this The Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching Jer. 23. 21 22. They are reproved not onely for preaching false doctrine but for preaching without a call for running without being sent To this our Brethren return this strange Answer That these were Prophets rightly called by God and they are blamed for this that being Prophets they did not prophesie right things pag. 128. Reply This is a little too grosse to say they are by God called to be Prophets of whom God professeth They ran but he sent them not Whether shall we believe God or our Brethren And this is the more considerable because it was not with Prophets as it is with ordinary Gospel-Ministers who besides the delivery of a message to them from God must also have a solemn mission and authorization for the work for the Prophets had no other call then this or at lest this was Gods usuall way of calling them he immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message And when God vouchsafed to send such a message that was taken for an authorization of them or a call to be a Prophet as plainly appears in the case of Samuel 1 Sam. 3. where after God had delivered a message to and by Samuel it followes v. 20. And all Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord And therefore on the contrary seeing these Prophets were such as had not any message at all from God that we read of thereby it is evident that they were not Prophets and he that faith they were such as he asserts it gratis so it is plaine it is but an opinion taken up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gratify their cause And I am perswaded had not our Brethren been hurried into this fancy by the favourable aspect it hath to their doctrine they would have rejected it as wholly ridiculous Whereas they urge that saying If they had stood in my counsell and had caused my people to hear my words then they should have turned them from their evil way but the Lord would not have entailed his blessing upon the labours of false Prophets I answer 1. As the words are here rendred they no way oppose our doctrine for The standing in Gods Counsell and speaking Gods Words implies a call as hath been shewed as if he had said If they had waited till I had sent them and delivered my message to them then they might have expected a blessing 2. It must be observed that there is another reading proposed by some learned men which as it is very conformable to the Hebrew Text so it is more probable in it self and more consonant to the context to read it thus If they had stood in my counsel i. e. if they had stood till I had sent them c. they would have profited this people and they would have turned them from their evil way whereas now they did encourage them in it so that he brings in this as an evidence that they were false Prophets The seventh Argument used by the Provinciall Assembly was this The Ministers of Christ have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine Cal. 1. Joh. 3. 27 28. Luk. 20. 2. To this they say 1. If it prove a call yet it proves not that this call is ordination Ans. That is not the businesse to speak of this or that particular call that is proved in another proposition but onely in the generall to shew that over and besides gifts some other call mission or designation from God either immediate or mediate is required and this is sufficient against our Brethren who assert that any man having gifts is eo nomine called by God to preach and his gifts alone sufficiently warrant him though he have no other call 2. They say The reason why Paul proves his mission was but for his doctrines sake and although it was necessary for Paul to prove his immediate call and to prove the divinenesse of the doctrines of the Gospel yet there is no such reason to make it necessary to prove a mediate call Reply 1. I do not understand that the proof of Pauls extraordinary mission was necessary to prove the divineness of his doctrine for then those ordinary officers that preached in that time could not have proved the divinenesse of their doctrine Besides there are and were diverse other excellent and sufficient mediums to prove his doctrine by he proved it out of the Law and the Prophets by miracles by ocular witnesses of Christs resurrection c. It is true he proves his mission for his doctrines sake and that makes not against us at all but for us seeing if Paul had preached without a call he had given just occasion to suspect his doctrine and to doubt of the certainty of it because they that reject Gods warrant to the office have no reason to promise to themselves Gods blesin the work And therefore it followes strongly that much more ought Ministers who have far lesse gifts then Paul had to prove their mission and call or else they must give men leave to doubt of the certainty of their doctrine It is true what our Brethren say that the proofe of an ordinary call is no sufficient argument to prove the truth of the doctrine seeing ordinary lawfull Ministers may erre But yet when a man cannot prove his call that may render his doctrine doubtfull and the reason is because Bonum oritur ex integris malum ex quolibet defectu To make a mans preaching regular many things must concurre he must be called he must preach agreeable to the Word c. But the want of any one of these will make it irregular Other things they say but because they are triviall I wave them as not having such store of time as to throw it away to no purpose The eighth and last Argument was this That work may not be performed which cannot be performed in faith But preaching by a gifted Brother not called c. cannot be done in faith for 1. Such have no precept to preach 2. There is no precept for people to hear them or maintaine them 3. They have no promise of assistance of protection of successe c. To which our Brethren say something But because they adde nothing of any weight except that which hath been said by themselves before and by us answered to avoid Tautologies I shall ease my self and Reader of the trouble of following them There is one thing onely which is very observable that they say nothing as to that which is most considerable in the argument which is the matter of maintenance which I must desire them seriously and conscientiously to peruse and let them take it in this form and give me leave to improve it All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance But all gifted men though preaching cannot challenge maintenance Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers The Major is the maine thing liable to doubt and therefore I shall prove it Either
