yet can it not seem improbable to him who knows the use of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that is the language which the holy Ghost used which is indeed nothing else but a favour or blessing so that all that we are here exhorted unto is to be good stewards of the manifold favour of God or of the manifold blessings which come from the grace and favour of God And thus far our Brethren agree with us that by the grace of God we are to understand the effects thereof towards us only here lies the difference between us that they will needs expound it of the spiritual and internal acts of this grace because that seems to favour their cause most when as we say it may be understood of the external and temporal effects of that grace for of such things he spake in the foregoing verse And in that sense the word grace is taken in relation to men viz. for the temporal effects of their grace or favour towards others 2 Cor. 8. 19. Who was chosen to travel with us with this grace which is administred unto us i. e. with this charitable contribution as all Interpreters agree So that no man can justly stumble at that sense of the word here And for the addition of the word the manifold grace of God who knows not that Gods temporal favours of all which we are to be good stewards are manifold There is as great multiplicity and variety in temporall as in spirituall blessings 2. They say This will destroy the connexion of this verse with the rest Ans. 1. What more common then for exhortations of divers sorts in Pauls Epistles to be joyned together without any coherence 2. This doth not dissolve the connexion but only varies the connexion for whereas they annex it to the following verse this sense joynes it to the foregoing verse And this may fully serve for the Vindication of this place of Scripture wherein though I have not taken notice of every word said by our Brethren yet any ingenuous Reader that compares theirs and mine together will discern that I have not omitted any thing which is either considerable or plausible and for other things I have not so much spare time as to throw it away upon them And thus much for their second Argument CHAP. VI. THe third Argument will not call for much labour They argue from a Gospel promise Mat. 25. 29. Unto every one that hath shall be given Whatsoever gifts a man hath if he improve them God will increase his gifts Ans. It is true every one is to exercise his gifts but every one suo modo and debito ordine as hath been frequently said according to his capacity and place and after a right order What if a man be prudent and very fit to manage the Deacons work and to distribute the Church-alms must he undertake it upon pretence of exercising his gifts before he be called to it No surely 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let them first be proved then let them use the Office of a Deacon Or if a man hath gifts to rule a State must he take upon him that work before he be called to it Surely no And therefore a Preacher also however gifted yet must not publickly exercise his gifts till he have a call some call I say or other for I meddle not now with particulars what that call is only I say besides gifts a call is required without which he sins not in the not exercising of his gifts in such a way although exercise them he may divers waies And if our Brethren allow this in the Office of the Ruling Elder and Deacon that how well soever they are gifted for those works yet without a call a call I say distinct from that which may be pretended by vertue of their gifts they may not exercise those gifts why should they not allow it in the Preaching Ministry Why should not only the Offices but also the works of these inferiour Offices be inclosed and that higher and much more difficult work of the Ministry lie in common And this shall suffice for their second Argument wherein though divers things are said yet nothing of strength is added which hath not been considered and enervated under the foregoing Argument Their third Argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples They instance in two 1. In Apollo 2. In the scattered Saints Acts 18. 24. 1. In Apollo and the marrow and strength of what they say of him is this He preached publickly c. and yet was not ordained for he knew only the Baptism of John not the Baptism of Christ to which the institution of Ordination was subsequent he had but an imperfect knowledge of the doctrine of Christ. Unto this instance divers things are said which our Brethren take notice of and attempt to confute 1. Whereas some Answer That Apollo was an extraordinary Officer that he is ranked with Paul and Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. that he is called a Minister 1 Cor. 3. 5. To this they Answer 1. Let him prove it that will assert it All that the text saith of him is that he was eloquent and fervent c. which a man may be without those extraordinary gifts p. 71. Reply If this place doth not yet others do imply that he was an extraordinary Officer 1 Cor. 1. 12. Exc. But that was afterward when he went to Corinth He might be a gifted man first and yet afterwards an Officer c. p. 73. Ans. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts is very probable from that 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with persons so qualified but when he received them the Scripture is silent The Scripture intimates that he had them at Corinth but that he received them not before ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem The distance of time is not so great between his being at Ephesus that is Acts 18. 