction, 1 Cor. 4. 21. Prov. 13. 24. [The crosse] is put for suffering and persecution, Mat. 16. 24. A chain is not necessarily or constantly used in bondage; nor a key, in the exercise of power or Government, nor a rod in correction, nor a crosse in persecution, [Page 322] yet because sometimes such instruments were used in such cases, therefore the Holy-Ghost expresseth those things by them: So, though imposition of hands be neither of necessary, nor of constant use about Ordi­nation, yet the whole of Ordination may be expressed by it, hence, Pauls forbidding Timothy to lay hands suddenly, doth not imply that it was his duty to lay on hands, or that he must necessarily and constantly use that ceremony, but that it was duty to ordain men, which they assert to be the thing notified by lay­ing n of hands, which answers their second Argu­ment; so the whole work of Ordination may be com­prehended under the ceremony of imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and yet it may not be of necessary and constant use about it, any more then in the former instances, the putting a chain for bondage, and key for the whole of Government, and rod for all cor­rection, and crosse for all afflictions, &c. will imply that they necessarily and constantly belong to them, which answers their third and fourth Arguments. It is sufficient that imposition of hands was sometimes used about Ordination to render the whole of it ex­pressed thereby; but it doth not prove the constant use of the ceremony to be necessary, but only of Ordina­tion, which is the thing signified by that ceremony.

We proceed to their fourth Assertion. viz.

‘That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of Jus Divin. Min. p. 181. the Presbytery.’

After a brief explication of the word Presbytery, &c. they come to that which (as they tell us) they especially aim at in this fourth Assertion, and they give it under this following Proposition.

Propos. That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church officers, and not to a Church without officers. And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a pervert­ing [Page 323] of the Ordinance, and of no more force then baptisme by a midwife, or consecration of the Lords Supper by a per­son out of the office.

We shall give some Arguments to prove the lawful­ness and validity of the peoples Ordination, and then answer their arguments against it.

Our Proposition is this,

Pro. That in a Church which hath no officer or of­ficers in it, some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without officers. We say [in a Church that hath no officers] for if a Church hath officers in it, they may go before the Church in Ordination, as well as in Praying on other occasions and Preaching, &c. that onely officers must act in it in such a case is not clear to us, as suppose a Church hath but two officers in it, we do not see any necessity that the whole work of the day must lie upon them onely, but [some be­lievers] i. e. such as have most of the spirit of Prayer, being desired, may lend assistance; but whether that may be or not, it is sufficient to our present purpose, and to any case that necessarily falleth out, in the con­gregational way, if it can be proved, that when a Church hath no officers of its own then some believers being deputed or chosen thereunto by the Church may ordain, without the necessary concurrence of any of­ficers.

And we say some believers [may] ordain without officers, not [must] for we do not reckon Ordination an act of Government, and therefore Churches may (for ought we yet see) hold communion each with o­ther in it, as well as in solemn prayer upon upon any other occasion, and so officers of other Churches may act in it, yet not qua officers, but qua gifted, and men gifted may without any officers, ordain; for it is a matter wherein the Church hath its liberty who it will depute thereunto, when it wanteth officers, [Page 324] and it is not necessarily confined to officers, as if none else might act in it, If a Church hath officers, the Law of their relation to the Church putteth them under obligations to go before the Church in Ordination, as well as in other duties as Preaching, administring of the Sacraments, &c. and therefore where officers are in a Church, they act as officers in Ordination as well as they do in prayer upon other solemn occasions, wherein undoubtedly other Christians eminently gisted may act in Prayer, yet do it not as of­ficers.

This is our sense of the question, yet because our bre­thren do account Ordination to be an act of Govern­ment, yea an eminent act of jurisdiction, therefore if in some of our Arguments may seem to speak of Ordinati­on as an act of Government, & of officers as officers, yet we do not grant it, but rather prove our sense of it, by denying it in that sense which they plead for it in.

This being premised we proceed to our Arguments.

Argu. 1. Whatsoever would necessarily and una­voidably infer Ordination to be unattainable, that is contrary to sound doctrine, and is not to be asserted. But that some believers may not lawfully or warrant­ably ordain without officers in a Church that hath no officers in it, that would necessarily and unavoidably infer Ordination to be unattainable. Ergo, That some believers may not lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers, in a Church that hath no officers in it, is contrary to sound Doctrine, and is not to be asserted.

The major none can deny who plead for Ordi­nation as an ordinance of Christ still continuing; for if it be of Christs appointment doubtless he hath pro­vided a way wherein it is attainable.

The Minor we prove thus;

Because there are no officers on earth authorized or appointed by Christ to ordain (in case a Church hath [Page 325] no officers in it) any more then believers without of­ficers, and therefore if believers without officers may not ordain, then no more may any officers (for one is as much warranted as the other) and so Ordination is unattainable.

That no officers on earth are authorized or appoint­ed by Christ to ordain in such a case, any more then believers without officers we prove, because such of­ficers must be authorized or appointed by Christ to ordain either by general Gospel rules which speak nothing of Ordination it self, but onely of such acts as it consisteth of, and who may perform these, and those general rules will warrant believers and au­thorize them to ordain as much as officers, for believers may use Prayer upon special occasions without officers, and are as well allowed to ex­ercise themselves thereunto as any officers. Or else such officers must be warranted to ordain in such cases by the special Rules and examples which are left in the Gospel about Ordination, and these do not limit Ordination to officers (in case a Church hath no officers in it) nor war­rant them to ordain any more then believers with­out officers; For, either they were extraordinary officers to whom the Rules were given about Or­dination, and who acted therein, and so those Churches where they ordained, were not without officers, for they were officers in all Churches where they came. Or else they had an extraordinary call to ordain, and so they will not warrant any ordinary officers without an extraordinary call to ordain, any more then believers without officers.

There is not one precept for, nor President or exam­ple of any ordinary officers acting in Ordination (out of the particular Church he is over) upon any ordinary call in any one Text: that Ordination is spoken [Page 326] of, as will be evident by examining the several places that speak about it.

In Act. 6. 2, 3, 5, 6. Either the twelve Apostles alone (who were extraordinary Officers) were the persons ordaining; or the Apostles and the Disciples together, v. 3. whom we may appoint; [we] i. e. as some think you and we, as [we] doth often include the persons spoken to, as well as the person speaking, as Eph. 2. 5. When [we] i. e. you and we were dead in sins, v. 10. [we] i. e. you and we Apostles, are his workmanship, &c. and then it belongeth to the people to ordain: however the Apostles were Officers in that Church.

