reasonableness that good experience should precede Election for they must be perswaded that he is gifted and qualified or they cannot in faith Elect now this perswasion cannot be wrought in them without a mans frequent preaching to give them this experience This is the sum of p. 30. To which I answer 1. Surposing that Election is necessary to precede Ordination we deny that ordinary preaching is necessary in order to Election I know no need of any preaching at all but only to try his utterance his soundness in the faith and other qualifications are better tried by ordinary converse than by many Sermons Those who chose the Deacons had not 6 monthes experience of them as is plain from the Chronology of the Scripture twice or thrice preaching is enough to try that single gift of utterance surely 2. Secondly we deny the Minor such Election viz. the Election of a particular Church is not necessary to precede Ordination nor have our Brethren a title of plain Scripture for it they only quote Acts 6. v. 5 6. See more Ch. 6. of this treatise To which I said enough before but let me add Do our Brethren think that the election there was by the whole multitude let any one in reason judge whether 8000 people odd for so many was the number at that time and those of different languages too Acts 2.41 Acts 4.4 Acts 2.6 can reasonably be supposed being also divided amongst themselves Acts 6.1 to have agreed in that choice the Apostles indeed spake to some probably the most judicious of them to commend persons to them whereas our Brethren say I grant Ordination is but Actus ultimus he that looks the place Vindiciae ministerii p. 18. will see my sense I say 1. In case he be pastor of a Church 2. I say examination c. must precede Our Brethren here desire one text to prove Ordination antecedent to or without Election On the contrary we want one Scripture to prove Election necessary we grant it indeed upon parity of reason for the Pastor of this or that Church and judge it highly convenient but I must profess I see not one clear Scripture for it Doth Paul give any such instructions to Timothy or Titus to be observed before their Ordinations If there was any Acts 14.23 Paul and Barnabas made them what election do we read of upon the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. Weigh these things Christian Reader and judge how much this first argument is worth Our Brethrens second argument is this All that by Gospel commands are required to preach they may ought to preach But some men meerly gifted are so required Ergo. The Major we grant the Minor we deny They proceed All that have preaching gifts and graces or are apt to teach are required by Gospel-commands to preach But some men meerly gifted not ordained are apt to teach c. Ergo. The Minor we grant the Major we deny Our Brethren instance in two texts to prove it the first upon which they most enlarge is 1 Pet. 4.10 11. I will crave leave to transcribe the 9. too v. 9. Vse hospitality one to another without grudging v. 10. As every man hath received the gift even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God v. 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom be praise and dominion for ever Amen Here our Brethren observe several things 1. That the text is to be meant of any spiritual gift 2. That v. 11. There is a particularizing of that special gift of speaking to others for Edification in the things of Christ They say p. 33. That the nature of the direction how to speak and the reference the 11. v. hath to the 10. argue it is not common speaking here meant but some special gift of Scripture-interpretation and so it is usually carried by interpreters And it followeth the 10. v. so immediately that it must needs be an explication of it 3. There is a divine command to exercise such gift This commvnd is universal Every man This is the Sum of what they say To all which I answer 1. If it be not plainly proved that the gift here is preaching parts a spirituul gift and that spiritual gift and 2. That the term every man must be understood in the latitude I say in case any of these fail every one seeth that our Brethrens argument falls to the ground As to the first question then Quest 1. What is meant by gift there The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the New Testament 16 times of which this is one the learned observe it is a word that is not to be found in any heathen Author so that from the Scripture alone we must understand the import of it where as by comparing all the texts will most evidently appear it signifies Any good thing which is freely given us of God whether in a way of special providence or common or special grace 1. It is used to express gifts of special grace Justification Rom. 5.15 16. Election Rom. 11.28 Eternal life Any experiences which may be imparted for Edification Rom. 1.11 2. It is used to express extraordinary gifts 1 Cor. 12.9 1 Cor. 12.28 30. 3. To express any gifts common or special 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Cor. 12.4 4. To express common gifts The gift of continency 1 Cor. 7.7 Pauls deliverance from danger is called a gift and expressed by this word 1 Cor. 1.11 5. To express office Rom. 12.6 7 8. as appears by the distribution v. 7 8. So 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 for the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery did not conferr other gifts ordinary or extraordinary The question is now in which of these senses this word is to be taken 1 Pet. 4.10 It is plain that it cannot be meant of those gifts of God which we cannot Minister to others so that it cannot be understood of Election as Rom. 11.28 nor of Iustification as Rom. 5.15 16. nor eternal Life as Rom. 6 23. These are indeed Free-gifts bestowed on the Elect but not to be by them ministred to others but of any of the rest except that 1 Cor. 7.7 it may be understood that is 1 Either of extraordinary gifts such as those of healing called by this name 1 Cor. 12.9 29 30. 2. Or of Experiences of Gods goodness to us in a way of common providence or special grace or of outward good things or inward which by our hand or tongue we may administer as Rom. 1.11 1 Cor. 1.11 3. Or of Acts of office as Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 4. Or of the gifts of knowledge and utterance or any other 1 Cor. 1.7 1 Cor. 12.4 If it be to be understood here in any
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most restrained word of the three both in civil and also in sacred writ yet it is applied to the Civil Magistrate Rom. 13.6 To the Minister of the Gospel Rom. 15.16 to a publick Person but ministring in a private manner Phil. 2.25 To Angels Heb. 1.7.14 To Christ himself Heb. 8.2 Some note that it is alwayes a title of publick performance but Philip. 2.25 It is otherwise used Yet there are that think that Epaphras was a Deacon by Office and in that ministration to Paul so acted if any credit may be given to civil Authors for the proper usage of this word it signifieth both a publick office and a sacred Service So Suidas and Scapula assure me and the Etymology of the word as much It is true in civil Authors it is sometimes used otherwise but Suidas saith it is abusively I think we may say there is this difference betwixt this word and the other that whereas other words primarily signifie ordinary private civil Service this word ptimarily signifies sacred publick Service and in all holy writ is not applied to a private person Sure I am that Ecclesiastical writers restrain it to such as are employed as publick persons in sacred Services 5. But though both Minister in the Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Minister in our English tongue are equivocal terms Yet we must cum vulgo loqui speak according to vulgar usage not according to equivocal notions of the word Gifted men cannot in propriety of Speech be called Ministers We will grant to our Brethren that the persons they plead for may be called Ministers if they do but wait at their Masters Table or be but under-Commissioners to the State or the like though they should never Preach according to the signification of the words but as the