The Shepherds Wanderings Discovered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.

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

In the close of that Chapter he says:

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

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

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

This indeed I have granted, in my Vindiciae, p. 14. but in these terms only: that School-learning is not absolutely necessary. So that doubtless in cases of necessity, when the Church of God cannot be supplied enough with men of learning, this may be done (and I conceive this is our case and part now) for truly, I judge a godly gifted man, duly ordained and set a part to the work (though unlearned in part) far fitter for the Ministry then a profane wretch (though the greatest Scholar in Christendom. ) Thus far now this is granted. Yet withal I cannot think that God would have supplied miraculously the first preachers of the Gospel with an extraordinary gift of tongues; and an infallible spirit in expounding Scripture: if he had not in his wisdom thought that it was most fitting for one that were learned in the Original Tongues to interpret Scripture publicly.

A second thing you say we grant is,

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

3. A third thing you say was granted is,

This indeed is granted you by Mr. Hall, and by myself, upon that ground of Scripture, 1 Tim. 5.22. yet not without due limitation. 1. As Probationers. 2. Before the Elders, or the Church in which he is constantly to preach. So Mr. Hall limits it.) I have added, 3. Not without the approbation of the Presbytery that is to ordain him. 4. Not to make a work of it, but to do it some few times. And (Sir) these are Scripture bounds. For the text only says, Lay hands suddenly on none, and Let him be first proved (which is spoken of Deacons, but holds a fortiori, to preachers. So that all his preaching must be in order to a proof, and a securing of Timothy from laying on hands suddenly. Now (Sir) the means must be proportionate to the end; Reason tells you with these limitations, it is granted, sir.

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

That same word such like comes in unhandsomely after your large enumeration of all the necessary cases, I know or ever heard of. Yea, you reckon one too many. For suppose a Church be to be planted amongst Infidels, I think God's way is the best way to do it in. So it was Acts 13.3, 4, 5: he did not send merely gifted persons to do it, but calls from Heaven to his Church to set a part Paul and Barnabas, before they went; which they did by fasting and prayer, and laying on of hands: yet both of them were extraordinarily gifted. Indeed if such ordination cannot be had) we grant it.

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

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

7. You say truly we grant,

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

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

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

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

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

12. That any man may make a public apology or defense to clear himself from unjust accusations we grant, if he be called to it in seasonable time, and convenient place he may do it; but not to justle out an Ordinance of God.

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

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

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

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

And in his first lines, he says right that the Preachers do affirm (yea, and must stand to that affirmation too) till better arguments be brought us, then this book will afford us)

My brother Hall puts in a Call. I balkit that word purposely, because I knew what our brethren call a Call, and I meant something more.

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

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

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

2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is true enough: only adding, that they keep the limits by which God's Word, and their calling bounds them.

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

These are his ten Propositions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if this Genleman means, that they should belong to them as the keys to the Steward, to open and apply them to the people, he both contradicts himself, for he tells us in other places of this book, That they cannot expound and apply Scriptures authoritatively; and he contradicts the Apostle too, 1 Cor. 4.2. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Jesus Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Of which mysteries the Gospel is one, Col. 1.16. And if he doth not mean, that the Scriptures thus belong to the people

1. He says nothing to the purpose.

2: His second objection is little worth (of which more by and by) for suppose we argue thus:

He says:

We easily grant that private Christians are in the general bound by the Law of God and nature to take a private care of their brethren's souls and bodies; and of the truth, so far as to keep it in their own hearts, and propagate it in their own families; yea and to admonish, reprove, and exhort one another: to watch over them, if standing: if any brother be fallen through infirmity, to endeavor to restore him in the spirit of meekness. But (Sir) they are not to take a public care of, nor are they put in a public trust concerning their brethrene souls. Neither are the Scriptures committed to them to teach others. 1 Tim. 2.2.

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

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

And (Sir) for your distinction between committed, and so committed, it is Apocryphal. The Scripture nowhere says, they are at all committed to them. You must remember (Sir) your own marginal note which you give, as p. 29. Ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum.

But to justify what you say, you tell us that it is committed to the people; for,

Any one may see a Non sequitur (without spectacles) in the Argument. And the Gentleman's proofs will none of them prove this, nor anything like unto it.

In the next place he comes to clear his point from two Objections. He frames one from Revel. 2.

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

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

To his second answer.

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

He frames a second Objection, p. 5.

Ob.

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

Sir, As to that text, 1 Tim. 3.15. it is a very disputable text, who the Apostle calls there, the pillar and ground of truth, is not so well agreed, as you presume. Some refer it to Timothy. Mr. Calvin saith, Elogium hoc ad ministerium verbi pertinet. That it is to be applied to the ministry of the Word. Others understand it of the living God, who is indeed the pillar and ground of truth. So Cameron, and others.) To bar either of these interpretations, you have nothing but the poor credit of a comma or two; and those that knew anything, know that the Original copies generally are both without stops and distinction of verses. For my own part, I should understand it of the living God, and supply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [who is] and then your proof fails.

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

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

CHAP. V. Wherein the sixth and seventh pages are examined, and the Authors third proposition is scanned, and his proof of it inquired into, &c.

FOr your second proposition, viz. That the people as well as the preachers are to read and study the Scriptures. I grant it you to be a t • uth, and wish it may be practiced. But it concludes nothing to the business in hand, unless you will conclude thus:

Your third proposition is p. 6.