24. and in Achaia that is v. 27. of the same Chapter And therefore it is most probable he had those extraordinary gifts when he was at Ephesus If it be objected against this that he was ignorant in many truths instructed by Aquila and Priscilla p. 71. The Answer may be this that this is not inconsistent with his being a Prophet God revealed not all his mind at once to all his Prophets Those Prophets 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others as well as to speak themselves The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived though not in such a plentifull and glorious manner as afterwards and yet were ignorant of those great and glorious truths of Christs death and resurrection c. Inst. But after his departure the people of Ephesus were ignorant of those gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 19. 1 2. Ans. That might be neither they nor Apollo might know distinctly what these gifts of the Holy Ghost were and yet Apollo might have them his face might shine and he not know it As a man may be converted and yet not know
not of Ministers A minore ad majus non valet argumentum affirmativè To this they Answer That we use that kind of arguing when we argue thus We use Ordination in the choice of Deacons Ergo of Ministers much more so Christ argues from the lesse to the greater God takes care of Lillies Ravens c. Ergo he will much more take care of you Mat. 6. Reply Our Brethrens answer runs upon a grosse mistake for they inconsideratly confound two Canons which vastly differ though both of them belong to the same Topick 1. Their Argument is fetcht from this Canon Cui competit minus competit majus If a power of choosing Deacons which is the lesse belongs to the people then a power of choosing Ministers which is the greater belongs to them To this the Assembly well answered A minori ad majus non valet affirmativè It is very false to argue thus The power of choosing a Captaine belongs to the Colonel Ergo the power of chusing a Generall belongs to him Or thus The members of such a Company have a power to chuse their own Officers which is the lesse and therefore they have a power to chuse the City Officers which is the greater It is a true Rule A majori ad minus valet affirmativè i. e. Cui competit majus competit minus But it is false to argue A minori ad majus affirmativè or thus Cui competit minus competit majus 2. But there is another Canon much differing from the former and that is this Quod competit minori competit etiam majori If Ordination was required to the meaner and lesse considerable Office which is that of the Deacons much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office And this was the Argument used by the Assembly And to this belongs the Argument Mat. 6. 26. If the care of Gods Providence reacheth to lillies which are the lesse much more will it reach to you which are the greater The third Text alledged for the peoples election was Act. 14. 23. When they had created them elders by suffrages for so they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally used in every City And this they say may have reference to the disciples as well as to Paul and Barnabas for they were spoken of before Reply One would think nothing more can be said or desired by any sober man for the elucidation and vindication of this Text then the making out of these two things 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used for a simple chusing or appointing though without suffrages 2. That it cannot be taken here for chusing by suffrages From these two it followes most evidently and irrefragably that this place which is alledged as a pillar to prove the peoples election c. doth no wayes inforce it but rather overthrow it For the first that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not alwayes used for a chusing by suffrages but oft times for a simple chusing or appointing c. is most plaine from Acts 10. 41. and may be made good by a multitude of instances for which the Provinciall Assembly referred you to other Authors and especially Selden de Synedriis it being needlesse to transcribe 3. How oft the use of words varies from the etymologie no man can be ignorant that is not wholly a stranger to the Greek tongue But our Brethren say it is strange that Luke should use the word in such a sense as was different from the custome of all that writ before him I answer 1. It is so used by others as was now said 2. It is no new thing to find a word used in Scripture in a different sense from that which it hath in other Authors And if our Brethren acknowledge that Luke useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 10. 41. in a sense never used in any Author before him Why may we not expect the same favour for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Although this if nothing else could be said were sufficient to answer their Argument which is taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it be incumbent upon them to shew that the word must needs be so understood in this place yet ex abundanti we assert That this word cannot be taken in their sense And in this case by their own allowance we may recede from the native signification of the word because it is repugnant to the context And for proof of this I shall but desire any candid Reader diligently to read the whole context especially in the Greek tongue And I perswade my self he will judge it but a few removes from an impossibility to understand it in our Brethrens sense 1. They are said to ordaine to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it should have been if the people had done it And although it be true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet that is but seldome and then also it is for the most part aspirated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the