Church of God hath in all late ages used the term Minister we deny that any gifted Brother can or may be called a Minister we do not deny but that every General of an army may be called Imperator and was so but as the term hath lately been used and is used we deny he can be called an Emperour we do not deny but he that heaps up Silver upon his trading may be called Thesaurarius a Treasurer but we deny he can be called The City Treasurer we do not say but our Brethren though not ordained may be such Ministers as you read of Luke 4. v. 20. and Acts 13.5 but not such as you read of 1 Cor. 4.1 Acts 26.16 And by vulgar usage such only for a long time have been so called to distinguish persons in office from such as only do acts of Service Civil or Sacted I must confess I must commend people for keeping that term still as distinctive if every one should be called Sir John or Sir Thomas such a one in time there would be no difference betwixt a Knight and a begger and names are given for distinction sake If one seeing the Mayor and Sheriffs of Norwich going with 8. or 10. Officers should say there goes the Mayor with ten Ministers or seeing a dozen Justices of Peace on the Bench should say there sit a dozen Ministers people would not understand what they said and according to vulgar speech it would be a breach of the nineth Commandment yet if our Brethrens Argument were good that gifted men should be called Ministers because they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would justifie that new dialect in other things as well as this For Magistrates are called Ministers and Magistrates Officers are most ordinarily in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am much against this removing of the Antient Land-Marks which the tongues of all men are so well acquainted with and think it a very ill design which would produce nothing but confusion Let our Brethren give us one instance in Scripture where a gifted man not ordained is called a Minister of the Gospel a Minister of Christ c. to say they are called Ministers signifies not much Preaching without ordination p. 3. Nor will a general course of acting as they would hint entitle them to that name It is true constant Brewing and Baking may give one the denomination of a Brewer or Baker for neither of them are titles of office But suppose now a Rebell should overcome his Prince and for seven years together exercise the Acts of his place he would not yet by bare acting be entituled to the name of a Prince or King The Conclusion is that Gifted men cannot in a strict and proper sense according to later ages restriction and constant usage of the word Minister be called Ministers they may be called Speakers if you please Having hitherto considered the notation of the word Minister and of the Greek words so translated Second Term Ministry let me in the next place consider what the term Ministry imports And this also we shall find Homonymous 1. Every one will conclude that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs signifie their service or ministration and these are the words which the Holy Ghost useth to express that in Scripture which we translate Ministry I mean two of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first onely in Luk. 1. to express Zacharies service in the Temple the latter very often Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 c. And indeed I think this is the most frequent usage of the term Ministry in Scripture to signifie the work or service of those persons who are called Ministers Acts 1.17 25. Acts 6.4.12.25.20.24.21.19 2 Cor. 4.1.5.18 Eph. 4.12 Col. 4.17 2 Tim. 4.5 11. In all which Texts it is taken for the service that the Ministers of the Gospel perform in Preaching administring Sacraments c. Twice for the Service of those Officers in the Church who more strictly are called Deacons Rom. 12.7 1 Cor. 16.15 though there be some question upon that Text So Christs execution of his Priestly Office is called a more excellent Ministry And the old service of the Priests and Levites is called a Ministry Heb. 9.21 But in this sense I take not Ministry in the Question yet if our Brethren contend for words I can state the question so viz. Whether that work of the Ministry which the Scripture mentioneth eonsisting in the Preaching of the Gospel be the work of persons meerly gifted 2. But there is another usage of the word which use at least hath procured it according to which we call the Ministry A certain order of persons set apart according to the will of God for the dispensing out of Publick Gospel Ordinances In Analogy to the description of the High Priest described Heb. 5. v. 1. You may take the description thus The Minister is one taken from amongst men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God for the dispensation of Publick
there is no universal visible meeting and that the Greek word translated Church in all Civil and Sacred usage signifies a meeting in fieri or facto esse But you began to think that the invisible Church are never like to have such a meeting and therefore to salve it you heal this wound in your Argument in my opinion very slightly when you say it doth meet invisibly in Spirit If you will but grant us that Brethren that the name of Church in Scripture is given to those that never locally meet but it is sufficient for them to be present in Spirit you have by an unhappy heel kicked down all that good milk which your Argument was giving down for the suckling of your infant-notion of a Church And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it it speaks of the Church of the first-born There is an universal meeting of the Catholick visible Church at the throne of Grace before their great Pastor and in Spirit as it is only possible for a Catholick Church to meet whiles they agree in the Profession of the same Truths and Ordinances For the visible Meeting which you mentioned at first you have quitted your plea for the visibility to save the Church of the first-born from Excommunication and we hope it will also save the Church Catholick visible from any hurt by this Argument 4. You go on Brethren and tell us There are no distinct Officers for a Catholick Visible Church Ergo there is no such Church If you had expressed the Major Proposition I should have denied it the assertion of a Church Catholick visible though we add Organical doth not imply there must be distinct Officers for that Church it is enough that the Officers of the several particular Churches which as parts constitute that whole have power to act as Officers in any of those parts which united make up that whole I am not willing but here necessity constrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren that this is no fair play to pretend to dispute against the Presbyterian notion of a Catholick Church and to mention only the Antichristian and Prelatical Notion of it Let any one read Mr. Hudsons Vindication p. 129 130 131. and he will see we plead not for such an universal Church as must needs have a Pope for an universal Head and Arch-Bishops Bishops c. for his derivatives But this we say that the whole Church all the particular Churches in the world make but one body of Christ and as it is one una so it is unita united in a Common Profession of the Gospel as there is this union and communion of members so there is a communion of some Officers particularly Ministers who may Preach as Christs Ambassadors by vertue of Office any where and may any where Baptize and Administer the Lords Supper upon occasion and we say our Brethren in practice grant this for the Pastor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to those to whom he is not in Office as his particular Church and this is a Common practice with our Brethren how consistent with our Brethrens principle let them judge while our Brethren say they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches they do but blinde the Common People with a dark notion that signifies nothing What mean they by a Communion of Churches if they do not mean this that by the word of God one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another If they have so there must be a