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

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

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

If you mean that it is necessary to salvation that one have the Scriptures opened to him, I cannot grant it, nor have you proved it. If you mean in the other sense necessary, I grant it; though I think another word would have better expressed it, especially if Varro's notion for the Etymology of necesse, or necessarium (from whence our English word comes) be true. Necesse quod necesse aliter potest. But I easily grant you, that the exposition of Scripture is an ordinance of God, and of singular advantage, though such things as are necessary to salvation may be understood without an expositor, the wisdom of God having so compounded the Scriptures, that there is milk for babes, and meat for strong ones.

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

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

Let us now argue from hence, it must be thus:

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

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

If I should argue so (Sir) you would tell me there were more creatures then one; and so I must tell you, there are more ways by which the Church may be edified then one. The Church was edified by prophesying, and by the gift of tongues: it doth not therefore follow, that both these are continuing gifts to the Church of Christ; or that our opening and expounding Scripture is the same with the prophesying so often mentioned in the New Testament. The thing you say is a truth, That Christians are to search the Scriptures, and to covet the best gifts; To desire to be able to understand the meaning of Scripture. But you have not proved it by your second reason, nor do you prove your third reason well by 1 Cor. 14.3 I grant you your fourth, that Christ and his Apostles made much use of this way of expounding Scriptures, and doubtless his Ministers ought to do so still. Your fifth I grant, that there are many hard things in Scripture, that had need of explication. And that place in Peter which you quote, 2 Pet. 3.16. proves the unlearned very unfit to open them; and your other place, Acts 8.30, 31. shows whom God hath appointed to that work. The Lord did not send one of the guifted brethren to do it, but Philip, one ordained, Act. 6.5. and so in office a Preacher, Act. 8.6. and that had extraordinary gifts given to him; one that had power to baptize, and give the Holy Ghost, Act. 8. For that place you quote, Job 33.22. I will not dispute the meaning of that place with you, whether it doth prove there are many things hard in Scripture to be understo • d. The Interpreter there spoken of seems to me to be one rather that should interpret visions or revelations, or God's providences, read V. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. and see what they speak of the Scriptures being hard to be understood. But (Sir) admit it, that the Interpreter there spoken of be meant One that should interpret hard places of Scripture, mark what a one he must be. 1. He must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Messenger, an Angel. Qui sic dicitur a functione quam deus ipsi imponit, called so from his office (saith Buxtorfius ) The Prophet Malachi hath his name from this word, and he must be one of a thousand. So that, Sir, although it is true, that those places 2 Pet. 3.16. and Act 8.30, 31. prove there are some things in Scripture hard to be understood; Yet I desire you to take notice by the way, that he that opens them must not be one unlearned, for (saith the Apostle) he will wrest them; but he must be a Philip, an Angel, (saith Job ) and one of a thousand. What else you say, p. 7. concerning the profitableness of the exposition and application of Scripture in general, I grant you: only I think Heb. 3.12. proves not that you bring it for: the words are these, Take heed brethren lest there be in any of you an unbelieving heart to depart from the living God. I suppose you intended v. 13. But exhort one another daily. But although you did, yet you cannot from thence (except your Logic be better then mine) conclude this truth, that The opening of Scripture is like the breaking and bruising of Spices. And yet you add, see for this Matth. 23.16, &c. Heb 3.12. I have done with your third position, and my Marginall notes upon it; only I wonder you speak so much of the excellency of Application, and make so little use of it; but I suppose we shall have the uses anon. In the mean while having helped you in the exposition of your doctrine I have granted you it in the same sense wherein the Scriptures you quote prove it, though I suppose not in the same you would have it.

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

YOur next, and in order your fourth position is this,

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

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

But if you mean, that it lies upon the people in point of duty, to be as much busied and versed in the Scriptures, as the Preacher is bound to be, I cannot yield you that: For that God hath nowhere said to them as to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.15. Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them. I suppose you believe a Preacher shall not sin against God, if he spend his whole time in order to his abounding in the knowledge of the Scriptures; but, I suppose those who are not in that Function should. But I easily grant you, that every Christian ought to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures; and that because, as you say, God hath both commanded and commended it. I grant you also, that a fuller measure of knowledge is promised and prophesied, Dan. 12.4. Is. 11.9 Is. 33 6 and possibly that place in Joel may be a proof in some part for you, viz that under the Gospel God would pour out his Spirit in a larger measure then before. Here you frame an Objection that some make, viz.

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

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

3. The gift hath been given to some in all times under the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas you say, the words do import something further, I cannot find it out in respect of time, there is no term but afterwards; what you can make of that I cannot tell. Whereas you say, that the gift hath been given to some in all times, it is but petitio principii, a begging of the question. Fourthly, you say the same and like words are used, Luke 4 17, 18, 19, 20. I have searched that place, and find it a prophecy fu • filled in Christ, and applied by himself to himself; neither are there any such words there, as I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophecy. Your other place is, Matth. 8.17. the words are these, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet; Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Now, where are the same or like words in the text? I think there is not one word the same in the text, nor any like. Indeed the two places in the margent are something nearer, Is. 43 3. Zach. 12.10. Both those speak of a pouring out of the Spirit, but neither of them speak of the Spirit of prophecy, nor of sons and daughters prophesying. The latter speaks of the Spirit of grace and supplication. But what is that to the spirit of prophecy? But in the fifth place you tell us, Some sound and learned Interpreters so understand it, but who those are you spare mentioning I answer first, whoever they be St. Peter is to be preferred before them, and how it is to be understood he hath told us, Act. 2.16. Let us hear a little what Expositors say: Oecolampadius upon the place hath these words.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Calvin upon the Text says, that Peter witnesses that this prophecy is fulfilled; and says, that Joel doth not here speak of the public work of teaching, for he calls those Prophets that were not called to that, but were enlightened with such a degree of knowledge that they might be compared with Prophets.