In Act. 13. v. 1, 2, 3. The persons ordaining were Prophets and Teachers: if it be meant of ordinary Prophets, such as 1 Cor. 14. then it proveth that such as are no Officers may act with Officers in Ordinati­on; if they were extraordinary Prophets, so might the Teachers be also, for Paul and Barnabas (who were extraordinary Officers) are reckoned up as some of the Prophets or Teachers that were in the Church of Antioch, v. 1. and seeing it cannot be proved that any of them were ordinary Teachers, and if they were, yet they were in the Church at Antioch, v. 1. hence this place doth not evidence that it belongeth to ordinary Officers to ordain in a Church that hath no Officers of its own. And our brethren themselves tell us, that this was by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost said, separate me, &c. and v. 4. and they add further, this was an extraordinary thing, and therefore not sufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon. So that from their own words we con­clude, that the call was extraordinary, and therefore it will not warrant such persons to ordain, who have no such extraordinary call thereunto.

In Act. 14. 23. Our brethren say, the persons that did ordain were Paul and Barnabas, who were extraor­dinary Officers.

As for 1 Tim. 5. 22. The person spoken to was Timo­thy, who was an extraordinary officer, an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5.

As for 2 Tim. 1. 6. Paul was an Apostle. As for Tit. 1. 5. he was an Evangelist also, (as our brethren grant) because he was sent from place to place, 2 Cor. 8. 6. 16, 23. 2 Tim. 4. 10. and was to ordain as Paul appoint­ed him. As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we see nothing from the word to convince us that any one in that Pres­bytery, was an ordinary officer, and though it be usually taken for granted that it was an ordinary Presbytery, yet we much question it, and whereas it is often urged to shew a necessity of an ordinarie Pres­bytery in these dayes for the mannaging of Church­affairs, and some are ready to say that an ordinance of Christ is wanting in many Churches because there is but one Presbyter, no Presbytery; to all such plea's we say, it is a mercy the Lord hath afforded a Presbytery or diverse Presbyters to some Churches; but suppose a Church, as Corinth, Ephesus, &c. had fix or eight Pres­byters, these it will easily be granted did make a suf­ficient Presbytery to act in Church-affairs, but if the Lord added six or eight Presbyters more to the former number, it was a mercy, yet no ordinance of Christ was wanting when they were but six or eight in all; nor no new power was given by such an addition as made the number twelve or sixteen, but onely more persons were afforded for assistance in the use of that power which before fewer had. So if there be put one elder in a Church, the Presbyterial power resideth in him, and so no ordinance of Christ is wanting then, and if the Lord addeth more Presbyters that there be a Pres­bytery in a Church, no new power is given by such an addition, for if these act in a united way as a Presby­tery, they are but Presbyterial acts which are put forth, and so they are if a single Presbyter putteth forth the [Page 328] same acts, and therefore here is the onely difference that we can find; where there is a Presbytery, more persons use that power which one alone may use; And as one that laid hands on Timothy (and so joyned with other Presbyters in the very same act that this Presby­tery is said to perform,) was an extraordinary officer, viz. Paul, 2▪ Tim. 1. 6. So might all the rest in the Pres­bytery be, as well as one. It might consist onely of extraordinary officers and yet aptly be called a Pres­bytery, for they were Presbyters. If the Apostles one­ly ordained Deacons, Act. 6. yet they might be called a Presbytery or else that will evidence that it doth not belong to a Presbytery onely to ordain: and why may not that be called a Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. though it consisted onely of extraordinary officers, as well as that company, Act. 6. And the word Presbytery being no where else found but in this place in the new Testa­ment where it can be supposed to intend any Ecclesia­stical Assembly of Christs appointment, and fairly admitting of such an interpretation in this place, hence our brethren are wholly at a losse for a Rule for their Presbyteries.

‘However our brethren say, that those words by prophecie, do signifie the Jus Divin. Min. p. 167. moving cause and that which encou­raged Paul with the Presbytery to lay hands on Timothy; and if so, then whether the Pres­byters were ordinary or not, the call to lay on hands (being by prophesie) was extraordinary, and there­sore not sufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon.’

And thus it may be seen that none of the special rules laid down in Scripture about Ordination do ei­ther limit and restrain it unto ordinary officers (when a Church wanteth officers) or warrant them to be the persons that ought then to ordain, any [Page 329] more then believers who are no officers. Indeed, although those special rules do prove that Ordination is an ordinance of Christ still continuing, & therefore that some persons are to ordain, yet we cannot find that they hold out at all who ought to be the persons ordaining, for in these dayes there are no such extra­ordinary officers, none that have such an extraordina­ry call to ordain, as these had, and therefore unlesse we look to general rules (which will warrant believers doing it as well as officers) there are none on earth that can claim a power to ordain, and so Ordination will be altogether unattainable.

Object. But they might act as ordinary officers although they were extraordinary officers, all their acts did not per­take of the extraordinarinesse of their call, and so their acting may warrant ordinary officers in Ordaining.

Ans. 1. That the act of Ordination was ordinary we grant, but that the persons, in ordaining acted as ordinary officers onely, this we deny: their acting about Ordination was in part extraordinary as the immediateness of the call and the nature of the directions, do evidence, 2 Tim. 4. ver. 5. Do the work of an Evangelist, Tit. 1. 5. and ordain elders in every City as I have appointed thee. In obeying such exhortations they cannot be deemed to act as ordinary officers, for to do the work of an Evangelist, and to ordain in eve­ry city, and by the appointment of an Apostle, is that which belongeth not to ordinary officers: they are not Evangelists, and are fixed in their particular Congre­gations, and therefore cannot be required to do the work of such an office as they have not, or to travel from place to place as Titus was; which maketh it evi­dent that there was something extraordinary in their acting in Ordination.

2. If they acted as ordinary officers, yet that will not warrant officers ordaining, in case a [Page 330] Church hath no Officers, as will appear by our se­cond Argument.

Arg. 2. In a Church which hath no Officer or Of­ficers in it, either some believers may lawfully and warrantably ordain without Officers, or else some be­lievers and Officers of other Churches or else Officers of other Churches onely, without other believers, must be the persons appointed by Christ to ordain, or else in such a case, there is no way laid out by Christ for the attaining of Ordination.

The last we suppose none that plead for Ordination will assert, nor any that argue against believers or­daining, for, if Christ hath laid out no way in such a case to attain Ordination, then either such Churches as are without Officers, must for ever be without them, or else some persons must ordain, who are not appoin­ted by Christ to do it, and then surely believers may do it as well as any other.

If some Officers of other Churches, and some be­lievers be appointed by Christ to ordain, then it doth not belong onely to a Presbytery to ordain; for, belie­vers who are no Officers (according to this grant) may act in it; then it belongeth to believers, and is not peculiar to Church Officers to ordain; and then why are the people cryed out against so much for or­daining? or why may not Officers be blamed as well for ordaining without the people, as the people for ordaining without Officers? But we suppose they will assert the other, viz. That Officers of other Churches one­ly, without believers, must be the persons appointed by Christ to ordain, and let them prove it.

When we say [without believers] we mean without their concurrence in a way of acting, for our brethren will grant their concurrence by way of presence; they will give liberty to believers to be present when they ordain, but not to act in Ordination.