Communion of Offices as well as Gifts for the dispensing the Sacraments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office If that it be not the will of God in his Word that the Officer of one Church should do an act of Office in another Church or to a Member of another Church it is not his will that in all things there should be a communion of Churches If this be his will it is as much as we ask for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church and the members of it but also to any particular Churches in the world or to any of their Members We ask no more This is the Catholick Organical Church we plead for Let our Brethren consider whether while they think this an Idol and pretend to abhor it in the notion they do not in practice bow down to it and commit Sacrilege 5. You tell us in the last place Brethren That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine and hear offences Mat. 18.17 But that is a particular Church Ergo. You are sensible that your Minor is not extra aleam controversiae and you have taken as good care as you could to strengthen it by saying it cannot be meant of both and to exclude the Congregational Church is unscriptural irrational absurd But I must crave leave to tell you 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Question for it is not whether be greater the Church Catholik or the Church particular but whether there be any Church Catholick or no greater or less Object But you will say if there be any it must be greater Answ Then I must examine your sense of the word Greater whether you understand it in respect of quantity or quality If in respect of quantity number c. the Major is apparently false If in respect of quality as you seem to hint by the term having power then your Argument is this There is no Church hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches But the particular Church hath that power Mat. 18.17 Ergo. I will give you Brethren such another Argument judge you whether it be good or no and if it be not you must prove your own better There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences in a Nation But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences Ergo that is as great a Court as the Court of Common Pleas. You must therefore put in finally determine and all offences in any part of the Church or else your Major is false when you have mended that we will deny your Minor and tell you that admit that Text Mat. 18.17 should be meant of a particular Church yet it proves no such power either finally to determine or all offences as well those betwixt Church and Church as those betwixt party and party or party and Church Neither can I divine the necessity you would impose upon us of excluding the one or the other Church out of that Text according to the nature of the offence nor do I think your saying that to exclude the Congregational Church viz. some Congregational Churches is unscriptural irrational absurd amounts so much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the case I think it is far more rational and far
not have opposed it But affirming it is no relate to the work but only to the Church I must profess my self dissatisfied 2. Whether the Office of the Ministry doth correlate to the Church Vniversal or only to the particular Church Our Brethren say Only to the particular Church If our Brethren would have been content with a division again that the Minister should be related to both we should have granted it or if our Brethren had stated the question about the relation of a Minister to such a Catholick Church as had constant standing Catholick Officers we know no such Church and should not have disputed de or pro non ente But as they state it I must profess my self also in this of another mind viz. to believe that a Minister is in Office to more than his particular Church And therefore to triall we must go In the opening of the term Ministry Our Brethren tell us that Ministry stands in opposition to Lordly domination Mat. 20.25 26 27. that those who do acts of ministration are Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words used in Scripture to express Ministers and Ministry are applied in Scripture to others beside Ministers in Office that their constant performing acts of ministration entituleth them to the denomination of Ministers and their work should be called Preaching as we usually call them Bruers or Bakers who brew or bake constantly and therefore Christians should so call them This is the sum of what they have p. 2. 3. To all which I shall crave leave to answer For this seemeth to be an old hedge of distinction which who so breaks the Serpent of Confusion will bite him 1. That the terms Minister Ministry and Office are of various interpretations both in civil and sacred usage is unquestionable These terms therefore falling into the questions the explication and limitation of them to the sense in which we understand them seems necessary An accurate discourse of a question requires that no signification of the terms in it be omitted in the Explication In plenâ tractatione vocis distinctio nunquam est omittenda say Logicians 2. For the first term therefore Minister that it is a Latine word none can doubt nor that in ordinary use it signifies no more that a Servant one who worketh for another as his Lord and Master so called either because he is to his Master a manibus an hand servant quasi manister as Perottus will have it or because he is less than his Master quia minor in statione which is Isiodore's notion and preferred by learned Martinius In this notion the word is frequently used by civil and prophane Authors Infimi homines ministros se praebent saith Tully l. 1. de Orat and again lib. de Amicitiâ Libidinis ministri so Ovid illo dicunt Mactata Ministro Corpora 3. The holy Penmen of Scripture either moved from the congruity of the native signification of the word or the notion of it accrewing by general usage have sometimes used it to signifie one who is the Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ in the great work of Preaching the Gospel at lest our translators interpreting what they wrote in another language have done so The original words which they have so interpreted are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are of as various signification and two of them at least as variously applied by those holy Penmen as the word Minister is by other Authours The first word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who roweth in a Boat or Ship under another and thence any one who is servant to another is used no less than 24. or 25. times in the New Testament and I think but two of those Texts can be interpreted of Preachers they are Acts 26.16 1 Cor. 24.1 In the first Paul saith God raised him to be a Minister in the latter they are called Ministers of Christ for I cannot believe that the phrase Lu. 1.2 can be interpreted of Preaching Ministers for I think they had no Text before that time but of some that were eye and eare-witnesses of Christs words and actions and so were Servants to the holy Penmen in communicating what they saw and heard to them There are indeed two other Texts which some may mistake into this sense Lu. 4.20 Acts 13.5 In the first it is said Christ clozed up the Book and gave it to the Minister in the latter John is called the Minister of Paul and Barnabas Those who write about the Jewish usages tell us they had an Officer belonging to the Temple something I think akin to our Parish Clerks who was wont to bring and carry away the Book of the Law to or from the Priest or Levite or other person that expounded In all other Texts of the New Testament where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mat. 26.58 Mar. 14.54 it signifieth Civil Officers either domestick as Servants or Politick state Officers such as jailers pursevants or the like in which sense it is used near 20. times in the New Testament The second Greek word is as Equivocal as the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In its native force it signifies no more than a servant call'd so either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some would have it or which pleaseth Eustathius better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a letter only changed according to the Jewish dialect It is in Scripture applied to Christ Ro. 15.8 and the Apostle using this word saith of him Is he the Minister of sin 2. To Magistrates Rom. 13.4 To ordinary Servants in a Family Matth. 