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

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

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

You bring another reason p. 9. to prove that the people are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures as well as the Preachers.

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

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

YOur fifth proposition is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the substance of your ninth and tenth pages.

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

Whoso hath the Spirit of God hath the gift of expounding Scripture.—But all God's people have the Spirit of God.

Ergo, they all have the gift of expounding Scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thus far the Spirit assists: God hath allowed us means to find out the meaning of his word, we have ways to come to the knowledge of the Languages in which they were writ, and the labors of many eminent servants of God who have taken pains in it, we may by study consider the coherence of the words and parallel Scriptures. Now whosoever he be that with an humble heart takes up the book of God, and in order to the finding out of the will of God in any portion of his word, shall first seek God by prayer, that he would open his heart to understand the wonder of his law, and then give up himself to study the word of God; using the means that God hath afforded him, considering the scope of the penman, and of the words precedent and consequent, and other parallel places; and shall bring to this enquiry not discutiendi acumen, a disputing head, but discendi pietatem a pious heart, desirous to be instructed. This man shall be assisted with the Spirit of God. 1. Raising up his natural parts of reason and judgment to comprehend the will of God. — Secondly, Possibly bringing to his mind such Scriptures as may parallel the place he seeks about, and help him in the interpretation of that Scripture, for the meaning of which he seeks. 3. Working in him persuasion of necessary truths. But for any other assistance, I know not where it is promised, nor how it can be expected.

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

2. If the Spirit by such an immediate work inspired Saints as Saints, then it were impossible their interpretations of any Scripture should be false; but how much the holiest servants of God have erred in some expositions of Scripture and do err, former times have evidenced enough. And Sir, I hope the Spirit of God dwelleth in you; yet as I hinted before, it did not thus assist you in the application of James 4.5. or Zech. 12.10. or Rom. 8.15, 16. p. 9. There might be a quick experience of this: Take a Saint and turn him to a difficult place of Scripture or two, and try if he can give an infallible interpretation; which he must do if it proceed from the immediate work of the Spirit that dwelleth in him.

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

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

5. Nor do I see how you can shift granting, that every Saint must have this faculty; for in every Saint the Spirit dwells. But if this be true, you do well in the eleventh page to give us reasons why it doth not appear. But you tell us there that your meaning is,

If you meant by seminal power and virtue, an habit of reason, and some degree of judgment. &c. I grant it you; but you mean I perceive something else, viz. a spiritual ability, a spark of the heavenly fire of God's Spirit herein; that there is something of the Spirit in them I grant, there is some sparks of that heavenly fire, showing them things necessary to salvation, and showing them the things freely given them of God (yet not that always neither) and serving to burn up their lusts, and to enflame their hearts for God; but the word herein I question, yea, and deny that in every Saint there is such a Spiritual ability. Nor doth that Text you bring, 1 Io. 20.27. prove it. The knowledge of all things there spoken of, must not be taken in the latitude, for so we know the Scripture would not be true. The meaning is, all the parts of doctrine necessary to salvation, saith Deodate; but the interpretation of all the Scriptures, or an ability to do it is not necessary to salvation. But you will quarrel with me if I leave behind what you have p. 9.

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

The Minor is unquestionably true, but the Major is false; and is sick of that fallacy that Logicians call Fallacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The Spirit doth not teach all Saints all things that are freely given them of God. Many Saints do not know they are justified or sanctified, that Christ or Heaven is theirs, and yet are real Saints; and the text (saith Mr. Leigh ) is to be understood chiefly of that knowledge. All that the text proves, is this, that the Saints may know by the Spirit the things freely given them of God. It doth not prove that they do know all of them the things given them of God: Nor that, they do know all the things given them of God.

But a word more, Sir, before you and I part with this text. Doth not this text look as if it were to be understood of a reflex knowledge: such a knowledge by which a man knows that he knows. The original word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and doth signify a certain and infallible knowledge; so Col. 3.24. Col. 4.1. and if it so signify here, you do ill to apply it to a direct knowledge. The words seem to argue such a knowledge as is infallible; and thus surely every Saint doth not know the Scriptures. I perceive you were afraid we should tell you, that the things here spoken of are those good things which God hath prepared for them tha • love him, as indeed the coherence tell you, v. 9. and the knowledge spoken of an infallible persuasion of our right unto them: And to defend yourself you tell us,

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

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

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

Having laid down for a position, that all the Saints have a seminal virtue enabling them to expound Scriptures, you come to inquire the cause why it doth not appear; and you are pleased to charge it upon us, saying,

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

To all this impertinent discourse I shall answer briefly. That the Preachers are charged falsely: we do desire all that fear God to stir up the gift that is in them, to be much in reading and studying of the Scriptures, to meditate upon them, to instruct their families out of them. Indeed we do not press them to preach; for if you mean by gift 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the office, in which sense the Apostle useth it, 1 Tim. 4 14, we believe according to that Scripture, that that gift is given them by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. [That is] that by ordination they are empowered to the exercise of that Office. But you tell us,

Several Scriptures, but strangely applied; as if Saints under the Gospel had generally such a spirit of prophecy as Jeremy and Amos, and Peter, and John had: but indeed it seems they cannot forbear, for the Law of God cannot restrain them, their pretended spirit is like new wine indeed (that hath intoxicated them.) And like fire (for it hath broke forth, to the burning up of a great part of the Lord heritage.) But (Sir) you are mistaken in saying that we do not persuade them to refresh themselves with their new Wine; we only wish them to forbear Ivy bushes, except their Wine were better, and to keep their bottles for their own use, and not to make their gifts means of others drunkenness. We do persuade them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to blow up their fire only, we advise them to keep it within the chimney.