[Page 331] Our Brethren who say, Ordination by people without Ministers, is a perverting of the Ordinance, &c. let them prove, that it belongeth to Officers of other Chur­ches to ordain, or that Christ hath appointed Officers to ordain who are without that Church, to which a person is ordained an Officer, or else their Ordination by a Presbytery of Officers of other Churches, is as much a perverting of the Ordinance, and of no more force (to use their own words) then baptism by a Midwife, &c. for what can hinder the peoples Ordi­nation from being lawful, and of validity, but their wanting a Commission from Christ, or a Gospel Rule to warrant their acting in Ordination? And the Of­ficers of other Churches are as much without a Com­mission from Christ, or a Gospel rule to warrant their becoming a Presbytery, and acting as a Presbytery in ordaining Officers to Churches that have no Officers, as the people can be.

We have under the former Argument found, that all the Texts which speak about Ordination, they inti­mate either the officers that acted in it, or the call to be extraordinary. Neither is there any one in­stance, that doth certainly prove any ordinary Officers acting in Ordination in all the New Testament, much less is there any colour for ei­ther one precept or president, to warrant a Pres­bytery of officers of divers Churches to be of Christs Institution, or to have any allowance from him to act in Ordination. We cannot but wonder that some should go about to assert, that acts ought to be perfor­med by a Presbytery, without giving proof that such a Presbytery consisting of the Officers of divers Churches is of a Gospel stamp. Surely it should be pro­ved to be an Ordinance of Christ, before it be asser­ted what it ought to do.

As for Act. 6. Act. 13. Act. 14. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. [Page 332] either they acted as Apostles and Evangelists, whose Commission reached to all Churches, or as Officers in those Churches where they ordained men, and their general Commission made them Officers in and to all Churches where they became, and therefore what­ever Churches they acted in, they acted not barely as Officers, as Ministers, but as their Officers, as their Ministers, for Paul saith, that he had the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11. 28. and therefore these examples will not warrant Officers of divers Churches to ordain Officers unto Churches that have no officers.

Because the Apostles and Evangelists ordained in Churches they were officers to, Ergo, ordinary offi­cers may ordain in Churches which they are no officers to, surely the inconsequence will be evi­dent.

As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is probable it was a Presby­tery of extraordinary officers, however that it was a Presbytery which consisted of ordinary officers of di­vers congregations, there is not a syllable in the Text that way.

1. The Scriptures hold forth neither precept nor president for the necessary subordination of any Church of Christ, to any society of men without it self, for any acts of Church-government, as this is by our brethren supposed to be; it is ordinary for Churches to be without any officers, either by the death or remo­val, &c. of those that were seated in them, and if they cannot attain officers without some officers of other Churches put forth acts of Government and jurisdi­ction to make officers for them, that will imply a necessary subordination of Churches to other socie­ties without them, which is no where warranted by the Word.

2. There is no Gospel Rule to warrant any ordina­ry officers in putting forth any acts of Government, [Page 333] or any Presbyterial acts properly so called, towards any persons without those particular congregations where they are fixed as officers: let our brethren pro­duce any such Gospel rule to justifie their acting (both for matter and manner) as Presbyters, as officers to­wards any beyond their particular Churches, over which they are made overseers.

They are officers whereever they act, but they do not act as Presbyters to any out of their particular congregation. If 40. or 100. Mayors, Bayliffs or Constables meet together, they may be called Mayors, Bayliffs, or Constables, but cannot act unitedly in any acts of such offices; though they be officers, and have a lawful authority to act singly, every one within his own precincts, yet they have no power to act to­gether as such officers; all the Mayors have not power to act together as Mayors to any one Corporation, all those Constables have not power to act together as Constables; so Ministers have a power from Christ to act as officers, as Presbyters in their own congre­gations, but if a hundred of them meet, they have not power to act together as Presbyters, as Officers, to any one congregation. It is not not enough that they are all Officers of Christ to warrant their acting toge­thers as Officers, but they must be commissionated by Christ to act in combination, and together, as a Presbytery, or else they cannot justifie their actings.

There is no Scripture warrant for any other Presby­tery, but that onely which is within a particular con­gregation, and there is no rule to justifie a Presbytery of a particular congregation, in putting forth any acts as a Presbytery, towards any but the members of that par­ticular congregation where they are fixed; and there­fore some believers may as lawfully ordain, as any Presbyters in the world, for their power as Pres­byters, extendeth no further then their particu­lar [Page 334] Congregations, and if they do not act as Elders in ordaining, then why may not believers ordain without Officers? Divers of Mr. Collings Arguments against hearing of men not ordained, we may use here, and they will conclude much more strongly against calling in Officers of several Churches, and their acting in combination, or together as a Presbytery in ordain­ing Officers for a Church which is without Officers. Such a company of Officers have no promise made to them in acting as a Presbytery, nor the people in cal­ling them in for that end, and therefore they cannot pray in faith for a blessing upon them therein, accor­ding to his third Argument. Ordaining Officers is in­stituted worship, and Officers of divers Churches are are not warranted either by Scripture precept or presi­dent, to become a Presbytery, and as a Presbytery to ordain, and therefore by his fourth Argument, it is sinful.

It is to run out of Gods blessing, for there is no pro­mise made by God to it, and it is a running upon temptation, because a Presbytery of Officers of divers Churches, is no ordinary means of Gods appoint­ment, and therefore to practice that way, is sinful and unlawful, by his sixth Argument. It is to par­take of other mens sins, for such a Presbytery is en­couraged in ordaining, and so in sinning (they having no warrant as a Presbytery to ordain) by mens coming to be ordained, and therefore it is sinful by his seventh Argument. And thus it may be seen what inconve­niencies the asserting Ordination to be an act of a Pres­bytery as such, draweth along with it. But if Ordi­nation be no act of Government, no act peculiar to a Presbytery as such, (which as we conceive it is not) then a Presbytery may ordain where a Church hath one, and either some believers without Officers may ordain, or the Officers of other Churches may be cal­led [Page 335] in to ordain, (not as a Presbytery, but as persons meet and able to do such acts as Ordination consisteth of) in case a Church hath no Officers.

Arg. 3. If some believers who are no Officers may publickly preach, then in a Church that hath no of­ficers, they may lawfully or warranably ordain, with­out officers. For there is no Scripture-light to evi­dence that ordination is so great a work as preaching, or that it is more limited or restrained to officers then preaching is. But some believers (i. e. such as are gif­ted) who are no officers may publickly preach, as we have largely proved. Ergo, some believers, in a Church that hath no officers, may lawfully and war­rantably ordain, without officers.

Arg. 4. If some believers may (with Christs allow­ance) act in other special, publick, Church-works, then also in a Church that hath no officers, they may ordain, unless some special reason can be given against their ordaining, more then against their doing those works; for the Scripture doth not limit and particu­larize all the services they may act in. But some be­lievers may (with Christs allowance) act in other special, publick, Church-works, and there can be no special reason given against their ordaining, more then against their doing those other works. Ergo, in a Church that hath no officers they may ordain.