20.26.22.13.23.11 Mark 9.35.10.43 Jo. 2.5.9 To any ordinary Christian in regard of his service to the Lord Jesus Christ John 12.26 Phoebe is call'd thus Ro. 16.1 Deacons by Ossice in the Church have their name from this word and it is applied to express those Officers Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8.12 It is also often applied to Ministers in Office to Preach the Gospel To Paul and Apollo 1 Cor. 3.5 To Tychicus Eph. 6.21 Col. 4.7 To Timothy 1 Thes 3.2 These again are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3.6 Of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.15 Of Christ 2 Cor. 11.33 Of the Church 0.0.0.0 Our Brethren p. 2. tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often applied to Saints no Officers But as they have quoted only 2 Cor. 9.1 for that so they may consider that no Preaching Saint in Scripture who was no Officer was ever so called though if he had it had not signified much as to the present question for any one that served but his Masters Table was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our Brethren do only urge the common usage of the word then they do but play with an Equivocal term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies in Scripture The third word used is
who preacheth is that which makes the action of him that heareth a duty This is so rational that none can deny it for sin is the transgression of a law and all duty must be an act of obedience to some law natural divine positive or humane now this is certain that Gods law hath not commanded me to hear every one that speaketh a good discourse or reads a chapter he must be specially authorized to preach or I shall not be specially obliged to hear 2. The second principle is this That an act of office cannot be done by him who is no officer I think that none in their right wits will deny this hence I say these five absurdities will notoriously follow from this principle 1. That in all places where are no particular Churches formed let who will preach none are bound to come to hear but they may all stay at home and read a good book if they please for none there hath any authority or is in office to preach and so none under an obligation to hear 2. That if you divide England into an hundred parts ninety-nine of them cannot upon the Lords day wait upon any publike Ordinance which shall lie under a more appointment of God to save their souls than reading a chapter at home doth The reason is because no particular Churches are formed and there can be none in office It is not the place or company but the person administring who makes the ordinance publike 3. Where there is a particular Church formed it is true the members are bound to come on the Lords day and hear their officer but for all others if they do stay at home and read a chapter or a good book they sin not for he that preacheth hath no more authority to preach to them than they have to preach at home one to another 4. Suppose any should come to hear any man preach if he be not a member of his particular Church he cannot come in faith believing upon the account of any precept or promise that the word heard shall profit him any more than if he had staid at home and heard his servant read a chapter for he that preacheth stands in no office is clothed with no more authority toward him No he is only in office to the members of his own Church 5. If any pastor of any particular Church at any time uppon any occasion gives the Sacrament to any one person who is not an actual member of his Church he sinneth against God doing an act of office to a person to whom he is in no office and hath no authority And I am mistaken if this would not make the greatest schism ever yet heard of And now I beseech my dear and Reverend Brethren to consider to what Atheiâ—m and confusion this one principle improved would in a short time bring us And I am verily perswaded that most of our Brethren of the Congregational perswasion are of another mind from these three in this point for so wise and learned men can never surely think that when at any time they preach in any place or to any people saving to their particular respective Churches they preach but as gifted brethren so that a weavers discourse who hath spent all his week in his loom is under as much appointment of Gods for the salvation of souls as theirs is yet this is a true conclusion from this principle up to which also our brethren cannot walk unless each of the Churches keep so distinct as never to have communion Each with other in any act of publike worship to be performed by an officer which would unquestionably be the highest schism in the world As for their third chapter I might spare my pains in answering of it for it is but a conclusion from their premises in the first and second chapter and it is too much to deny the premises and conclusion too In this third chapter they give us the description of office then indeavour to prove it and lastly draw two conclusions from it their description is this Office is a spiritual Relation between a particular Church of Christ and a person rightly qualified Preaching without Ordination p. 14. founded upon a special and regular call 1 This definition offends two logick rules say we which are these Aristot l. 6. top cap. 5. That all definitions should be adequate That is nothing must be in the definition but what is in the thing defined Nor any thing omitted in the definition which is essential-to the thing defined A particular Church is not necessary to one that is by office a minister of the Gospel as I proved before yet that is put into the definition secondly Ordination which is essential to a minister in office is omitted unless out brethren will say it is included in the notion of a person duly qualified or in the notion of a regular call which I suppose our brethren will not grant Arist top l. 6. a p 1. 2. A second rule is this That the definition of a Genus should agree to every species The ministerial office is a Genus here defined but there are diverss ministers say we that have no such particular Church for we cannot think but a minister may be set apart for the work though at present he hath no place the order of the Church in ordaining none Sine titulo without a title to a place was no divine order but prudential to avoid the scandal of a Vagrant Ministery and therefore Hierom refused Ordination from Paulinus because he insisted upon the ordaining him to his particular Church we grant that the office of a pastor in strict sense doth relate to a particular Church but not the office of a pastor in a more large sense and as it is used in Scripture both in Jeremy 3.15 Eph. 4.13 Our Brethren expound their description For the Genus we allow what they say Office is a Relation Their terms of relation we deny we say the particular Church is not the only correlate but the Vniversal Church is also a correlate to the office yea and the work yea God himself and all Nations of which before Here 's nothing more to prove than what I have already answered besides that term Angel of the Church used Rev. 2.1.8 c. To which I answer that our Brethren know that sub Judice lis est it is very disputable whether a single person or the Presbytery be meant by that term 2. But secondly it will be very hard for our Brethren to prove those were particular Churches The efficient cause we allow to be the Lord and the Church But not the flock as our Brethren say The Apostles ordained the Deacons not the flock It was the prophets and teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13. whom the Spirit commanded to ordain Paul and Barnabas Paul and the Presbytery ordained Timothy Acts. 6. and Titus was to ordain ministers in Crete As to the formal cause