common use of the word by which our Brethren will have us guided in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore we expect the like from them in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say the common use of the word is otherwise and especially this is considerable if you take notice of other circumstances which oblige us to this sense as namely 2. The same persons are said to ordaine in severall Cities and Churches Therefore it must needs be meant of them that had an authority over severall Churches 3. They ordained c. who going away commended the people to the Lord and surely that was the Apostles it is a lamentable shift to say That the disciples are spoken of in the foregoing verse and therefore it may be understood of them True they are spoken of and so are the Apostles spoken of and seeing both are spoken of we must inquire to whom this must be referred and for that the very first rudiments of Grammer will determine that the reference must be towords of the same case Now then in the 22. verse the disciples are spoken of in the Accusative case and as passive under the Apostles confirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by no meanes agrees as being active and of the Nominative case But now if you understand it of the Apostles all things run handsomly The same persons are brought in as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. c. all of them of the Nominative case and the active signification And whoever take out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the rest wherewith it is hedged in on both sides as
either of which it may be related Or like a tree standing in the confines of two Counties it being hard to determine to which County it belongs It may look backward and relate to hospitality It may look forward and relate to speaking and ministring and the words will bear either sense but both senses it cannot bear that being an undoubted truth that Sensus unius loci literalis non est nisi unicus and to demonstrate that it must relate to this and cannot relate to the other will be found very difficult if not impossible And yet upon this doubtfull place our Brethren hang the weight of their Cause I find a threefold sense given of these words Some referre it to the gift of speaking by any c. Others to the Office of speakers Others to the giving of Alms Of these I shall speak in order premising onely one thing which is well suggested by Dr Collings i. e. that whatever the sense of the place is if it be a command to preach yet this Epistle being written to strangers and in a scattered estate of the Church that might be lawfull to them in that case of necessity which otherwise is unlawfull But I will not presse that too far First then Their sense is this That whatsoever gift a man hath he is required to exercise it if he hath a gift to preach and that publickly he must preach c. And to prove this sense I observe they use three Arguments which I shall propound and consider 1. It is a gift indefinitely and therefore it may extend to all gifts p. 32. Ans. 1. And suppose it do extend to all gifts it is a truth granted by us that whatsoever gift a man hath he ought to exercise it but still as he is called to it and in his own sphear 2. Nothing more usual then for an expression indefinite in words to be definite in sense and to be limited pro subjectâ materiâ according to the matter in hand It would be vanity to multiply instances in a case so known If our Brethren were discoursing with an Arminian about the extent of Christs death who should urge the word world and mankind and infer as they do that the word being indefinite it is to be taken of all mankind they would quickly find an answer that such indefinite expressions are to be compared with and explained by other places where they are restrained and the same Answer may stop the mouth of this Argument So that to argue from the indefinitenesse of the phrase is but loose reasoning 2. They say This general expression must be interpreted and limited by that which follows If any man speak c. pag. 33. Ans. 1. It may every whit as well be limited and interpreted by the foregoing words and if so then all that our Brethren say from these words fals to the ground 2. If it must be limited by the following words so it may without any prejudice to our cause in this manner v. 10. he laies this down in the general that every man that hath a gift must use it then in the 11th verse he instanceth in two sorts of men that have received gifts to wit Ministers and Deacons who must be carefull to use their gifts and therefore in like manner all others are obliged to use the gifts that God hath given them Or if they will not allow these to be Officers it may be limited according to their own apprehensions that as every man in general is to use his gifts so in particular every man that hath preaching gifts is to use them but how i. e. as far as God doth call him forth to the use of them but no further and to us there appears no ordinary way now of Gods calling forth men to this work but by Ordination 3. They argue from the particle As As he hath received i. e. according to the nature of his gift he that hath private gifts must use them privately he that hath publick gifts i. e. gifts fit for publick use must use them publickly p. 33. Ans. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well be understood causally because he hath received it 2. And if it be meant thus which we say is a truth that God expects an use of talents proportionable to what he gives yet every one must act in his order and in his place and sphear and as God cals him forth as we shall see more fully by and by 3. But what if this proportion be meant of Almes-giving then all that they say fals to the ground Thus we have seen how our Brethren sense this place and what are the reasons that prevail with them so to do which whether they be of that consequence as to justifie them in the holding of an opinion so offensive to thousands of sincere Christians and so introductory of all confusion I leave to sober Readers to judge And yet their own sense doth draw after it such grosse and manifest absurdities that they dare not abide by it absolutely but qualifie it with an exception sufficient to invalidate all their Argument They say By this text all gifted persons are commanded to preach unlesse there can be shewn some Scripture-prohibition to forbid their preaching p. 35. To which I reply two things 1. Hereby the plea is removed to another Court and the Question lies here Whether elsewhere there be any prohibition which must be judged afterwards by comparing our Arguments and their Answers 2. It lies not upon us to shew a prohibition to restrain them from preaching but upon them to shew a warrant for preaching seeing for instituted worship we must have a positive warrant which this place we see affords not and whether any other place affords we shall see hereafter But we must not yet part with our Brethrens Argument from this place There are three or four difficulties with which it is gravel'd The first is that urged by Dr Collins Here is not only a liberty granted but a duty enjoined so that by this Text gifted persons not only may but must preach and that without election or calling for the Churches neglect of their duty must not make him neglect his The full vindication of this I shall leave to that reverend Author but I cannot wholly let it go untouched I shall form the Argument thus They who are by vertue of a divine precept to preach the Gospel are to do it necessarily Necessity is laid upon me yea wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel they are to do it in season and out of season they are to give themselves wholly to these things they are not to leave the Word of God to serve tables But all that have preaching gifts are not under such obligations our Brethren being Judges Ergo they are not obliged to preach the Gospel The major I prove Ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum The Scripture takes no notice of two sorts of preachers whereof the
Exod. 4. And this sending is that which is denied to the false Prophets Ier. 23. 21. I have not sent them were this meant of a providential sending this were not true for so God did send them and therefore the meaning is I did not authorize them In this sense also Christ bids us pray the Lord that he would send forth labourers into his harvest How send them for that let Christ's example interpret Christ's words He sent forth the twelve Matth. 10. i. e. by giving them Command and Commission So Luke 10. 1. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also and sent them And conformable to this was the example of the Apostles who used to send men into the Ministry by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands and this way of Sending is granted on all hands our Brethren cannot deny it But for another way of sending that remains yet to be proved Hitherto we have had no example of it as hath been seen 4. Let it be considered that our Brethren observe that this is brought in as a justification of the calling of the Gentiles and of the sending of Preachers to them by the Apostles which the Jews grumbled at Upon which I ground this inference That the cannot here How can they preach unlesse they be sent must be understood of a moral impossibility and not of a natural impossibility as our Brethren would have it For if it be taken of a natural impossibility it is false for though the Apostles had not sent them they might have gone of their own accord or some other way But if you take it for a moral impossibility it runs smoothly Whereas you Jews grumble at us for sending Preachers to the Gentiles we do no more then what is necessary for seeing God hath promised that the Gentiles shall be saved by calling upon the Lord and they cannot call on God without beleeving nor beleeve without hearing nor hear without preaching nor preach without sending i. e. not preach lawfully unlesse they be sent either by an immediate call or else by us or others who are authorized by God for that work and therefore we are not to be blamed for sending of them Exc. But say they all the other interrogations are to be understood of a natural impossibility It is naturally impossible for one to call upon him on whom he beleeves not or to beleeve on him of whom he hears not c. and that this only is meant of a moral impossibility will be hard to conclude But the Answer is easie That it is a very frequent thing in Scripture for the same word to be used in divers senses as Let the dead i. e. spiritually bury the dead i. e. corporally And to keep to the very phrase the word cannot is thus used Ier. 13. 23. Can the Aethiopian change his skin c. There is a natural impossibility then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil there is a moral impossibility So in that comparison of our Saviour A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit there is a natural impossibility How can ye being evil speak good things here is a moral impossibility 5. If this be only a providential mission by which these Preachers are here said to be sent then none at all are excluded nay the very devils themselves if they should preach Christ as they did sometimes in possessed persons must necessarily be taken into the number of the Preachers here spoken of for even such would be providentially sent then which what can be more absurd And I wish our Brethren would duly consider that there is a necessity of granting one of these two things either that the devils may be the Preachers here spoken of or that the mission here spoken of is not providential I shall adde no more upon this account only there are some Arguments which they offer to prove that this mission here spoken of is not constitutive of a Minister 1. They say The Apostles were Officers and yet had mission afterward Mat. 28. 