The Minor we prove from Act. 15. 2. They determi­ned that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles and Elders about this question. A Church then hath power to chuse, call, and depute, not onely officers, but others of their members to act in special, publick services, as occasion is offered, and necessity requireth; and this deputation was to act in a publick Assembly, as the chapter sheweth; and will our brethren say, that those may act in a Synod, who may not act in ordination? [Page 336] Nay, the brethren acted in that Synod, v. 22. Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, &c. by which it is evident, that a Church of Christ hath pow­er by an occasional choice to authorize some believers to act in special, publick businesses, appertaining to the Church; yea, the brethren acted in making the very decree it self, v. 23. The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren send greeting, &c. The decree runneth in the Brethrens name, as well as in the Officers name, as the Title sheweth; and therefore, either our Bre­thren must say, that some believers may ordain, or else that men may act in making decrees in a Synod, who may not ordain, then they will make a Synod inferiour to a classical Presbytery. Neither is it ma­terial, that Officers acted in this Synod as well as Brethren, for Apostles acted in it also, and we may assert, that the Brethren of Churches may act in a Sy­nodical way, without Elders, when they want Elders, as well as our brethren may say, that Elders in these dayes may act in a Synodical way, without Apo­stles.

Our Argument therefore may run thus.

Those that may act (as our brethren phrase it) in making decrees in a Synod, they may ordain. But some believers (who are no Officers) may act in ma­king decrees in a Synod. Ergo, some believers (who are no Officers) may ordain.

That a Church may design fit persons to perform some special services, we might evidence, also from 2 Cor. 8. v. 18, 19. Who was also chosen of the Churches, v. 23. They are the Messengers of the Churches, &c. Let any shew any special reason, why the Churches may not chuse and depute fit persons to ordain, as well as to perform other special and publick services, when occasion is offered.

[Page 337] Arg. 5. Those that give the essence of the call to office, may also give the adjunct. But some believers without Officers, do give the essence of the call to Office; Ergo, some believers may give the Adjunct.

The Major our brethren grant, these are their own words; ‘If Election give the essence to a Minister, and Ordination onely Jus Divin. Min. p. 188. an Adjunct, we see no reason why they that give the essence, should not also give the Adjunct. It is in the Lords power to li­mit an Adjunct, more then that which is essential; but let any prove that in this case any such limitati­on is given; if not, then they that may do the grea­ter act, may do the lesser, when it is about the same matter, and for the same general end; otherwise the disability to do the lesser, might render the greater act in a great measure frustraneous as to its end.’

The Minor we have proved before, in showing that Election is that which giveth the essence to the outward call to office, and that Election belongeth to a Church: and if Election giveth the essence, then Ordination must needs be but an Adjunct to that call.

Obj. As to what is objected, that if this Argument be valid, it would follow, that people might ordain their own Ministers, not onely when they want Elders, but when they have Elders.

Ans. 1. This doth not deny the Argument, but strengthen it; if our brethren will grant that, it is more then we ask of them; if the Argument will in­fer more then we produce it for, that doth not hin­der the validity of it, unless it can be proved that it crosseth some Gospel Rule therein.

2. We deny that such a consequence is necessary; for, such a duty is to be performed by the meetest and ablest persons in a Church, because that tendeth most to edification, and it is supposed, that where a Church [Page 338] hath Officers, they are meetest and ablest to go before the Church in prayer, and therefore they cannot be ex­cused, though we know not, but if that they want help, they may be assisted by the ablest members. Also, where a Church hath officers, they are chosen purpose­ly to take the charge of the weighty concernments of the Church, and to be chiefly active therein for the good of the Church, and therefore by their place, they are obliged to go before it in all its affairs, which are not by some special word of institution limited unto others.

And even in family-relation, a woman being with­out a husband, or in his absence, may go before the houshold in prayer and other family duties, which having a husband, it belongeth to his place to per­form, when she hath his presence.

Arg. 6. If Ordination consisteth in, or be made up of such acts onely, as believers may undoubtedly perform, and these acts be not limited in their use upon this occasion, to officers onely, then in a Church which hath no Officers, some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without Officers. But Ordi­nation consisteth in, or is made up of such acts onely, as believers may undoubtedly perform, and these acts are not limited in their use upon this occasion to offi­cers onely. Ergo, In a Church which hath no Officers, some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without Officers.

The Major is undeniable, if believers may per­form all the acts that are used about Ordination upon other occasions, none can with any shadow of reason confine those acts here onely to Officers, unless they be limited to them on this occasion, as they are not upon other occasions.

The first part of the Minor we shall prove, by con­sidering all the requisites unto Ordination. There are [Page 339] but three things on the part of the person ordaining that can be proved to have been belonging to it. 1. Fast­ing. 2. Prayer. 3. Imposition of hands. And we suppose the second, viz. Prayer, is that which it doth consist in, and is made up of, so far as any man doth act in it, yet we shall speak to all.

1. That some believers may fast upon solemn oc­casions, cannot be denyed, Mat. 6. v. 16, 17, 18. 1 Cor. 7. 5. Nay that they may fast upon this very occasion of Or­daining officers, will (we suppose) readily be granted, and may probably be gathered from, Act. 14. 23. Fast­ing then belongeth to believers and not to officers onely.

2. That prayer is a duty which believers may yea ought dayly to perform, is undenyable also; Mat. 6. ver. 6. 9. Jam. 5. 13. 1 Thes. 5. 17. And that they may and ought to pray for officers is evident also, 1 Thes. 5. ver. 25. Brethren pray for us. The Apostles called upon the believing Thess alonians to pray for them, pray [for us;] 2 Thes. 3 ver. 1. Finally brethren pray for us, &c. This Epistle is directed to the Church, Ch. 1. 1. and here the brethren are called upon to pray for of­ficers, yea for extraordinary officers, pray [for us;] and what should be the end of their Praying? or what should they pray for? [that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified. Surely this is the main the chief thing prayed for, in the Ordina­tion of Preaching officers, that the Lord would make them very prosperous in the work they are called to, that the word dispensed by them may have free pas­sage. Let any prove any greater end of prayer in Ordi­nation then this is. And if believers may pray for the same end that men do in ordaining officers, what sub­stantial difference is there between this and acting in Ordination? indeed this is a dayly work, and that a solemn set day for the same work; that ushereth them [Page 340] into the work of their office; this is constantly to be performed whilest they are in their work; but why believers may not act in prayer for their officers upon a solomn set day, as well as they may every day pray for them, for the very same ends that such a set day is intended for, we find not.