we cannot agree with our brethren that a special regular call is it in the sense they understand all we say it is a ministers Mission both internal and External and the Apostle proveth it How shall they preach except they be sent that is they cannot Rom 10.10 Now Forma dat esse Our Brethren say The external call consisteth in Election and Acceptation and tell us this is proved by Acts 6.5 where they argue thus If the Church should chuse a Deacon much more their pastor Our Brethrens argument is here a comparatis from the lesser to the greater and they argue affirmatively See more as to these texts in â—â—y last chap. If the Church might chuse the lesser officer then they ought to chuse the greater But this is false Logick our brethren will easily see it in other things will these things follow If a man can carry an hundred pound weight then much more a thousand If a band of men have right to chuse a Serjeant then much more a Colonel Indeed negatively we may argue from the lesser to the greater but Aristotle and Ramus are both out if we may use this argumentation in all cases affirmatively those that can judge of the abilities of a Deacon may not be fit to judge of the abilities of a Minister for the work of preaching Besides did the peoples choice there make them officers surely the text sayes no such thing the constitutive act is by the Apostles expresly reserved to themselves ver 3. For their other Text Acts 14.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They do wrong to our translation which translates it ordained not chose as our Brethren do The word signifies to stretch out the hand and by that sign to chuse 2 Cor. 8.19 but not when it governs an accusative case saith Stephen in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it doth here Not alwayes witness Acts 10.41 Ecc ldsiastical writers use it for ordaining and so it signifies saith Stephen when it governs an accusative case But allow it to signify chuse they were Paul and Barnabas that chose not the Church in our brethrens sense Let any one one compare v. 20 21 22 23 and ell me of whom that word is predicated So that both â—ur Brethrens texts fail with all that is built upon them in their book As to the final cause we agree with our Brethren as to the general That the work of the Ministry is the End and so far allow their proof Eph. 4.11 12. But wonder with what reason our Brethren there say the particular Church is meant I am sure the text sayes no such thing nor any thing like it except they make Christ to have as many bodies as there are in the world particular Churches Our Brethren from this doctrine fetch two Corollaries or inferences First That there is no difference betwixt that which makes a man a minister p. 17. 1 Conc. and a Minister to this or that Church The second is this That the distinction betwixt preaching ex officio and ex dono by office and by gift is founded on Scripture 2 Conc. As to the first I have already proved the contrary for it standeth upon no other foundation than the conceit that Office relates not to the worke but to the Church Nor to the Vniversal Church but to the particular Church which foundations I think I have shaken so that til they be repaired they will not bear this super-structure As to the second we allow it in two cases first for Trial sake for we have a plain text for it in the case of Deacons 1 Tim 3.10 and we may argue à minori ad majus negativè If the lowest officer of the Church must be first proved then much more the higher officer I mean ordinary officers for Apostles c. were not the same species of officers 2. In cases of Necessity In times of persecution where Ministers in office cannot be had which was the case Acts 9. Necessity we say hath no law In such a case as I said before the Levites killed the sacrifice at Hezekiahs passeover which else they ought not to have done We say the Scripture warrants no other preaching ex mero dono by vertue of gifts only Whether it doth or no is the issue to be tried betwixt us CHAP. 11. In which what our Brethren say by way of Limitation or Explication of the question is summed up their limitations of the subject are proved to be of no value their descants about the term preaching but a beating of the ayr Authoritative preaching described in three things differenced from precarious preaching and the question concerning the former fixed and stated IT seems we are not yet agreed about the state of question and therefore our Brethren have taken a great deal of pains from their 19 p. to their 30 to state it for us In which they distinguish both concerning the Subject and the Predicate For the Subject they tell us it is not every Christian but every one that hath gifts 2. Not every one who thinks he hath gifts but who really hath and de convenienti the Church should judge whether he hath or no according to Acts 6.3 but for ought they know a man may lawfully preach especially in some cases without such approbation As to the Predicate By preaching they understand any publishing opening or applying gospel truthes to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to be it in publike or in private to a Christian or to an idolatrous assembly thus they contend the two words in the Greek translated preaching signify Lu. 16.16 1 Cor. 9.16 Acts 13.32 Rom. 20.15 Acts. 5.42 Acts. 8.35 Hence they find fault with our Brethren of London their description of preaching Jus divinum p. 77. much they say to them who are doubtless of age to answer for themselves c. Our Brethren distinguish concerning the term authoritatively they say authority is taken for a right and lawfull power Lu. 20.2 Secondly for majesty and gravity Mar. 1.22 Tit. 2 15. Thirdly for office-power In the last sense they grant it in the two first they say gifted men may preach authoritatively this is the substance of what they say in many words To all which I answer 1. As to what our Brethren say concerning the subject of the question if I mistake not it amounts to no more than this Every private Christian may not preach but every one that can or will may for what should hinder him who shall be judges of his aptness to teach shall the Church but by what rule Secondly suppose he will not submit shall the gifted man sin no say our Brethren It is inexpedient and may have ill consequents but for ought we know it is lawfull So that it is every one that hath a tongue to speak and a minde to speak Our Brethren tell us the Church and no other judged of the abilities of the Deacons Acts 6. But it was
a Church filled with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 4.31 A Church of which the twelve Apostles were members In short all the Church Christ had on the Earth at that time and let any reader be judge whether because such a Church were thought fit to judge of Ministers or Deacons abilities will it follow that every particular Church is so that our Brethren by their limitations of the subject have not one jot mended the matter 2. Secondly for the predicate we will easily grant to our Brethren that the Apostles and holy men in Scripture wanting proper words made use of words to express the publike duty of preaching which are used in many senses and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to declare good tidings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than to cry as an herald in their native signification And we will grant that gifted men may in some sense do both who ever denied to our Brethren but that a private person might declare the glad tidings of the Gospel to his neighbour or to his child But this is all but to play with an Equivocal term Our brethren may call this preaching if they please and in that sense their question is granted them a M 〈◊〉 â—te may in this sense preach to his people a Colone◠〈◊〉 â—is Regiment c. But our Brethren of London justly restrained their question to Authoritative preaching by which that we may not quarrel about a strife of words we mean that Preaching which is the ordinance of Jesus Christ to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of his people to which all people are bound in conscience to attend and which lies under the special appointment of Christ for the salvation of soules If our Brethren please they may take this