19. Ans. 1. Officers indeed they were while Christ lived they were constituted Preachers Matth. 10. but they were not Apostles of the Gentiles untill Matth. 28. and therefore it is not strange that when they were inaugurated to that new and solemn work they had a new and solemn mission 2. This Argument is founded upon the ambiguity of the word sent or mission which sometimes is taken for a mans authorizing to a work and so they had but one mission to one kind of work sometimes for a bare disposall of them to this or that particular place or work and in this case they might have a hundred missions God sent Paul to Macedonia and to Corinth and to Rome c. yet surely our Brethren will not make all these to be several missions in the sense of the present dispute 2. Mission they say may be repealed so cannot a call to an Office Mat. 10. 28. compared Ans. That is taken off already The Apostles had in each place a distinct call to a distinct work 3. They say The seventy Disciples had mission to preach who were not Officers that we find Ans. 1. This is a contradiction for if they had a mission from Christ that made them Officers at least protempore for what is the making of one an Officer but a solemn designation of him for that work by a person impowred to authorize him 2. They might be Officers though we do not reade of it 4. They say Then the instructions of none can be usefull to work faith but of Officers only for this hearing is necessary to beleeving Ans. That follows not for though the only ordinary means of begetting faith is the hearing of a Gospel-Minister yet God is not bound up he may and doth oft times use private instructions of private men to that end And as it follows not that it is simply impossible for a man to beleeve that heareth no Preacher because the Apostle saith How shall they hear without a Preacher seeing God may work faith by immediate inspiration so it follows not that it is simply impossible for any man to be converted by hearing of one who is not ordained c. because the Apostle saith How shall they preach unlesse they be sent But this only follows from both that the hearing of a Preacher sent is the only ordinary means of working faith and salvation But we must not part thus our Brethren adde that this text is not cogent because though it did prove a necessity of a mission yet it doth not prove a necessity of ordination which was the thing to be proved seeing this mission is not Ordination Ans. I shall not contend about words nor is it pertinent to enter into a particular dispute about Ordination This is sufficient for our purpose this mission is not the bare gifting of them but it is an authorizing of them to
speak properly their masters joy enters into them and a man is said to be in drinke though drinke be in him So it cannot seeme strange if an office be said to be in a man though in propriety of speech he be in his office For the third branch 1. An extraordinary office might be conveyed in this case by ordinary officers For 1. It is commonly thought that Paul did concurre in this ordination with that Presbytery 2. They ordained him by divine direction And as it was no dishonour to Paul and Barnabas that they were ordained to that work Acts 13. 1 2. by persons inferiour to them seeing those persons did it by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost so neither is it any prejudice to the extraordinarinesse of Timothies office that it was conferred by ordinary officers seeing they conferred it by the conduct of propheticall designation 3. What more ordinary both in state and Church then for a person to have an office conveyed to him viz. Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him as the King by some of his subjects the Arch-Bishop by Bishops the officers of a Church in our brethrens way by the people whom I hope they will allow to be inferiour to their officers at lest they professe that they do so For the last clause I say two things 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places besides this Acts 13. 7. God brought Israel out of Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an high hand as it is elsewhere phrased So Acts 19. 27. They told what things God had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them i. e. by them especially seeing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other place which our Brethren suppose to be parallel that puts it out of doubt And the reason wherefore the Apostle rather useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was onely for better sound sake which the Apostles were not neglective of it had been unhandsome to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he elegantly varies the word and puts in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you will needs have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in another sense then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. for with and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood of a gift then why may we not acquiesce in this sense which will both fully take off all your objections and yet no way praejudice our cause neglect not the gift c. with the laying on of hands i. e. neglect not the gift c. nor the laying on of hands used in ordination whereby thou wast solemnely set apart for and obliged to the discharge of thy Ministeriall gifts and office Do not slight forget disregard that injunction c. And this sense I am sure the Greeke will beare very well and the English doth not exclude it Againe if this satisfie not it may be further added that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift in 2 Tim. 1. 