Bishop that the Church or his sheep are his correlatum because his end and his work was their salvation so also must it needs be in Ministers that their relation must be towards those among whom their great work lies For the minor no man can doubt of it that hath read the Scriptures especially those fore-cited places Mat. 28. Eph. 4. If it be said Conversion indeed was the great work of the Apostles but not so of ordinary Ministers those were to build up what the Apostles brought in I answer 1. Both those places do evidently relate as well to ordinary Ministers as to the Apostles For Eph 4. they are equally named and for Mat. 28. it is clear because those Ministers who are there spoken of and set apart for that work of the conversion of Heathens they are assured by God that they shall continue to the end of the world which is not true of the Apostles in their own persons unlesse to them you adde their successors the ordinary Ministers And 1 Cor. 3. 5. Who is Paul and who is Apollo c. but Ministers by whom ye believe And that text will continue true to the end of the world Faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. of ordinary Ministers as well as the Apostles 2. If conversion be a work common and necessary in these daies as well as in the Apostles daies then Ministers are now appointed for that work as well as formerly they were For while the cause and reason remains the effect also must needs remain But conversion is a work common and necessary now as well as then For though men are not Heathens now as they were formerly yet many are but professors and titular Christians by vertue of their Church-membership and so do need a work of conversion 3. Either the ordinary Ministers of the Church were appointed for conversion or else Christ hath appointed no Officers to take care of the greatest and most principal work which is the conversion of sinners But this is highly absurd that Christ should take least care where there was most need and therefore ordinary Ministers were instituted for conversion And thus I have done with the first thing which was to prove that Ministers are Officers and act as Officers to others besides their own Congregation The second thing propounded was To Answer their Arguments and to vindicate the Arguments offered by the Provincial Assembly against that contrary opinion that Ministers are Officers only to their own Congregations And for the better methodizing of it I shall first with all brevity propound the Assemblies Arguments then our Brethrens Answers and then adde a Reply And this I chuse to do in this place although these things are discussed by them under another Head p. 227 c. because they properly concern this Question But I shall passe them over with more brevity because it is but a collateral Question and our Brethren are lesse accurate in this than in the other point 1. This opinion is unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years Provinc Ans. It sufficeth that it is heard of in the Scripture Reply But you know that is denied and for the Churches judgement as it is not to be advanced into Gods throne so it is not easily to be slighted where there is an universall consent of all Churches as there is in this case which it is hard to shew in any Errour Nemo pacificus contra Ecclesiam 2. This opinion is contrary to our Brâ—threns practise who hold the administration of the Sacrament to be a Ministeriall act and yet give it to members of other Congregations Provinc To this there is a double Answer given by our Brethren 1. The main Answer where they lay most stresse which therefore I propose first is this that In ministerial acts some things are common to men as men as the Word and Prayer some are common to them as Church members or as confederates with any particular Church not considering this or another Church as the Sacraments other things as special and proper to a particular Church c. as Excommunication Election c. So that a man may claim the Sacrament as a confederate with any Church And as a father giving instruction to his children and servants teacheth them as a Father and Master but if strangers come in and partake of the instruction he teacheth them not by vertue of any such relation so if a Pastor preach and give the Sacrament occasionally he acts not as a Pastor and Officer to them This is the strength of what our Brethren say p. 278 279 280. Reply 1. If our Brethren perceive not how they have overshot themselves I question not but any judicious Reader will quickly discern it how they are fallen from their own principles Indeed the Answer were tolerable if preaching and giving the Sacrament were of the same nature and quality and did proceed pari passu but seeing it is generally granted by our Congregational Brethren That Preaching is not alwaies an act of Office and that it is an act which may be done by Gifted men and that the administration of the Sacrament is alwaies an act of Office and cannot be done but by one in Office it is most incongruously done to jumble these two together and to make them alike in this very case where they acknowledge the difference 2. To the Sacrament two things are required which are warily to be distinguished 1. A right in the Receiver to claim and that indeed we have in the supposed case according to our Brethrens principles 2. A power in the Giver to administer and this none hath but an Officer and none can do it but as an Officer and therefore no man can give it to any but to them to whom he is an Officer and acts as an Officer and therefore they cannot give it to any member of other Congregations And this acute Mr. Hooker is so sensible of that he grants it in terminis using these words Touching the partaking of the Sacrament by some of one Congregation in another it hath been a course which I have ever questioned and against it I have alledged many Arguments professing the course unwarrantable for this reason among others because the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and what authority hath he to do it and they to receive it from him to whom he is no Pastor as he is cited by Cawdry Inconsistency of Indep Way p. 203. Nor do I see how this can be fairly avoided by any that stick to Congregational principles and I think such a strange paradox as this asserted by so considerable a person and flowing from such principles may justly render them suspected to all impartial judges And whereas our Brethren here imply the contrary and talk of a Pastors giving the Sacrament to strangers not as a Pastor 1. Let all men take notice that in this they have