more formal description Authoritative preaching is an Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ under the Gospel to be dispensed in the publike assemblies of people by the Preachers opening and applying of the word of God which he hath appointed as the ordinary means of faith and salvation to which all people are in Conscience bound to attend Now the question is concerning the instituted administrator whether it be every one that hath gifts or onely such as are ordained we contend for the latter we say in this sense a gifted man cannot preach nor ought to undertake it in this notion We say this is office-preaching for none can thus preach but who is in office The Authority of this preacher doth two things 1. It obligeth him to preach Woe to me saith Paul if I do not preach the Gospel 2. It obligeth people to hear for the preacher is to that purpose sent we say then 1 A gifted man may in publike or private cry like an Herald with a loud and roaring voice and it may be Vox praeterea nihil 2 He may as to the matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speak of the good things of the Gospel either more publikely or more privately But we say 1. He may hold his peace too if he pleaseth for who hath required his service at his hands Christ hath not by his Church said to him go and preach much less immediately said it 2. He may preach But he may preach to the walls too if people please no soul sinneth in neglecting to hear him they may go if they please but Gods word requireth them not to go nor can any Magistrate with a good Conscience command them to go any more than he can command me to go to my neighbours house to hear him read a chapter nay if people spend the Lords days in hearing such when they may hear others it is a sin unto their souls as much as if they should spend their time at home and read chapters for his preaching is not under so much appointment to save my soul as my private reading is 3. For other dayes men may go and hear them if they please if no scandal be in it nor other circumstances make it unlawfull but they cannot go in faith as to a publike appointment of God for the saving of their souls On the contrary he that preacheth authoritatively 1. Is bound to preach if God gives him opportunity 2. If upon the Lords dayes he preacheth and people will not hear he may shake off the dust of his feet against them and it shall be more tolerable in the great day for Sidon than for that people 3. People may and ought to go out to hear him in faith Lu. 10.11 12. believing that his preaching is the publike Ordinance of Christ for the saving of their souls We say and say again that all the gifted men in the world cannot make one such Sermon And now our Brethren understand what we mean by authoritative preaching it is not so directly opposite to charitative preaching as to precarious preaching in which the preacher may begg but cannot command either auditory or attention If our Brethren have any thing to say to the question thus plainly stated Let them speak on what ever else they speak to is plainly Ex ignoratione elenchi not knowing or not willing to own what we understand by preaching And if this cannot be proved on our Brethrens part I shall beseech those who have power as civil officers or particular persons to send men to places to take heed whom they send and that they would not lay people under evident temptations to profane the Lords day and put them upon some kinde of necessity to hear none but such as the Lord never sent never promised his presence with and such as they cannot go to hear in such a manner as it is the will of God that people should hear viz. looking upon the performance as the appointment of Jesus Christ in order to their eternal Salvation My soul akes to think of the condition of many poor people in this county upon that account But not to digress Let us come in the next place to consider what our Brethren have to prove that gifted men may thus preach CHAP. III Containing an answer to our Brethrens book from p. 29. to p. 60. and therein to their two first Arguments for Non-ordained persons preaching wherein the necessity of a particular Churches Election as antecedaneous to Ordination is examined and denied and disproved the sense of 1 Pet. 4.10 is enquired and an answer given to what our Brethren urge from that text and their Agrument from it proved insufficient OUr Brethren in this Chapter urge two arguments for the Preaching of gifted persons without Ordination p. 29. of their book to p. 60. Their first is his Preaching without Ordination a. p. 29. ad p 60. If Election from a Church ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination of Officers then persons not ordained may ordinarily preach But such election ought by Gospel order to precede Ordination Ergo. Both propositions in this argument may safely be denyed They prove the Consequence from the
of three former senses it will not serve our brethrens turn for extraordinary gifts are ceased For telling one another what God hath done for us or distributing to those in want we allow it to private persons If by gift Office is meant then none but those in office have received the gift As to the last we grant that he who hath received the gift of utterance and knowlege may impart it and ought to do it in his place and station but this may be done by private conference admonitions exhortations c. But this lies upon our Brethren to prove 1. That the gift here meant must needs be the gift of preaching in the publike Assemblies of people and that they may do this without Ordination We have told them it may be understood 1 Of Office As any one hath received any office so let him minister in it as Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 Or of common gifts of providence The good things relating to this life 2 Cor 1 11. then it is a command for alms according to the connexion v. 10 11. Our Brethren must shew us good reason why it must be understood of spiritual gifts and this gift of preaching 3 Or if he be understood of the gift of opening Scripture it may be understood of the extraordinary gifts of prophecy or at least must be limited to a due time place manner Or lastly it may be understood by the gifts called by this name 1 Cor. 12.9 28 30. We do not say it can be understood of all these as our Brethren seem to hint out of a fondness to find a contradiction in mee not of Alms and office too this is but a childish reply of theirs in their first answer to my first objection p. 35. of their book it is enough for us if it be understood of one of these For if I understand any thing of sense or reason those who affirm this text to be a precept for the exercise of preaching gifts as our Brethren do must prove either 1. That that gift is specially meant here or Secondly 2. That the precept is general and not to be limited to this or that gift but understood in the latitude of any gift to be improved for the good of others Now which of these our Brethren will stand to by their answer I cannot learn for one while they tell us the next words are Exegetical of the former another while they tell us Preaching is one of those gifts But let them take which they please Is this then our Brethrens sense That the import of that text is That it is the duty of any one who hath received any gift that is any ability to do good to his brother should do it 1. Why then p. 32 33. do our Brethren come in with their i. e. Spirituul gift by the same rule they restrain the text to spiritual gifts we restrain it to Office as Rom. 12.7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 Or to outward good things the word is so used in Scripture the Context is as much for us as for our Brethren ver 10. Vse hospitality one to another that is out of question meant ver 11. If any man minister let him do it of the ability God giveth Object But this say our Brethren is not the manifold grace of God Charity is but one Grace Answ Though Charity be but one grace yet there be manifold Free gifts of God by the distribution of which we may exercise Charity The gift of Miracles was but one gift yet Heb. 2.4 you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 