6. forasmuch as the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary Officers and the same word 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be understood of the office the conveyance of which did fall within the verge of the ordinary Presbyters And if you take it thus then you may groundedly suppose that the laying on of Pauls hands was not done at the same time nor to the same end with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but that this latter did convey the office at one time which is said most properly to be neglected 1 Tim. 4. 14. and the former did convey a gift at another time which he is called upon to stirre up 2 Tim. 1. 6. And this fully takes off all the difficulty Nor can any wonder at the different sense of the same word and same phrase for that is so common a thing not onely in divers Epistles but in the same Epistle yea the same Chapter yea the same Verse sometimes that one and the same word or phrase is differently to be understood that none can justly stumble at it here But lastly it must be remembred that if this place were to be understood in their sense and did not contribute any thing to our cause the truth we assert doth not so depend upon this place that it must needs fall if this place do not uphold it forasmuch as it is founded upon divers other important places as hath bin shewed The Assembly argued further The persons ordaining were Apostles Prophets Evangelists and Presbyters whom it is not likely that Christ would appoint to convey onely the adjunct of the Ministeriall call and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power to the people To this they say two things 1. In stead of giving an answer they offer an argument that because one relate gives being to another therefore the people must needs give being to the Minister Reply This is a meer fallacy Relata are considerable two wayes as I may say in esse constituendo in esse constitute either as they are to be constituted or as they are compleatly constituted It is true Relata considered in esse constitute do give being one to another the Father is not a Father unlesse he have a son But then consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them when they are relata the one gives being to the other but there must be some other person or thing which puts them into that relation and it is that which we speak off For instance The husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband But there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the Act of the Justice or the Minister A Vice Chancellour is the Correlate of the University yet the Chancellours act doth constitute him in the relation and gives him the essence of his call 2. They say Though Ordination be but an adjunct yet it consisting chiefly if not onely in prayer Christ might imploy the Elders in adding such an adjunct Reply But what sober man can imagine that if this were all The Apostles should take so many journeyes about Ordination and should leave Titus who could ill be spared in Crete to ordain elders What would he leave him onely to pray for a blessing upon persons to be constituted by others It is strange he should leave him to a worke no way peculiar to his office and a worke which a brother might performe as effectually as an officer And this shall suffice for the second Question CHAP. XV. THE third and last question is this Whether ordination may be done by the people Wherein I shall need to say little because indeed
way and therefore this cannot be meant of private but of publick teaching p. 52. Ans. It follows not The teaching here spoken of though private yet was not attained unto by the Hebrews by babes in Christ they were according to the Apostl's description unable to teach their families or to instruct an Heathen privately if he had desired information from them for he tels us they had need that one should teach them again which be the first principles of the oracles of God Our Brethren perplex themselves by confounding two things much differing to wit the duty and the ability For babes in Christ it is their duty to teach i. e. privately yet they may want ability to teach 3. Teachers are here taken for such as are apt to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not that the Apostle injoyns it upon all the Hebrews as their duty actually to turn publick teachers If the whole body were the eye where were the hearing but only to be fit to teach id est in the sense explained As Gal. 2. 11. he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est word for word condemned blamed that is he was to be blamed So Tully Quis te damnatior that is who is more to be blamed than thou III. For 1 Cor. 7. 20. Although I conceive not that every man is so obliged to continue in his calling that he may not upon weighty reasons change it for another yet surely that text forbids a rash and groundlesse removing from one calling to another As it is true whether a man keeps his old calling or enters upon a new one he ought to do it with God which is all that can be collected from the 24th verse yet v. 20. servants and so others a pari are plainly commanded not to change their callings i. e. rashly and causelesly 7. They cite a command Heb. 10. 