And by this we see cause to think that the Apostles had no such low esteem or account of the prayers of the people, as some have, Heb. 13. ver. 18. Pray for us; hence one well observeth that the greatest Apostle hath need of the prayers of the meanest Christian, and may be helped thereby, Act. 12. ver. 5. Peter therefore was kept in prison, but prayer was made without cea­sing of the Church, unto God for him, ver. 12. many were gathered together praying. Not the of­ficers onely, but the Church prayed; and not distri­butively, but collectively, many prayed together; here is publike prayer by the Church for an officer under persecution, and why may not believers as well pray together for an officer at his Admission into his work? By this it appeareth that the people may perform the substantial act of Ordination. viz. Prayer, and that for the very same end that it serveth to in Or­dination.

3. That imposition of hands (if still continuing) may be used by believers; we might wave this, be­cause it is so questionable whether by the will of Christ it be still to continue or not? but if it be of use a­bout Ordination, then believers may lay on hands also. This appeareth

1. Because imposition of hands at the utmost can be but an Adjunct to Ordination; our brethren in their Arguments for it, yet do not assert it to be any more then an Adjunct, neither is there any Scripture evi­dence that it was any more, in the Primitive times. [Page 341] And therefore, the people may lay on hands, for our brethren tell us, that they see no reason, why they that give the Essence, should not also give the Adjunct. The people (as we have proved) may give the Essence of Ordination, viz. Prayer, Ergo, They may give the Adjunct, viz. Imposition of hands.

2. Because the people did with Gods allowance lay on hands in old Testament dayes, Num 8. ver. 10. And thou shalt bring the Levites, before the Lord, and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites.

This Argument will be of the more weight because, as our brethren assert, imposition of hands is not a proper Gospel duty, never used but in the new Testa­ment, but is a Rite and ceremony borrowed from the old Testament, &c. from hence we infer, that we have more reason in this then in other matters to look to the old Testament for a warrant about the use of it, especially in a case where the new Testament doth not clearly direct us, (as must needs be the case when a Church wanteth officers) because it was borrowed from the old Testament; neither can a National Church or other old Testament orders be inferred from our using this Argument, because it cannot be proved that National Churches, &c. are by Christ made Gospel institutions, as imposition of hands is, if it be continuing. Saith Master M [...]ther, An example in the old Testament of a Mr. Ma­ther of the power of Sy­nods, p. 95. practice not abolished in the new as Cere­monial, typical, or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those time, and [...], but of moral equity and reason▪ such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us for the like practice upon the like occasion in these dayes, &c.

And they that were appointed to say hands on the Levites were the children of Israel, as the Text ex­pressely [Page 342] saith, And as Master Mather also ob­serveth this term is used in the ninth verse immediate­ly preceding; and in the eleventh verse immediately following, and fifteen or sixteen several times in this Chapter, Num 8. and yet of all these not so much as one, where it can be understood of the elders and of­ficers as such, but is used to signifie all the Congre­gation as he rightly thinketh. The people might lay hands on officers in old Testament dayes, from whence the Rite is borrowed, Ergo, The people may lay hands on officers in new Testament dayes (if the Rite be still of use) in case a Church hath no officers in it.

Our Brethren object several things against this, which we shall briefly answer.

Objeb. 1. Here Aaron and his sons were present, and if it proves any thing, it proves that the people may Or­dain, where there are elders.

Answ. If it will prove that the people may impose hands when elders are present, then much more when they are wanting. This is not against our assertion, but more for it, and much against our brethrens prin­ciples.

Object. 2. The children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites. But in the new Testament we meet with no such command laid upon the people. We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery are to lay on bands, but not a word of com­mand for the people.

Answ. 1. The command was immediate to Moses, but not immediate to the children of Israel, Num. 8. ver. 5, 6. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, take the Levites, &c. vers. 10. And thou shalt bring the Le­vites before the Lord, and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites.

The command was mediate to the children of Is­rael [Page 343] i. e. by Moses. Thus whosoever the persons be, whether officers or the people, that in new Testa­ment dayes are to ordain and lay on hands, they are commanded by God to do it, as immediately as the children of Israel were here to lay on hands upon the Levites, for the Lord gave forth those com­mands immediately to the Apostles as he did this to Moses; and therefore this objection will as much de­ny that officers may ordain or impose hands on of­ficers, as that the people may do it.

2. If the children of Israel had been commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites, yet seeing this was the first institution of the Levites office, it would not deny it to be a pattern: For, the institution of a new office must be given forth by the Lord immedediately to some persons or other.

3. If imposition of hands was used in old Testa­ment days by the people, and in new Testament dayes, there can be shewn no repeal of that Rule by which they did it, then they may still use it. Let any shew a re­peal in the new Testament, if they can. We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery laid on hands, but at the utmost that can onely prove an enlargement of the power, or that more persons may do it, it doth not prove that the persons who formerly did it, now may not do it. It can onely shew that some officers may lay on hands, it doth not shew, that the people (who formerly might) now may not lay on hands.

Object. 3. When it is said that the children of Israel laid on hands, it is not imaginable that all the Israelites did put on hands, but it was done by some chief of them in the name of rest, &c.

Answ. That is sufficient to our purpose, for so some of the chief men, in a Church; some of the most [Page 344] eminent believers may lay hands on. Officers in the name of the rest; we do not say that every mem­ber in a Church must lay on hands.

Obj. 4. The Levites were taken by God in stead of the first-born, as appears, Numb. 8. 16, 17. and hence it was that the children of Israel, that is, the first born of Israel, were to lay on hands upon them, for the Le­vites gave an atonement for them, and were offered up to the Lord in their stead, and as the Rabbins say, every first born laid on hands on the Levite that was for him; which if it be so, will afford us two other answers to this Text.

1. The children of Israel had not onely a special com­mand, but a special reason also for what they did. And wherefore this example cannot be made a pattern for New Testament practice.

2. That this laying on of hands upon the Levites, was not for them to set them apart for the service of the Lord, but rather a setting them apart for a sacrifice unto the Lord. It was the command of God that the children of Israel must put their hands upon the sacrifices they did of­fer unto the Lord, &c.

Answ. 1. That the first-born onely, did lay hands on the Levites, is not proved. It is true, they were ta­ken instead of the first-born, but it was the Lords command that warranted the persons to lay hands on the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. and that runs in general to the children of Israel, and therefore did not autho­rize the first-born, more then any other persons to do it. Hence,

2. If the first-born did lay hands on the Levites, it was not by vertue of any office, but in the name, and by the appointment of the children of Israel, for the command did run to them in general.

[Page 345] 3. If the children of Israel had laid their hands upon the Levites, upon the account of that command of God, which required their putting hands upon the sa­crifices they did offer, then every man of them must have laid hands on them, for so that command injoyn­eth, Levit. 1. v. 2. When any man of you shall offer, &c.