I suppose you mean publicly, or else you both charge us falsely, and say nothing to the purpose too. But (Sir) we must find God commanding us to do it, before we durst take your counsel. But yet your experiment hath been tried, and is (God knows) too much. There is a liberty enough given to men this way, and the people are ready enough to take it. Nor are there some wanting that have bidden them God speed. The Socinians and Arminians of old, after them the Brownists, and lately some of our more valuable reverend dissenting Brethren; and I believe any time these ten years in several places this liberty hath been pleaded. But where's the flame, Sir? or what is the fruit of it? is not T. Colliers spark blown into a flame? see his blasphemous discourse at Axbridge. It is indeed miserably true, that their sparks are blown into flames, but they are such flames as have consumed the Church of God, and endanger the Elect: the blowing up of these sparks hitherto in all places in the world where they have been endured, hath proved a sad flame. Enquire of the Churches in New England, did not Mrs. Hutchinson, and the rest of her followers sparks come into flames? Ask the Churches in Holland what pretty flames these sparks made; did not the Yorkshire Sadlers sparks make a flame too in Mr. Oxenbridges Church (if I have not been mis-informed.) I believe our judicious brethren will soon see if this practice go on, that they will be troubled with such flames that they will hardly be able to quench. We have seen these sparks by blowing grow into flam s of Anabaptism, Antinomianism, Blasphemy, Ranting, Divisions, &c. These are the best fruit we or any of the Churches of Christ ever saw of it. But to pass this discourse which I believe will hardly please you.

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

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

Very right; but surely tis the same prophesying spoken of in all that Chapter and the two following; and if that be extraordinary, you have lost the best string to your bow. But it seems you have two strings to it. For secondly you tell us,

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

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

YOur sixth point is this,

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

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

To your first reason I answer, that the public use of this gift is confined. Christ did not say to all the Disciples, but to the Apostles and their Successors only, Go preach and baptize, Matth 28, &c. and what though the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 12 7. that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal; he opens himself v. 7.8 and shows that he means not, that the several gifts of the Spirit are given to everyone, but one to this Christian, another to another; something to all, v. 29 Are all Prophets, are all Teachers, are all workers of miracles? That very Text, 1 Cor. 12.7, 8. is witness enough against you. Nor doth Rom. 12.6. prove that the use of this gift is not confined: for it is confined to them that have it, and those are only such as are Officers, (if you mean by prophesying ordinary preaching, which I perceive you take for granted, though I shall show you anon you have no reason to do so.) For your third place, Acts 17.11. that only proves that searching the Scriptu • es is not confined to officers but people also may do it, and this none denies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. You agree that some things in Scripture are very hard to be understood, but others easy.

3. You take it, that the knowledge of the truths of God's Word is a gift of God, attainable by the Spirit only, and not by any human power and strength: and this you promised after to show.

This is to set up a man of Straw, and then to spend time in undressing him. I know none say that none can interpret, or rather know the meaning of any place of Scripture, but such as have skill in the Tongues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your third place to prove it is commended, is Rom. 15.14. where the Apostle saith, that he was persuaded they were full of goodness, full of all knowledge, able to admonish one another. Here he commends them, that they were full of all knowledge; but how doth he commend them here for expounding Scripture, that is a piece of practice. Nor doth the Apostle mean, they were filled with all knowledge in all kinds and degrees, for 1 Cor. 13 12. he says, that himself knew but in part: he means therefore all necessary knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

I Am now come to your eighth position, viz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The substance of this was answered before. 2. The second as well as, upon which all your strength lieth, is not proved (but I perceive you take great pains to prove that which none denies. You say Io. 4 39. I suppose you mean Io. 5.39.

To your four particulars and your inference, I answer shortly.

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

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

3. The care is to be purified in the furnace too, and to receive a stamp before it be currant, but God's word is purified seven times.

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

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

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

I am now come to your ninth position:

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

1. What you mean by gift of prophecy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the words are general, and therefore to be understood of all Christians and all gifts? Truth (Sir) if there were no other Scriptures to limit them, nor are the words general neither, if Christians have not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there spoken of. I pass over your other five reasons as proving nothing that I have denied, nor anything to your purpose.

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

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

Now you have done us the favor to tell us, what you meant all this while by expounding; for your position, I only am troubled you have not told us, when and where and how, and that you have used the word frequently. For the proof of this you appeal to experience, saying,

1. (Sir) if you mean that God hath pleased to bless the private labors of his people in their private exhortings and reprovings of one another to increase Grace in the souls of his servants, I doubt it not.

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

3. You make a very ill appeal to the Converts of our age. Perverts there are many, but the Lord knows few converts, and very strange believers and professors; appeal (Sir) to the old puritans of forms ages, ask them by whom God spake to their hearts.

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

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

Lastly, I say the holy one is not limited, but I believe you would be posed to bring me one good instance of a soul converted from a loose and profane life to an humble, close, strict walking with God in truth and uprightness that hath sat under no means but only the Preaching of a private person, that not being called to the office of the Ministry hath yet set upon that work, it were easy to bring you five hundred that have been perverted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell us negatively, p. 20.

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

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

2. Pag. 20.

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

1. We will allow that gifted brethren may Preach, as the works of God are said to preach, Psal. 19.1, 2, 3. Micah. 6.9. And as dead Abel spake, but (Sir) these preachers were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God's heralds, as those spoken of, Rom. 10.