25. But exhorting one another i. e. in those Church-Assemblies to which the opposition clearly referres it Not only Officers but all Christians are to do it p. 54. And whereas they know it will and may justly be replied that by this rule all Christians are commanded to exhort publickly they endeavour to take that off by saying only those that were able to do it are intended as if a father bid all his children go to work he doth not include the child in the cradle But here is a manifest halt for all the grown Christians were able to teach though not all alike as of the grown children some could work better some worse yet by their supposition all that can work quovis modo are commanded to work Some had better some had meaner gifts but the very meanest could provoke to good works and might say something to admonish to counsel and comfort others to perswade them to persevere c. nay to that purpose a sincere hearted man though of very mean abilities might speak more effectually then some able Teachers So that if this place prove any thing to our Brethrens purpose it will prove that it was the duty of every one gifted or not gifted to preach in the publick Assembly which is not only false but contrary to their own opinion But I Answer further Their assembling together is not the modification of the exhortation as if they were to do it in the publick Assembly but the matter of the exhortation they were every one according to his place privately or publickly to exhort one another to what even to this that they would not forsake the assembling of themselves together i. e. that they would not apostatize from the Christian Religion and Christian Worship and Christian Assemblies nor relapse to Judaism but that they would persevere to the end that they would hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering v. 23. And this concerns the first sense put upon the place as if it obliged all gifted men to preach In the second place the Assembly take notice that by gift may be understood the Office he that speaketh i. e. the publick Office-preacher let him do it c. and he that ministreth i. e. the Deacon And thus also others unconcerned in this quarrell understand the words But against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions 1. They say Neither the context nor subsequent verses referre to Officers but to Christians in general therefore this doth not p. 57. Ans. Nothing is more common in Scriputre than for general and special exhortations to be joyned together and for the Apostles to make a transition from a general to a special exhortation and from a special to a general as almost every interpreter of Scripture observeth 2. They say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are far more usually taken for gifts than for an Office p. 59. Ans. 1. It sufficeth that sometimes it is taken for an Office and therefore so it may be taken here 2. And if it be granted that gift is taken in their sense in this place it availeth them not for the 10 verse may be a general rule wherein every man is commanded to exercise whatsoever gifts he hath received and to exercise them in a right manner and in the 11 verse he comes to instance in two particulars the Publick teacher saith he as he hath received gifts for teaching and the gift of the Office so let him speak c. and so the Deacon c. And this shall suffice to speak of the second sense A word now of the third which is this That this gift is meant of estates c. which a man is to use for Gods glory and the good of others for so the dependance upon the foregoing words carries it Use hospitality c. and then he addes a reason because they have received it and so may and ought to lay it out or if you will as a rule to guide persons in the management of it that they should lay out according to what they receive in To this there are but two things objected 1. They are here called stewards not of this worlds goods but of the grace of God and not of one grace only to wit charity but of the manifold grace of God p. 35. Ans. The grace of God which properly signifies an attribute of God is commonly in Scripture taken for the gracious effects and actings of that grace towards men And whereas these effects and actings of grace are of two sorts some concerning this life and some concerning the other life either of these or any effects of grace may be called the grace of God Metonymically and in respect of such temporal effects as well as spiritual God is frequently said to be gracious Exod. 22. It is his raiment and when he crieth unto me then I will hear for I am gracious So also Amos 5. 15. 1 Sam. 12. 22. 2 Kings 13. 23. And indeed although this may possibly seem strange to him that is praepossessed with the common use and acception of the word Grace in the English tongue
also was the work of Apostles 2. The work indeed was ordinary but the manner of doing it was extraordinary in as much as these did it infallibly and by immediate revelation Arg. 3. But here is no mention of extraordinary work of a gift of praediction which is required to all extraordinary Prophets but the contrary is intimated and this prophesying is here said to be not a sign for them that believe not which praediction of events is but for them that believe Ans. 1. Date non concesso that these Prophets had not the gift of prediction that no way hinders but they might be extraordinary Officers for besides this they had another extraordinary gift to wit a gift of infallible teaching by immediate revelation Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of praediction that we read of and yet I hope our Brethren will give them their passe for extraordinary Officers 2. For my part I am prone to conceive and let our Brethren disprove it that the praediction of future events was rather a priviledge indulged to some New Testament Prophets than common to all Prophets The gift of miracles was a gift bestowed upon Prophets and yet some wanted it for Iohn though a Prophet yet did no miracle Ioh. 10. 