V. 4. [He] shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt­offering, &c. Not a substitute, not another for him, but [he] every one to whom the offering belonged, ought to impose hands upon it himself: and this would overthrow their third objection, which saith, It is not imaginable that all the Israelites did put on hands, &c. and also this denyeth that it was onely the first-born that did impose hands, and so destroyeth a great part of this fourth obje­ction.

4. It is not proved that this laying on of hands up­on the Levites was a setting them apart for a sacrifice unto the Lord, and therefore the objection is altogether groundless: we do not read that hands were to be im­posed on all sacrifices or offerings, no not on the first-born, in whose stead the L [...]vites were taken; neither do we remember that the people were to impose hands on any but the burnt-offering, Levit. 1. v. 4. He shall put his hand upon the head of [the burnt of­fering] and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him; other Sacrifices Aaron and his Sonnes, or the Elders, &c. imposed hands on, when that ceremony was used about them at all. And that the Levites were not such a sacrifice, the very name [burnt offering] will truly evi­dence.

Nay, it is plain, that the end of their offering before the Lord was, that they might execute [Page 346] their office, Numb. 8. v. 11. And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord, for an offering (not of the first-born onely, as our brethren would have it, but) of the children of Israel, (not as their propitiation and atonement, or as a sacrifice, but) that they may exe­cute the service of the Lord; so v. 15, 16. They were indeed to make atonement for the children of Israel, but not by offering sacrifices for the peoples sins (for that was done by the Priests onely), nor by being a sacrifice to make atonement for them, (because no such end of Aarons offering them up is proved, and another end is mentioned, v. 13, 14, 15, 16, 21.) but by their other service in the Text, and this the words following do confirm, [That there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the Sanctuary]. Their making atonement was after they were offered, not by being offered for an offering unto the Lord; And by many verses it is plain, that their setting apart was for the service of the Lord, v. 11, 15, 19, 21, 22. and therefore the ob­jection vanisheth.

Our brethren observe, That notwithstanding this imposition of hands, the Levites were not thereupon invested into their office, it was Aarons waving of the Levites, and separating them from among the chil­dren of Israel, that did constitute and make them Church-officers.

If this be fully granted, nothing is gained against us, for we are far from thinking that Ordination doth constitute or make Church officers, much less do we imagine that imposition of hands doth it. But from hence we gather thus much, That it was not the in­tendment of imposition of hands, in Old Testament dayes to confer an office; and therefore seeing the ce­remony was borrowed thence, it is very unlikely that [Page 347] in New Testament dayes it should be intended for such an end.

And thus we have proved the first part of the Minor of our sixth Argument, viz. That believers may un­doubtedly perform all the acts which Ordination (so far as any man acteth in it) doth confist in, or is made up of.

The second part of the Minor, viz. That these acts are not limited in their use upon the occasion of Or­dination, to Officers onely; we prove thus, because none of the Texts which speak of Ordination do li­mit it to Officers onely, let our brethren prove any such limitation, and unlesse they can do that (which we suppose they never can) it will necessarily follow, That in a Church which hath no Officers, some be­lievers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, with­out Officers. If they may perform the same acts upon other occasions, and they be not limited and confined to Officers upon this occasion, then they may perform them here also. And for the clearing of this, that there is no such limitation, we shall examine briefly our brethrens Arguments against Ordination by the people, without Ministers.

They tell us, ‘That they might ar­gue from what is recorded by Jewish Jus Divin. Min. p. 184. Writers, concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin; and they tell us, That when a Successor was to be provided for Moses, God com­mands him to take Joshua, and lay his hands upon him, &c. and accordingly it was done, Numb. 27. 18. And so for those seventy Elders, it is certain from the Jewish Writers, that the succession of these was continued through all ages, by their creating others in the place of those that died, by this ceremony of imposition of hands, &c.’

[Page 348] To all which we answer,

1. That these things (except that of Moses) are not recorded in Scripture (as themselves confess) and therefore are no cogent Arguments to evince the ne­cessity of such a succession.

2. The use and end of Imposition of hands by Mo­ses on Joshua, was, the conferring of gifts, Deut. 34. 9. And Joshua the S [...]n of Nun, was full of the Spi­rit of wisdom, [for] Moses had laid his hands upon him, &c.

3. We may far better argue for the peoples impo­sing hands on Officers, from their laying hands on the Levites, then they can for Officers doing it, from Jewish Writers.

4. If such a line of succession be necessary, how can any in these dayes prove their own standing to be legitimate, for we are perswaded they cannot evi­dence that this line of succession hath holden all along from the Apostles dayes, until themselves were or­dained; and if it were ever broken, they are as ill as ordained by the people, for then some un­ordained persons did ordain those that derived Or­dination to them. But they wave this way of argu­ing, and would fetch four Arguments from Scrip­ture against the peoples ordaining, without of­ficers.

Obj. 1. From the constant practice of the Church of Christ, as it is set down in Jus Divin. Min. p. 185. the Apostolical Writings. We challenge any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament for the justification of popular Ordi­nation. We read of Ordination by Apostles, Act. 6. Act. 14. and by Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13. and by Evangelists, Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. 22. and by a Presby­tery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. but for Ordination by the people, we [Page 349] meet not at all with it; may we not say to such Churches that usurp upon this work, as it is said, Mat. 21. 23. By what authority do you these things? and who gave you this authority?’

Answ. 1. There is not one example amongst all these alleadged, which proveth that ordinary Officers or­dained ordinary Officers; If Apostles ordained, Act. 6. Act. 14. and Evangelists, Tit. 1. 1 Tim 5. 22 these were extraordinary Officers; and so were some of those Teachers, Act. 13. 1. as Barnabas and Saul, and so might all the rest be; however the persons ordained, and the call to ordain, was extraordinary, v 2 the Presbyte­ry is not proved to consist of ordinary Officers, 1 Tim. 4. 14. and however it was an Evangelist that hands were imposed upon, and the call to it extraordinary (as we have shewed); so that our breathren cannot find an example of ordinary Officers ordaining ordinary O [...]ficers, amongst any of these instances; and therefore they are at as great a loss for an example of their pra­ctice, as the people are for an example of theirs in ordaining.

2. None of these examples do speak of Ordina­tion in a Church that is without Officers: we may grant that where a Church hath Officers, they may ordain, but the question is, whether the people may not ordain without Officers, in a Church that hath no Officers in it? Not one of the Texts alleadged do give us an example of Ordination in a Church that had no Officers, no Presbytery in it. The Apostles were Of­ficers in all Churches where they acted in Ordination, and so Evangelists, and so the persons ordained by them, received Ordination from such as were Officers in the same Churches where they were ordained; and it cannot be proved that the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. consisted of ordinary Officers of divers Churches.

[Page 350] We may turn our brethrens own words upon them­selves; We challange any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament, for the justification of Or­dination by a Presbytery consisting of ordinary Of­ficers of any other Churches; besides that, where the person ordained is an Officer. And may we not say to such a Presbytery that usurpeth upon this work, as it is said, Mat. 21. 23. By what authority do you these things? and who gave you this authority? so that still our brethren are at as great a loss to warrant their pra­ctice out of the Word, as the people can be.