2. God's word (Sir) doth speak, but it doth not preach (in Scripture phrase) nor is its speaking the ordinary means of God to convert souls to Christ. Mr. Perkins tells you there is a difference between reading and preaching a Sermon. Mr. Burroughs in his Gospel-worship saith the latter is under a more special appointment for conversion of souls then the other. God hath said, Hear and your souls shall live, Not, Read and your souls shall live, though we grant reading to be a duty, and of singular use.

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

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

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

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

1. The Original word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies to send as an embassadour (saith A lapide ) to send with power and authority (saith Chamier. )

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

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

4. Sir do you think the Apostles were no more then providentially sent? had Isaiah no more think you, nor the 70 anymore? it is plain that they are spoken of, v. 15, 16 17, 18, had Christ no more? he is spoken of Nahum. 1.15. so that the following, verses and those two Texts, Nahum 1.15. Is. 52.7. are so far from being clearly for you, that they are fully against you, and argue more then a providential sending.

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

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

But you say, the Text cannot be understood in a literal and restrained sense: what that is you do not mention. I suppose you mean, That none may preach but those that are in office, So you expound yourself in your three answers.

I am glad to hear you grant that the literal sense of Sent, is one in office, now sir I will give you a noiion of Reverend Whitaker in his controversies. Saith he, though words may be variously referred and applied, Tropologically, Allegorically or Anagogically, or any other way, yet there are not various senses of Scripture, or various interpretations and explications of Scripture, but the sense of all Scripture is one, and that literal, which may be variously applied, and out of which many things may be gathered.

It is Basils note, that the literal interpretation, if it can be admitted, is never to be rejected. But you tell us it cannot be admitted here, and why? I pray it will follow then you say.

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

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

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

3. Preaching is as necessary as hearing, and a sent preacher as necessary as either, yet all only mentioned as God's ordinary means to which he is not tied.

4. They are all necessary, not by absolute necessity, God can save those that never called upon him, nor actually believed nor heard, but he doth not ordinarily convert or save those that have opportunities to hear preachers sent, and time of believing, and refuse those means of grace which he hath appointed: It will be hard to prove saith Mr. Gillespie that any believe who can hear the Gospel preached by Ministers lawfully called and sent, and do not hear it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"3. It may be done on the Lord's day, or any other day.

"4. In the public Assemblies.

5. In the public meeting place.

6. In the Pulpit.

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

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

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

You would have such men as these, viz. Naylers, Tailors, Bakers, Weavers. p. 22. have leave and encouragement to visit Parishes destitute and unprovided, and exercise their gifts; and doubtless you say this would do more good then setting up mere Readers.

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

2. Provided that according to the Apostles rule, these same Nailors leave making Nailes, and the Tailors leave stitching, and the Cobblers cobling, and the Weavers weaving, or else I am afraid that rule of the Apostle will be broken, which he gives to preachers, 1 Tim. 4.15. Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them, and that v. 13. Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. Surely you will not say, that those rules concern only preachers ordained, that are pastors: for then it must follow. That it is God's will that the pastors of Churches should meddle with his word reverently and seriously, and speak of it premeditately: but the gifted brethren have a privilege to prate at random and ex tempore, and that curse denounced on them that do the work of God negligently belongs only to pastors in office.

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

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

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

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

2. —

3.—

4.

5. That they may preach as probationers, and by writing. "Nay

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

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

1. I will show you how far we have granted those, or any of those.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir, we can give you no license to preach to any. To the law and to the testimony, if that say you may, you may, if not, you may not; this Text in Deuteronomy gives you no liberty to preach to them, nor do I know any that do; you may doubtless, if they come occasionally to join with you in a family duly) go on with your duty before them, but if you make it your business to call them into your chariot to see your zeal for the Lord of hosts, I know no Scripture will justify you.

I pass on to our second and third grant, as you say.

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

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

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

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

"To these cavils I answer.

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

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

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

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

5. Though it be nowhere said they must do it only privately, yet withal it is nowhere said they may do it in a constituted Church that hath public officers to preach to them.

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

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

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

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

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

11. The command to preach is no more common then that to Baptize Math. 28.19. But yourself will grant they may not Baptize, untie the knot for yourself, and you do it for us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor do I think it Regular. I do not think it the best way to convert Indians to send unguifted men to them not ordained. But for the Church to set some apart by fasting and prayer, and send them out to them, with authority. I am sure this is God's way when he was to send preachers where Churches were not formed, Acts 13.5. indeed if the case be such that no ordained persons can be found, nor any Presbyters to ordain them, the case is otherwise. My Brother Hall in his pulpit-guarded p. 5. 6. durst grant you no more, now what do you argue from hence.

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

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

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

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

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

3. You have foisted in this term, Rightly, into our grant; we do not think that every particular fault in the constitution of a Church makes the Lord's Vineyard such a common, that everyone may come and dig in it.

But fourthly you tell us we grant you,

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

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

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

3. These Probationers must not be Naylors, Tailors, Cobblers, &c. but such as have been approved, as have studied the Scriptures and give themselves wholly to that work.

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

But what follows upon this grant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Logic is this.

What is not forbidden to be done is not unlawful:

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

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

If you mean that what is no way forbidden in Scripture, neither by any general precept, nor by any particular precept, neither directly, nor by consequence, is not unlawful, then we grant you that what is not forbidden in that sense is not unlawful. But everything not commanded or allowed is in that sense forbidden, for Rev. 22.18. It is forbidden to add anything to the word of God.