41. However the great and principal work of these New Testament Prophets and the old also was preaching c. and therefore although these Prophets 1 Cor. 14 had the gift of praediction yet it is no wonder that the title of prophesying should be appropriated to the most common principal and famous part of the work which is preaching 3. And how poor an evidence is this to prove that these Prophets could not foretell future events because it is not mentioned in this Chapter the rather because he here speaks of the Prophets not in relation to unbeleevers for whose-sake the gift of prediction was given but in relation to beleevers and to the Church and concerning the ordering of the work of prophesying or preaching in and to the Church-assembly 4. We readily grant all which can be proved from this place which is only this that the preaching of these Prophets for it is that act of the Prophets which is here called prophesying is not for them that believe not but for them that beleeve It is not said that these Prophets were given not for a sign to them that beleeve not c. which had been more to the purpose but that that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe c. 5. If they had not that particular extraordinary gift of praediction yet had they divers other extraordinary gifts as that of Tongues and the interpretation of them c. and that was sufficient to make the persons extraordinary though they wanted some other extraordinary gift Arg. Publick Prophesying extraordinary was allowed to women Luke 2. 36 38. But this publick Prophesying was not allowed to women v. 34. let your women keep silence Therefore this publick Prophesying was ordinary p. 102. Ans. That extraordinary Prophesying was allowed to women in publick either in the old or new Testament hath been often said and supposed but never yet could I see it proved nor can one instance be given of it that I know of to wit that any woman did preach in a publick Assembly and there lies the stresse Anna might speak to all i. e. severally as they came by turnes to the Temple and so might Priscilla occasionally speak privately as she had opportunity And indeed we read that when she preached she chose to do it privately Act. 18. But neither of them in a publick Assembly But that Argument is so fully handled by others that I shall not need to dilate upon it here And thus we have seen how infirm our Brethrens Arguments are which are brought to prove that this Prophesying was ordinary In the next place I should come to lay down Arguments to prove that it was extraordinary I shall not insist upon all the Arguments used to prove it Some were proposed by Dr. Collings and are by him vindicated in his last piece others I dare venture to stand upon their own legs and refer the comparing of them and the Answers here given to any indifferent Reader And besides Dr. Collings hath eased me of that burden This only I take notice of that this Prophesying was by revelation v. 26. Every one i. e. of you Prophets hath a Psalme a Doctrine a Tongue a revelation an interpretation And v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace To which our Brethren answer two things 1. They say All these enumerated were not extraordinary A Doctrine is ordinary the ordinary Elders have a Doctrine p. 103. Reply It is true of ordinary Officers they had a Doctrine it is true also of extraordinary Officers they had a Doctrine but not both in the same way in the one it was extraordinary in the other ordinary so that from the bare mention of a Doctrine it can neither be collected that that Doctrine was ordinary nor that it was extraordinary but that must be gathered from the circumstances of the place and for this place whereas the Office here spoken of is extraordinary as we have proved and the word Doctrine is at least ambiguous It is more probable that this Doctrine is meant of an extraordinary kind as the rest are which are there enumerated than that it is meant of an ordinary Doctrine when nothing else here spoken of s ordinary 2. They say that the word revelation is somtimes taken for a revelation in an ordinary way that is by the word c. Ans. That is readily granted and needed no proof but it must be added that somtimes also it is taken in an extraordinary sense so that now we are to enquire which way it is to be taken here and which way the circumstances of the text restrain that common word Now that it is meant of extraordinary revelation four things will procure belief with unbyassed Readers 1. That the word is of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be revealed not if it have been revealed as it should have been for the revelation of the word was past 2. The posture in which it is revealed when he sitteth by 3. The effect of such a revelation that it gives a stop to the others discourse 4. That this revelation was not common to all the Church but peculiar to these Prophets and not common to all the Prophets neither but peculiar to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some one that sitteth by and therefore surely it cannot be the revelation by the Word which is common to all the Prophets yea all the Church Nor is there any weight in what is further objected by our Brethren that if this revelation should command silence to a Prophet speaking by immediate revelation then the same Spirit should clash with it self For though these Prophets did speak