various or manifold miracles The body of lust is but one body of death yet there are many lusts 2 Tim. 3.6 A man may minister from the grace of charity by giving money meat cloaths c. and every one of these is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God to him 2. If any one who hath ability may dispense the gift then gifted Brethren may administer Baptism and the Lords Supper too by vertue of this Text for there is no doubt but many of them have an ability to do all that which is to be done materially in those acts but this our Brethren will not allow And why Because these are Acts of Office say our Brethren so say we is the Preaching we contend about Our Brethren may see by this a necessity of restraining this Text Either as we contend 1. To such Gifts as other Scriptures authorize them to administer Or 2. To an Administration of this Gift according to due Gospel Order which we say cannot be without preceding Ordination Will our Brethren take the Second and say That an ability to Preach is the Gift here only meant and this Text will warrant a Ministring of that gift without any more ado 1. Then we ask them by what authority they impose this upon us why may it not as well be expounded by the words immediatly going before as those immediatly following after then the Gift is the good things of this world The sense of the coherence will not constrain this interpretation it makes as much for us as it doth for them nay more 2. For the next words limit him that speaks to a speaking as the Oracles of God but he who never had the Oracles of God committed to him is not like to speak the word as the Oracles of God he may speak the Oracles of God but he cannot speak them as the Oracles of God because not sent by God 3. Suppose we should allow this that the Gift of opening and applying Scripture is here meant How doth this Text prove either a Liberty for or a duty to d◠this in publike Assemblies otherwise our Brethren know we allow it 4. Lastly to whom doth Peter speak this read ch 1. v. 1. To the strangers scattered through Asia Pontus Galatia Capadocia Bythinia Our dispute is not what may be Lawfully done in the scattred state of the Church where no Ministers are at hand but what may be done in ordinary Cases to which this Scripture speaks nothing If it be so to be understood we do not doubt but in such a persecuted state of the Church a private person Gifted may Preach and people ought to hear as well as the Levites might kill the Paschal Lamb at Hezekiahs passeover but blessed be God that 's not our Case Thus the Reader may see how inconclusive our Brethrens Argument is from this Text upon more accounts than one Our Brethren have entred exceptions against two material things which we insist upon for the interpretation of this Text. 1. Against what we say that if this Text may be understood of the Gift of Preaching or Speaking yet it may be done privately 2. Against what we say That by Gift very probably is meant Office Let us consider what our Brethren say to either of these They say first that private exercising cannot satisfie this precept nor can this exercise be justly so limited 1.
Because as a Church member he may admonish and exhort severally and then why not when they are met together 2. Because a publike Gift cannot be fully improved in a private way A man in such a case hideth his talent 3. Publike actings are not peculiar to Office they say 4. Charity binds men sâ—metimes to go out of their callings to help others Therefore our Brethren may sometimes step out of their Calling to Preach 5. A man may lawfully choose it for his calling to preach And then he goeth not out of his Calling 6. They have a Divine allowance Heb. 10.25 therefore they go not out of their Callings This is the summ of what they say to the first à p. 46. ad p. 56. To all which I answer 1. We will not contend with our Brethren that it is unlawfull for a private gifted person to speak in the publike Assemblies of the Church provided it be not on the Lords day which ought to be spent in peoples attendance upon publike Ordinances of which nature their Preaching cannot be but we deny that any are bound to hear them or that any can come to hear them as unto that Ordinance of Preaching which lyes under the great appointment of God to save peoples souls And we say the Church of God hath had no such custom As to the Second We do not understand our Brethrens notion of a publick Gift it may be taken in a double sense 1. For a Gift which God hath given to men willing them to use it publikely 2. For a Gift which if used publikely might be of publike service If our Brethren understand it in the first sense we deny any not ordained have any such publike Gift if as they must they understand it in the latter sense we say it may be so far improved as to free men from sin in not improving it without publike exercise How many hundred men in England have gifts for the Magistracy that might be of publike use were they so employed yet I hope our Brethren will not bring this Text to prove that they ought to administer Judgement publikely Why Because God hath required another Order and a special regular Call for the exercise of those publike Gifts and we say the like for the Ministry To the Third We grant that all publike aâ—â—ings are not peculiar to Office but we say the administration of publike Ordinances is peculiar to publike Officers and t is scarce sense to say a private person may administer â— publike Ordinance To the Fourth we say That we grant that Charity may binde men to go out of their Callings to help another and so Charity may binde a gifted man to Preach in case of necessity but this is not Ordinary preaching of which the question is stated To the Fifth We grant a private person may choose preaching for his Calling but his choosing of it doth not make that his Calling the Church say our Brethren must choose him too he must be ordained say we To the Sixth Our Brethren say they have a divine allowance Heb. 10.25 But to do what Is it said to Preach publikely and ordinarily But let our Brethren prove that precept to be given to meer Gifted men they indeed must not forsake assembling together but is it not enough if their Officers only exhort however our brethren make that Text a warrant for private meetings and then it is nothing to the question But to the Second whereas we have told our Brethren that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probably is meant Office as in Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Tim. 4.16 2 Tim. 1. They think it cannot be so taken here for these Reasons 1. Because the Context cannot be so restrained the Apostle exhorteth to sobriety watchfulness unto prayer ver 7. to charity ver 8. to hospitality ver 9. These exhortations concern private Christians and the persons spoken to verse 10. are the same 2. The Apostle speaketh indefinitely a gift now indefinite Propositions are usually equipollent to universals they say 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not restrain it unto Office because it is oft used otherwise nor doth the term Stewards limit it nor the terms exhorting and ministring 4. The exhortations to officers are given in the next Chapter ver 2 3. To all which I again answer 1. We do not peremptorily determine that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Office there it is enough for us to say it may be so for our Brethren must prove it cannot or else they can prove no precept to their purpose from hence 2. That by the term Office cannot be understood here is not proved by any thing our Brethren have said The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations think Office is meant ver 11. Why may not the Apostle after he had dispatched his exhortations to some common duties subjoyn this to Officers he doth so Rom. 12. and 2 Tim. 5. and what if he gives exhortations to Elders in the next chapter Can it therefore be concluded that none of the exhortations in this chapter belong to them How do our Brethren prove that the persons spoken to ver 9. and spoken to ver 11. â—elthe same individuals and why may not the gift then be the same too and so