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

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

2. It is nowhere commanded nor allowed, therefore implicitly forbidden.

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

• . If you mean by not forbidden, not forbidden in so many words, we deny your Major, and say it doth not follow a thing is lawful, because it is not forbidden in so many words. For upon this score the Surples, the Cross in Baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus: in short, most of the Popish ceremonies are not thus forbidden.

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

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

Your third argument is this.

To bring your argument into form it must be thus.

You prove it thus:

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

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

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

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

5. This argument would prove, that they are command • d to administer the Sacraments too, and do all pastoral acts; for they are commanded, say you, to edify one another, and these are means of edification.

6. This argument would prove, that all Saints though not gifted nor any ways proved or approved, may preach and do all other pastoral acts, for they are all bound to edify one another, and these are means in order to this end. By this time (Sir) I believe you understand your own fallacy. For what you say, that the Scriptures have enjoined these duties, and nowhere restrained time, place, or manner. I answered that before: there must be a time and place too, Sir, observed, or else you may prove they are bound to preach, when the Minister is praying and preaching, as well as what you do, and for the manner you yourself have set down one, p. 25. and pretended to bring Scripture for it. You say you

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

Your fourth main argument as you call it is this.

It being forbidden for women to preach publicly in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. It is strongly implied that it is permitted for men to do it.

Your argument is this.

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

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

It will infer a liberty for all men as well as gifted men, and if you put in (if they be gifted) why may we not put in if they be ordained.

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

3. It is to be understood of women that had, or pretended to have the gift of prophecy. This the Author of the aforesaid Book proves, because it is not said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as he notes from Scaliger, is determinative.

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

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

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

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

I deny that; it allows indeed that all that are not forbidden there, nor anywhere else may, but not that all not there forbidden may: for all the heathen, and all unclean persons are not forbidden there, yet it is plain from other places, they might not enter.

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

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

I Am come to your fifth main argument:

And that is drawn from an induction of particular examples.

To this argument and every piece of it, is already enough said by learned Doctor Seaman, the Author of Lay preaching unmarked, p. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. Mr. Hall in his Pulpit guarded, Mr. Ferriby in his lawful preacher, p. 33, 34, 36, 37. &c. The Author of Church members set in joint, p. 14.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, &c. Mr. Rutherford in his due right, p. 281. 282, 283. and in his peaceable plea, 255. Mr. Gillespie in his Miscell questions p. 66. 67 &c.

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

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

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

The Elders had the extraordinary gift of prophecy, Num 11.23. so had Saul, and never after so 1 Sam. 5.10. Stephen was ordained and full of the holy Ghost. Anna was a prophetess, Apollos a Minister. Paul had received the holy Ghost, Acts 9. The Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses chair saith our Savior, and surely Christ himself was something more then a gifted Brother.

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

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

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

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

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

In the close of this argument you would know,

O Sir, take heed of paralelling the great ordinance of God to an Oration or a Speech, this is a very unsavory parallel to come from one who seems to have so much of the fear of God dwelling in him, as you have given the world cause to hope you have (from some sober passages in your Book) why do you not as well say what is the difference between the word of the living God and a good Sermon-book? Between Reading the Scriptures, and reading a godly book; yet Luther was wont to say he would burn his books if he thought any one would make that use of them. Suppose there be not a material difference, but both be good, yet is there not a great formal difference, is not one the Ordinance of God to salvation, and are the other public Ordinances under the like divine appointment: (Deare Sir) take heed of such terms to vilify this great Gospel Ordinance.

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

I Am come to your sixth argument.

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

Your Logic is thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. We say that that gift of prophecy was an extraordinary gift which none now have, your argument labors of that fallacy which is called Fallacia equivocationis, we say again.

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

To this you answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is something doubtful betwixt us: viz.

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

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

The same prophets and prophesying rationally, must be meant in 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8. that are meant 1 Cor. 12.28. and in 1 Cor. 14.1. that are meant 1 Cor. 14.31. or else you must show us some reason in the Text against it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Then dreams and visions must be ordinary too.

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

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

Your first reason is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly,

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

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

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

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

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

Your third reason is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not know how to expound this term such: if you mean such as could expound Scripture extempore, and by an infallible spirit, I yield it, but that these were not in office you have not proved. Surely the seventy were, for Lu. 10.1. Jesus Christ appointed them and sent them away, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if Christ could put them in office, they were in office. It is gratis dictum to say those, 1 Cor. 12.31, 14, 1. were not in office. But you say.

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

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

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

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

2. Secondly it is no more called a gift; then exhorting and ministering, ruling, and giving and showing mercy is, but surely some of these were officers.

3. Though the Apostle doth call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet it doth not follow that prophesying is not an office, no more then that Timothy was not in office, because the Apostle calls his office 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the same name, 1 Tim. 4.14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. This is, Sir, but a playing with the English word (Think) the original word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which doth not always signify a bare conjectural opinion, Acts 15.28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, &c. Did the holy Ghost but conjecture (think you?) You may as well translate it judge, if you please; and then your criticism is worth little.

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

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

1. You say,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there are many private persons whom God hath fitted and furnished with abilities to this work, who are not called and set apart: Ergo they may do it.

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

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

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

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

I will proceed to your ninth Argument.

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

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

2. I will retort your argument:

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

But some learned and godly men, as Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Ferriby, Mr. Hall, Dr. Seaman, &c. have judged it unlawful, Ergo.

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

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

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

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

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

An Argument is as good against you thus:

That which may have very ill and pernicious ends, is unlawful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We had charged you with this Argument:

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

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

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

1. You answer by way of concession, telling us, that you grant such an officer as a preaching Minister, and tell us that they are more eminent preachers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. They must not make it their whole work.