3. We have given divers Scriptural Arguments to prove, that in such a case the people may ordain with­out Officers, and so we have answered the chal­lenge.

4. None of these Texts do limit Ordination to Offi­cers onely, and therefore they speak not against the peoples ordaining, without Officers: If ten or twenty examples could be given of Apostles and Evangelists, yea, and ordinary Officers ordaining, yet these could but conclude Affirmatively, that officers may ordain, they would not conclude Negatively, that none but Officers must ordain: as, there are many examples in the New Testament, which shew, that professing belie­vers and repenters were baptized, Mat. 3. 6. Acts 2. 41. Acts 8. 12, 37, 38. Act. 18. 3. but they are far from concluding, that none else may, for then no Infants might be baptized: So here, because Apostles, Evan­gelists, Prophets, Teachers, and a Presbytery did or­dain; to say, Ergo, none else may ordain, or therefore believers may not ordain without Officers, the conse­quence is seeble.

If Apostolical practice be of the nature of a Gospel injunction to us in ordinary actings, yet it must be af­firmatively onely, that some persons may in such cases [Page 351] act in the same duties, but it doth not hold negatively, that no other person may in other cases act therein. We may argue as strongly from the Texts against ordina­ry officers ordaining in a Church that hath no officers in it, as they can against believers ordaining without officers, it they will conclude negatively from them as thus, we read of Ordination by Apostles, by Pro­phets and Teachers, by Evangelists, by a Presbytery, upon an extraordinary call, and in the Churches where they were officers; but for Ordination by or­dinary officers we do not certainly read of that, and for Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary call, or in Churches that had no offic [...]rs in them, we meet not at all with it; and therefore as well may we conclude hence that ordinary officers may not or­dain in such cases, as they may that believers may not, without officers; for there is as little spoken of the one as of the other in those Texts, and therefore they can gain nothing by this Argument.

Obj. 2. Ordination by the people is not only not written in Scripture, but it is against the Scripture. For to what end and purpose should Jesus Christ appoint officers extra­ordinary and ordinary, for the doing of that work, which the people themselves may do? to what purpose did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain elders? why was Titus left in Crete to appoint elders in every city? might not the people say, what need Paul leave Titus to do that which we can do our selves? Frustra fit per plura, &c.

Answ. 1. In this time of the first plantation of Gospel Churches, extraordinary helpes were necessary for the giving a knowledge of that Gospel order which Christ would have observed in his Churches; and as Physical rules may be known in the Theoretical part, and yet it is needful to have direction in and [Page 352] about the practical part; so when the Apostles had converted people to the faith, it was needful that they or Evangelists, &c. should give them a knowledge of Church order, what Officers they should have, and al­so direct them how to put in practice such Gospel Rules as are left about the attaining of Gospel Offi­cers, and although Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus, had not acted at all in the Ordination, yet their going from place to place had not been unnecessary, because their guidance and direction was advantageous in coming up to Gospel order.

2. We might as well say, to what end and purpose should the people ordain in those dayes, when there were Apostles and Evangelists, who might (by their office) go from place to place, and ordain? many works that men lawfully may do, yet if others be put in trust to do such things, they say to what purpose should we act in them, when they need no help, we will not take the works out of their hands; yet this hindreth not acting in them, when help is wanting, which is the case when a Church is without Of­ficers.

3. It is not proved, that the principal or chief end, of Christs appointing Officers, either extraordinary or ordinary, or of Paul and Barnabas in going from place to place, or of Titus in staying at Crete, was to ordain Elders; that was but a little parcel of their work, whereas our brethren speak of it as if it were the chief intendment of their journeyings too and fro. And unless it were their main business (which cannot be proved) what colour of reason is there in it against the peoples ordaining? because Paul and Barnabas went about confirming the souls of Saints, &c. Act. 14. 22, 23. and ordained Elders in some Churches in their journeyings, and because Titus was [Page 353] left at Crete to set in order things wanting, Tit. 1. 5. and where they were without officers, did ordain elders, therefore it was to no end and purpose that they went from place to place, or that Titus stayed at Crete, if the people themselves might ordain. Who will not discern the weakness of such an Argu­ment? it may easily be answered, that if they had not ordained one elder, or if the people had or­dained all in their presence, yet there were other necessary ends and purposes that they were sent from place to place about, viz. to Preach the Gospel and con­firm the Saints, &c.

4. Christ hath appointed officers to do some works, which others may do who are no officers, & yet it was not in vain, or to no end and purpose that officers were appointed to do them: officers are appointed to visit sick, the Jam. 5. 14. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, &c. and yet will any say, to what end and purpose are elders appointed to visit the sick, if others may be called for, and may visit them? will our brethren say here, frustra fit per plura, &c. There might be some officers its like in some of those Churches where they ordained elders, and Paul and Barnabas Preached where they went, but will any say, to what purpose did they Preach, if the of­ficers that were before in those Churches did Preach? frustra fit per plura, &c. This Argument would be as strong against Apostles and Evangelists Preaching, where officers were who might Preach, as against the peoples ordaining without officers.

The Apostles and other officers might be appointed to do it, and yet the people might have liberty to or­dain in a Church without officers, and we can find no Scripure that this will be against.

[Page 354] Object. 3. ‘All that is written in the Jus Divin. Min pag. 186. Epistles concerning the Ordainers, and the qualification of the ordained, &c. is all written in the Epistles unto Timothy and Titus, who were Church-of­ficers. In the other Epistles which were written unto the Churches, there is no mention made of these things, which doth abundantly prove unto us, that the work of Ordina­tion is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the people.’

Ans. 1. It is usual to direct charges unto officers, when yet the duties required are to be performed by the people, at least when their concurrence with the offices is called for in coming up to the duties; so Rev. 2. the Epistles are dedicated to the Angels of those Churches, and yet our brethren grant that they are to be understood as meant of the whole Churches, as ap­pears, Revel. 1. 11. Revel. 2 ver. 7. 11, 17. So, although those charges be directed to Timothy and Titus, yet as Master Hooker observeth, It never was intended they should act them alone, &c.

Either these things were to be acted by Timothy and Titus with company, and then, why not by the peo­ple as well as by officers? there is as little mention made of the concurrence of officers as of the people; and if we fetch the Rule for it from other Scriptures, then the qualifications of officers, being laid down in those Epistles, as they were before the people to re­gulate their Election, Acts 6. ver. 3. hence we may safely conclude, that the people are intended, and are to be acters in following these charges as well as of­ficers.

If Timothy and Titus were to act them alone, then they are written to them as Evangelists, or else it must be granted that it belongeth not to a Pres­bytery only to ordain; one Presbyter may do it, and if to them as Evangelists, then they are no Presidents unto us.