neither office nor gifts of this nature meant 3. Our brethren must not tell us that indefinite propositions are most usually equipollent to universals because it is no Logick Their Logical Rule is this Indefinitae proposititiones interdum aequipollent universalibus interdum particularibus Keckerman Syst Log. c. 5. illis quide in materiâ necessariâ his vero in contingenti nay with that restriction saith Keckerman it will not always hold true A living creature is not a man turn this into an universal negative No living creature is a man and it is false Because therefore the Apostle speaks indefinitely as every one hath received a gift so let him minister it doth not follow he must understand every gift for what will our Brethren say to gifts of wisdom for Government of Nations Armies c. or to abilities to Baptize and administer the Lords Supper But to come to an issue I am very inclinable to understand the Text in the latitude and to think this the sense As any man hath received any communicable gift so let him minister it unto others in that due way and order and upon that regular Call which God in his word hath required for those to exercise gifts that have them If it be a gift of Government when God hath called him to Magistracy let him use his gift if it be a gift for opening and applying Scripture for administring Baptism or the Lords Supper let him first be duly ordained and set apart for the work of the Ministry and so let him use his Gift When our Brethren have said their utmost this Text will prove no more that he who hath a gift of knowledge and utterance may forthwith Preach than it
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all To which I answer 1. Our Brethren know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in Scripture always signifie either every individual person or thing under the genus or species spoken of nor yet the Major part How many times in Scripture is Christ said to have died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all yet Christ neither Died for every individual man nor for the Major part of men Mat. 3.5 6. It is said That all the Region round about Jordan went to hear John and were Baptized of him confessing their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I believe our Brethren do not believe that every individual person in that Region nor yet the major part did either go to hear or were baptized or confessed their sins Christ tells the Pharisees they tythed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—very herb yet I believe our Brethren believe that not one quarter of all the Herbs in the world were in any Pharisees or any other Jews Gardens so that this word will not conclude especially considering what reason we have to believe the contrary viz. that neither the whole nor yet the major part of the Church were present at this Election 1. This Church must consist of above 8000. souls 120. were in it Acts 1.15 3000. more were added Acts 2.41 5000. more added Acts 4.4 here are eight thousand one hundred and twenty souls Now let any one in reason judge 1. What one place in Ierusalem could well contain them except the Temple and whether it be probable that either the Jews or the Romans would have endured such an ordinary conflux of above eight thousand thither enough to have made a good Army the major part of these must be above four thousand 2. This Church was at this time in a faction too for Acts 6.1 there was a murmuring about the poor between the Grecians and the Heâ—rews we therefore think it more probable that the Apostles spake to some of this multitude to commend some fit persons to them and if our Brethren talk till Dooms-day they can prove no more from this Text. And this is a full answer to all our Brethren say in reference to this Text and enough to shew it comes far short of a proof of what they undertake viz. That the whole Church or Major part of it must of divine right choose its own Officers I come to their third Text. Acts 14.23 I will transcribe ver 21.22 Ver. 21. And when they that is Paul and Barnabas had preached the Gospel in that City and had taught many they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch Ver. 22. 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 God Ver. 23. And having ordained or chosen it is no matter which as to our Brethrens purpose them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed 1. At present I will not dispute the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said something to it before but I would fain know of any one that understands sense whether those that ordained or chose were not those that confirmed and exhorted v. 22. those that preached and returned again to Lystra c. ver 20. If they were it is sure enough Paul and Barnabas were the men 2. I would fain know of those who understand Grammar whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned by apposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what other Syntax of the words according to any Grammatical Rules can be indured Object But the Disciples are twice mentioned v. 22. Answ T is very true but not as the persons confirming and exhorting but as the persons confirmed and exhorted so they are mentioned here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is the dative case the other the nominative Our Brethren say that Dr. Ames saith it may include the Disciples too or they might go before the Disciples I answer what Dr. Ames saith without any ground in the Text is nothing to us 2. I thought our Brethrens end in producing this Text had been to prove that the people ought to choose not that it may be they may choose But our Brethren think they can by sound reason prove that the choosing or ordaining here was such as could not be performed onely by Paul and Barnabas 1. They say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in Scripture for laying on of hands This will not conclude that it must not be so understood here I hope our Brethren know there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture Our Brethren have no Text where it is used in the active voice and governing an accusative Case where it signifies the people choice The word is indeed used but twice more in the New Testament once for choosing by suffrages once otherwise for Gods destination and appointment Acts 10.41 Our Brethren cannot finde it taken for ordaining in other Authors neither If our Brethren mean for ordaining Ministers I cannot tell how Aristotle or Demosthenes c. should so use it But if they mean that in Civil Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for the constituting of a person in Office without the peoples suffrage if they look Stephen or Hesychius or Budeus they will better inform them Hesychius saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this is nothing to the present purpose we say if it signifies choosing here yet Paul and Barnabas chose 2. Our Brethren say this could not be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choose by suffrages now Paul and Barnabas could not make suffrages All this is a riddle to me for if I understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— signifies the hand not the tongue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to stretch out not to speak the word no otherwise signifies a choosing by suffrage than the lifting up of the hand did testifie the suffrage But why could not Paul and Barnabas make suffrages Surely they made two and that is the plural number sure The truth is the primary signification of the word was to choose by lifting up of the hand in token of their consent to a person named for an office now in regard this made vulgar Officers the word was ordinarily used afterward for the creating or putting one in office whether there were an hand lifted up or no thus it is used in Scripture too Acts 10.41 chosen or appointed before of God yet I hope our Brethren will not say that Christ made the Apostles by suffrage and if two persons according to our Brethrens Grammar cannot make suffrages surely one indivisible God could not 3. But say our Brethren the thing intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