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

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

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

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

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

But the Scriptures (although they say preachers in office may and ought to preach to others) yet nowhere say that the guifted brethren may do it. Ergo.

The Scripture plainly says, that those that teach others must not only be able and faithful, but must have the Scriptures committed to them: this (Sir) is exclusive except you can bring another Scripture that proves they may teach others, though they have not those things committed to them: And besides the Apostle plainly speaks de re of the thing, not de modo of the manner of performance, the Apostle says teach others, you put in authoritatively, vigorously, &c. Bring us a Scripture that says that gifted brethren may teach others publicly, for that is plainly meant there, if you cannot, this Text is proof enough against you. Your similitudes prove nothing.

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

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

To this you answer:

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

2. That it is not exclusive.

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

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

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

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The word is there in the future tense, and properly to be translated, shall, or will, or should, and although it be a truth that the Hebrews do sometimes confound tenses and we often translate their future tense by the preterperfect, yet (with submission to those more learned and critical in that language) I conceive it should not be so translated, except the sense enforceth it, the primary and proper signification being otherwise.

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

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

For the Priests lips did keep knowledge, and they did seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts, or as we read it,

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

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

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

In the Prelates times the Ministers of the Lord Jesus preached plainly and powerfully and constantly, they preached Law and Gospel reproofs, and exhortations, and the people heard the word of God diligently and reverently, and were content to teach their families, and to repeat Sermons, and then the power of godliness increased, and Christians kept in the Unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, and walked humbly with God, and hated Arminian and Socinian, and familisticall Errors and Blasphemies, and were kept under an awe of Ordinances.

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

You have put the interpretation (Sir) upon the Prophets words, I have to strengthen our argument helped you with a parallel, Quam been convenient.

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

But you tell us thirdly, the Case is otherwise under the Law and Gospel. I grant you all you say there, only I do not find that Is. 61.8. the people of God are called Priests, nor do I believe that all people generally come under those promises: you mention only Saints, and I turn your argument upon yourself thus.

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

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

Besides, as knowledge increaseth, so in some wantonness will increase, and the Gospel preachers had need be such as shall be able to oppose those that gainsay their doctrine, in opposing those that contradict a truth.

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

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

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

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

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

"2. There is no negative Clause in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Your similitude is no proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sick of your similitudes: to go on therefore to your third Cavil, viz.

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

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

To your fourth cavil. Suppose it were but an enlargement of the Apostles Commission, yet it was the first commission that authorized them to preach the Gospel to all Nations, or to any but Jews; and the original copy of the Gospel preachers commission. Thus much yourself confess, we ask no more.

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

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

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

Our second objection as you say is,

To this you answer: 1.

"4. That many great Scholars see little of God's mind in them.

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

1. Generally. This is none of my Argument. My brother Hall doth hint it, p. 19. but Sir, (if you mean him) you wrong him, for his proposition is this: Those that want learning, both human and divine, cannot be sound interpreters, nor solid disputants. You have set up a man of straw, and then fall to pushing of him. I know none that say, that it is simply unlawful for those that understand not the original Tongues to interpret Scriptures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. There are many mistakes in translations and expositors.

4. There are many proper idiomes of Languages: which translators cannot express. But for an absolute necessity in all cases I do not hold it. Though I could heartily wish that all preachers might be able to understand the Original Languages, and I think something this way is hinted us by God's furnishing the first preachers of the Gospel with the gift of Tongues.

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

To your first I answer:

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

2. To your second I only answer.

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

To your Third cavil I answer two things:

1. I know not one Scripture can be understood without understanding the Language it was wrote in, but he that expounds it must take the credit of the Translator, and we know Translations are not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; suppose it be the plainest Scripture how shall he know whether the words be rightly Translated, and so consequently the mind of God, by comparing it with the Analogy of Faith; thus indeed the thing may be known to be true, but not a Truth in that Text; shall he know it by the coherence? and how shall he understand that without a skill in the Languages, except he takes it upon trust, suppose there be no coherence, as in the Proverbs.

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

To your fourth cavil. viz.

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

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

1. Their laziness or negligence, not making it their business to improve their learning and knowledge this way.

2. Their crotchicall fancies bringing to their interpretations not discendi pietatem, a pious heart to learn, but only discutiendi acumen, a critical humor.

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

For the second part of your cavil, I answer:

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

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

Fifthly you tell us:

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

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

1. We grant you that a saving practical experimental and a comfortable reflex knowledge of God, and of the truths of God can only be from the spirit, that is the spirit can only teach the soul to come to Christ, and lay hold upon him, the spirit can only teach the soul experimentally and effectually, that its condition is an undone condition, that there is a sweetness and excellency in Christ above ten thousand worlds, this those Scriptures you bring, 1 Cor. 2.14. Jo 6.44, 45. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Math. 13.11.

2. We grant you that the Spirit can only teach the Soul reflexively, the Minister teacheth that God hath promised that whosoever cometh unto Christ shall not be cast away, but is elected, justified, sanctified, &c. This some other Scriptures prove, Psal. 25.14. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11, 12.

3. Thirdly, we grant you that the Spirit only can teach persuasively, we may beseech, God alone can persuade Japheth to come and dwell in the Tents of Sem, we may teach people that it is God's will they should come to Christ, but the Spirit alone can persuade them to come, Jo. 6.44, 45.