[Page 355] 2. All may aptly be written to Timothy and Titus, although they acted not at all in the Ordinations, be­cause they were to give directions unto others how to act in them. They might be directed to them, be­cause they were to see the things done, although many of them were to be done, not by themselves, but by others hands, as Titus 1. 5. Surely Titus himself was not alone, nor with officers, to set in order all things that were wanting. If Dea­cons were wanting, was Titus and other officers onely to act herein? surely, the people were to chuse them, according to Acts 6. ver. 3, 5. and there­fore the things written about, were not to be acted onely by Church-officers, but some of them by the people, with the guidance and direction of these officers which they had. So 1 Tim. 2. ver. 1, 2. I exhort, that first of all, supplications, prayers, inter­cessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for Kings and for all that are in authority, &c. will any say, that onely Church officers are to pray for Magistrates and those in Authority? surely such Sub­jects as are no Church-officers may pray for their Go­vernours, as well as for other men, and yet this charge is given to Timothy, as well as that about Ordination, 1 Tim. 2 ver. 9. 11. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel; let the women learn in silence with all subjection. This charge is given to Timothy also, as well as that about Ordination, and yet the things given in charge were to be acted by women, not by Church officers; but Timothy was to give forth directions unto women to put them in practice.

By all which it is evident, that the writing to Timothy and Titus (who were Church-officers) about Ordi­nation, doth not prove that the work of Ordination be­longeth [Page 356] to Ministers, and not to the people; for in the very same Epistles, the Apostle writeth to Timothy and Titus about other matters, which undoubtedly were to be acted by the people, and cannot be restrained to Church-officers. It is also considerable, that it is said, Tit. 3. v. 15. Grace be with you [all]: and there­fore more then Titus or Church-Officers, even all the Saints in those places where Titus was, are written to. And Tit. 2. v. 15. These things speak and exhort, 1 Tim. 4. v. 6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good Minister of Jesus Christ. Whence we conclude that the design of the Apo­stle in directing these Epistles to Timothy & Titus who were Church-Officers, rather then to Churches, was not to restrain the acting of those matters contained in the Epistles unto Church-Officers, but to excite Timothy and Titus to an exhorting and putting such in remembrance to whom it belonged, to do them: and what is written about Ordination, may be acted by the people, as well as other matters in the Epistles, and the writing of them to Timothy and Titus, will not for­bid the one more then the other. If no other special reason can be produced out of the Epistles themselves, we must have recourse unto other Scriptures, to find out to whom it belongeth to ordain, and what is the use of these qualifications which are required to be in Officers, and we find that they are to regulate the peo­ples Election as well as Ordination, Act. 6. 3, 5. Some things are written to them as Evangelists, others to them either as Christians or as Officers, to give directi­ons about the acting of them, & are to be acted by Chri­stians who are no Officers; let it be proved that the rules about Ordination are to be put in practice by Officers onely. They might hold forth, that some Of­ficers might ordain, and yet be far from holding forth, [Page 357] that the people may not Ordain.

Object. 4. ‘From the nature of Ordi­tion. It is a potestative and authoritative Jus Divin. Min. p. 186. Mission. It is an eminent act of jurisdi­ction, not onely confirming a Minister in that office which he had before by Election, but conveying the very office-power of preaching and administering the Sacraments. It is that which gives the essentials of the Ministerial call; and therefore by the rule of the Gospel it belongs to Officers, and not to private persons. The Scripture doth accurately distinguish between Church­rulers, and private believers, Heb. 13. 17, 24. 1 Thess. 5. 12. Private persons can with no more lawfulness con­vey power to another, to administer the Sacraments, then they can themselves lawfully administer the Sacraments. Church-power is first seated in Christ the head, and from him committed to the Apostles, and from them to Church­officers. And they alone who have received it from the A­postles can derive and transmit it to the other Mini­sters, &c.’

Ans. 1. We deny that Ordination is a potestative and authoritative mission. We have shewn that there is a vast difference betwen mission and Ordination.

2. We deny that Ordination is any act of jurisdi­ction at all; much less is it an eminent act of jurisdi­ction: They would prove that the people may not or­dain, because ordination (say they) is an act of ju­risdiction, and that it is such an act, they have not proved, and therefore the Argument falleth of it self.

What they have added, is far from proving it, as appeareth by what followeth.

3. We deny that Ordination conveyeth the Office­power of preaching and administring the Sacraments, or that it giveth the essentials of the Ministerial call, the grounds of this denyal we gave before.

[Page 358] 4. If Ordination did convey office-power, or gave the essentials of the Ministerial call, yet that doth not prove into be an act of jurisdiction. It is an ordina­ry thing for the Free-men of a Corporation to convey office, power, or to give the essentials of a call to of­fice, to their Bayliffs and other Officers, and yet the Free-men are no Officers, nor cannot be said to put forth an act of jurisdiction herein. And as it is with­out Scripture-proof, that if private persons may con­vey power to others to administer the Sacraments, then they may administer the Sacraments themselves, so it is against the very rules observed in civil socie­ties, where it is ordinary for such to have a lawful pow­er to give the essentials unto the call to office, who have no power to execute the places of those Officers which they make, but ought to be ruled by that power so communicated. In civil Corporations the Officers are as clearly distinguished from the people governed, as in Church-affairs they can be, and yet the persons governed convey the power to the Governors, and this without any act of jurisdiction, by voluntary subjecti­on; and so in Church-matters the people convey of­fice-power, not by an act of jurisdiction, but by vo­luntary subjection or promising reverence, submission, and obedience in the Lord to such persons, in things wherein they act according to the Laws of their places, and the perscriptions given unto Officers by Jesus Christ.

All Church-power is first seated in Christ the head, and some was from him committed to the Apostles, and some power also is committed to other Church-of­ficers, but that the derivation of it, is by Ordinati­on, or by any act of jurisdiction, is not proved; and therefore the Argument is of no force against the peo­ples acting in Ordination. Our brethren tell us of [Page 359] some that renounce and disclaim all Ordination from Ministers, as unwarrantable and Antichristian, and take it up from the people as the onely way of the Gospel. Who these are of whom they speak, we know not.

If some have renounced Ordination by Bishops usur­ping power above ordinary Elders, and others have asserted that the people may ordain in case a Church hath no Officers in it, yet they do not hereby, either re­nounce Ordination it self, or all Ordination by Mi­nisters (one of which they must intend by the Ordi­nance of Christ, which they say is renounced) and hence they are far from running upon the evils which our brethren mention, or plunging themselves into such an inextricable difficulty as to renounce all the Minister; and Churches in the Christian world, and turn Seekers; and therefore these objections concern not us.

And now from all the premises we shall conclude (until we receive further light) that the Scriptures do witness the essence of a call to office to consist in Ele­ction, and that in some cases the people may ordain their own Officers, and that such as are furnished with preaching gifts and graces, may exercise them pub­lickly without Ordination.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.