uses and ends they serve to yea though it be but to a single person is Preaching By this rule we are all Preachers bond and free male and female wise and unwise seeing this is frequently done by persons of all sorts and in this sense both men and women are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such preaching we dispute not against but enjoyn it to people of all sorts In that sense we do as Moses wish that all the Lords people were Prophets This is that which upon all occasions we press private Christians to that they would instruct the ignorant admonish the unruly c. privately And truly this businesse conscienciously managed would so take up the gifts and time of most Christians that they would never be charged at the last day for wrapping their Talents in a napkin though they never assumed the publick work of the Ministry It is then publick Preaching that we dispute against we will not quarrell about words If that shall be Preaching which our Brethren will call so be it so then in that sense we dispute not against Preaching but Preaching publikely There is another thing which they cannot digest to wit the distinction which we made between Preaching and the speaking of a General to his Army c. wherein the object is a Congregation not sacred but meerly civil c. To this they say It is preaching though the object of it be a Congregation not sacred but prophane and Idolatrous for Infidels are to be preached to And if the General of an Army open and apply Scriptures not for a civil end chiefly but for the instruction and edification of those he speaks to and this not in an intermixed way to qualifie civil actions how this can be denied to be preaching we know not To which I Reply 1. In that case we must distinguish between finis operis and finis operantis the end of the work in its own nature and the end of the worker Suppose a Philosophy Professor is reading a Philosophicall Lecture of the existence of God or the immortality of the soul wherein he takes occasion to open and apply divers Scriptures possibly he being a good man may aim at the spiritual and eternal good of his hearers yet none will call this preaching because though the end of the Reader was their salvation yet the end of the Reading was quite of another nature So if a religious General in speaking to his Army when going to fight principally aims at the salvation of their souls yet this is not preaching for though his end in speaking be their salvation yet indeed the end of the work in it self and that is it by which all actions must be estimated for the end of the actors may be various and infinite I say the end of the work is to encourage them to the battel 2. A company of Heathens met together in the case supposed though they are not a sacred Congregation yet the end of their meeting suppose to hear Paul preach to them is sacred I mean the end of the work though not the end of the workers and however it is with the hearers yet the end of the actor or speaker is purely and solely the salvation of their souls and so it is truly and may properly be called Preaching 3. But in this case I say a General may not publickly open and apply Scriptures to his Army unlesse in a case of necessity or in order to a civil end i. e. their encouragement to battel There is one thing more in the stating of the Question which they trouble themselves much about concerning our sense in the use of that phrase of authoritative preaching and how they tell us that Authority is sometimes taken for a right or power to do some publick work sometimes for the majesty fervor and gravity which is to attend the dispensation of the Gospel sometimes for that power which an Officer hath over his people and say they we judge that our Brethren take authoritative preaching in this sense because they oppose it to brotherly charitative preaching But this is to seek a knot in a bulrush for our meaning was sufficiently plain and we did not speak of an authoritative preaching as if we did allow any publick preaching which is not authoritative but only put it as a character of and convertible with publick preaching unlesse in cases of necessity and so the Assembly expressed themselves clearly and fully We distinguish say they between a private brotherly teaching c. and an authoritative publick-teaching And this is all I shall say for the stating of the Question which now I come to discusse and I shall do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this method 1. I shall propound and Answer their Arguments 2. I shall propound and Vindicate our Arguments And this method though somewhat preposterous I chuse because I would follow the order of their book as farre as I can with any conveniency CHAP. V. THeir first Argument is this Election must go before Ordination But a person must preach yea preach frequently and ordinarily before Election for without this the people cannot discern his gifts c. Ergo Persons not Ordained may ordinarily preach Ans. 1. They know their major is not beyond exception but I let that passe because afterwards we shall handle it more fully 2. For their minor if it be true then preaching frequently and ordinarily in that case is necessary i. e. for the trial of their gifts and that we dispute not about but whether out of a case of necessity one may preach ordinarily without Ordination But this first Argument I suppose they intended only for Velitation Their second Argument is the Achilles which I must now come to grapple with There are two pillars of their cause Scripture precept and Scripture example alledged and indeed either of these shall serve turn But we must not take them upon their bare word but weigh what they have said in the ballance of the Sanctuary It is Scripture precept which is here discussed Their second Argument then is this Such as are commanded to preach may preach But some men not Ordained are commanded to preach Ergo. The minor they prove thus All that are apt to teach are commanded to teach This they attempt to prove from 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. but by their favour let us adde v. 9. to it for our Brethren represent the place imagint luscâ with an half face The whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this v. 9. Use 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 minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth Where any indifferent Reader will observe the words mainly insisted upon to be like a little Isthmus of land between two seas to
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
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
But many unordained men were scattered abroad Therefore many unordained men preached p. 74. Ans. 1. You shall see what an hopefull Argument this is I will make use of their own Argument against them and I desire no other Umpire They who were scattered abroad they preached But many ungifted persons were scattered abroad Therefore such preached And because this example they bring as a president for us therefore ungifted persons may now preach publickly which because it is not only false but contrary to their own sense therefore that we may not be put to deny the Conclusion we must find fault with one of the premises and that can only be done our way i. e. by saying that not all that were scattered preached but only some of them preached Only here is the difference these some that preached say we were Officers say they they were gifted men which yet they cannot prove and if they could it reacheth not our case nor our times for it was a case of necessity as hath been argued If they like not this I will put it in another dresse They who were scattered preached But women as well as men were scattered so they say the scattering was subsequent to Pauls haling men and women c. and that the All that were scattered were not all the Officers but all the Church So that by this Argument here is a warrant for women-preachers if this example be a president Nor let them fly to their usual refuge that women are elsewhere forbidden for although they were ordinarily prohibited yet in cases of necessity such as this was they might do it as that woman did who preached to the Iberians and converted them To this I may adde that all that can be extorted from this place is this that they preached which we may grant without any prejudice to our cause for there are divers kinds of preaching or teaching they might do it divers waies It might be true of all that they preached and taught Jesus but not all alike nor all in the same capacity the Officers might teach publickly the rest privately the Officers constantly the others occasionally the Officers might preach officially in a Christian Church the rest might discourse to a company of Heathens or dispute with them and all these may be called teaching or preaching So that our Brethrens Argument is a genere ad speciem affirmativè which will not hold water For what they say that It is indefinitely said that they that were scattered preached Ans. They know that indefinite propositions in materiâ contingenti in a contingent matter such as this unquestionably is are not equivalent to an universal Supposing that Officers and people were scattered I say that if the Officers alone had preached that had been sufficient ground to say of the whole they preached as oftentimes that is said to be done by all Israel which was done by the Officers of the Congregation And thus we have seen those two great topicks of our Brethren from Scripture precept and Scripture president overthrown And so much for the third Argument Their fourth Argument is that principall place and pillar of their opinion which if I shall satisfactorily Answer there will be little ground left for our Brethrens confidence in this cause 1 Cor. 14. 29 31. whence they draw this Argument All that are Prophets may publickly preach But some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets Therefore some men who are not ordained Officers may publickly preach Which Argument may be cut off in a word for their Conclusion may be granted without any detriment to our Cause and our Brethren might have known and ought to have considered that we grant that persons unordained may preach in a double case 1. In the case of necessity 2. In case of extraordinary gifts and an immediate Commission from God which we take to be the case of these Prophets of which more hereafter In the mean time let us follow them For their major it is granted on all hands For their minor it is this That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets where there is a double defect and insufficiency to the proof of what they intend For 1. The Prophets might be Officers though not ordained so were the Apostles neither of man nor by man 2. If the Prophets were not Officers at all yet the extraordinarinesse of their gifts was a sufficient warrant for the publick exercise thereof But neither of these are to be found in the case of those unordained preachers we plead against but they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from them for neither are they Officers at all ordained or not ordained nor are their gifts extraordinary so that the minor might be granted and yet the truth not wronged But let us see how they proceed I fear it will prove ominous to them thus to stumble in the threshold They argue thus to prove their minor All that have the gift of prophesie are Prophets But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie Ergo Some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets For the major though we grant it yet according to our Brethrens principles it might be denied for if it were as they say that those prophesiers here spoken of had the gift but no Office I should deny such to be Prophets because the name of Prophet both in vulgar acception and in Scripture use connotes an Office Caiaphas did prophesie Ioh. 11. and yet I beleeve our Brethren are not so hardy as to say that Caiaphas was a Prophet The minor will lead us to the main point which is this Some men not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie which they attempt to prove by three steps They say this prophesie 1. is a gift not an Office 2. That it is a gift still continuing 3. And which some unordained persons have p. 90. And if these things be proved they say something to the purpose but let it be considered if there be a flaw in any one of them their whole Argument fals and how much more when every one of them will be taken tardy The last Proposition they place first and use three Arguments to prove it whereof the last is that which the other propositions treat of the two former are these which follow 1. Say they Some not ordained have this gift of prophesie because we find no Scripture warrant for the ordaining of Prophets Ans. 1. What if there be no particular warrant it is sufficient that there is a general rule for the ordaining of all Church-officers Pastors Teachers Elders c. and at least if these be ordinary Officers as our Brethren make them a parity of reason which is a sufficient Argument to sober minded men such as I take our Brethren to be will prove that they also are to be ordained 2. But if they be extraordinary Officers as the Provincial Assembly affirm preferred before the Evangelists and having this priviledge above the