4. Fourthly, we grant you that the Spirit doth guide us in the interpretation of Scripture, upon earnest seeking, but this may be but a common work, and is in the use of means but he did infallibly guide the pen men of Scripture and the first planters of his Gospel, Jo. 16.13. and still he doth guide humble hearts, yet not all Saints that undertake the expounding of Scripture publicly, for then all their exposition should be infallible, and so no preachers exposition is, though never so holy, never so learned, indeed St. Jerome thought his was, as it seems by one passage in Apolog contra Iovianum, Vbicunque scripturas non interpretor, sed libere de meo seosu loquor, arguat me quilibet, but St. Augustine otherwise in Ep. 19. ad Hieron. c. 1. Learned Whitaker in q. 5. de Interp. Scrip. c. 3. doth determine against the Papists, that the holy Ghost is the highest interpreter of Scripture, because saith he, we must be enlightened by the Spirit of God, that we may be persuaded of the true sense of Scripture; for without this, saith he, though we should use all means, yet we shall never attain to that full persuasion which is in the Saints hearts; but this saith he is but an inward persuasion, and only respecting ourselves, for we do not thus persuade others. But now for the outward persuasion, the Scripture is its own interpreter, and we must go to the Scripture to judge, if we will persuade others, and in that we must use means.

Thus, Sir, the spirit guides into truth: 1. Perswading us infallibly sometimes of those truths of God necessary to salvation: 2. Guiding his people in the search and enquiry of truth, yet not giving them such a special infallible assistance in expounding Scripture always that they cannot err. 3. Nor doing of it extraordinarily, but in the use of means, what those means are, Dr. Whitaker tells us excellently c. 9. of the same question. 1. Prayer. 2. The understanding the Tongues. 3. A consideration of the words, whether they be proper or figurative, limited or not limited. 4. A consideration of the scope of the place, the matter, the pen man, the time of writing, &c. 5. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, like with like, and unlike with like. 6. A consideration of the Analogy of faith. Lastly saith he:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. That the spirit doth this without means, without human power and strength.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That the burning of Incense upon the altar was forbidden, all the Jews except the Priests, though indeed the thing be true, it was forbidden because the work was assigned to others; and the like we say for preaching. In one or two of the places, strangers are forbidden, but the Jews are nowhere in those places in so many words forbidden to offer incense; if you say by consequence they are, we grant it: so are you forbidden public preaching by as good rational consequence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. He can Baptize none but such.

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

See Mr. Firmins and Mr. Hudson's arguments for this novel fancy. It is true there is thus much said for it from antiquity, that Bishops were not usually ordained fine titulo, but,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I profess I tremble to read and hear men professing to the fear of God so boldly contradicting his word, trampling upon his plain precepts, and all to exalt carnal corrupt reason. But to answer a little.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To this now you pretend to answer and say, 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tree which constantly and naturally brings forth corrupt fruit, is a corrupt root. This is our Savior's Logic, Mat. 7. not to be denied.

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

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

The Minor is proved by an induction of particulars:

1. It confounds offices. 2. It breeds disorder. 3. It opens a door to error. 4 It destroys preaching in office, and makes it contemptible. The first of these I u • ge, p. 33, 36. 5. Many of these Lay preachers deny Scriptures, Ordinances, Duties, Magistrates, Sabbaths, fastings.

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

1. That naturally, and ordinarily, and necessarily those are the fruits.

2. That constantly they have been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. For the Trial you say is made, and no such inconveniences appear. We answer you in several places, such hath appeared: ask the Churches in New England and Holland, &c. I remember Sir, the Fable in Esop, that the Snake did not presently sting him that took it into his bosom. Tell me some seven years hence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The third ill fruit mentioned was,

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

To this you reply:

1. You do not believe it.

Do you believe Scripture? 2 Pet. 3.16. that says the unlearned will wrest Scriptures; prove it is meant of practical learning. Do you believe Reason? Reason will tell you and so doth Scripture too. 2 Tim. 6.4. that there are two fathers of Heresy, Pride, and Ignorance, Pride is a great cause of learned men's errors, when men are of crotchicall heads, and then of proud spirits, conceited of their own fancies. 2. Ignorance, when men cannot understand the Original or weigh parallel Scriptures, &c. but either wrest in the lesser or run mad in Allegories and figures; but you tell us,

"The greatest learned men have been the greatest heretics.

It is true many learned men have through pride been dangerous heretics, Arius, Apollinaris, Pelagius, and Socinus were all learned men: but Sir what think you of John a Leyden, Knipperdolling, Becold, and many others, and what think you in our times of Collier and others?

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

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

'But the Preachers give all leave to Print.

No such matter (Sir) Mr. Bachelor indeed was wont to do it, but Presbyterian preachers have learned Christ better, and tender his glory more.

"But the abuses may be prevented and the right use retained.

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

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

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

You tell us,

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

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

In the next place, p. 72. you tell us, God will discover Hypocrites in • he last days.

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

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

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

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

The fourth ill consequence we urged was,

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

To the latter you answer:

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

Right; and was it not so? see Num. 16.3. what Corah, Dathan and Abiram say, you take too much upon you, seeing all the Congregation are holy everyone of them, and the Lord is amongst them, wherefore then lift up yourselves above the Congregation of the Lord.

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

None so blind as they that will not see (Sir) I durst undertake for one that you can show me, that being a private person gifted, and a public preacher, that yet continues with an humble sober heart under the awe of God's ordinances, and honoring the Lord's public officer, I will show you twenty that are either above Ordinances, or slighters and contemners of the Ministers of the Gospel.

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

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

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

CHAP. XXI. In which Mr. Sheppards 70, 71, 72, 73 pages are examined and answered, and his answers to eleven objections scann'd and found very weak.

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

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

2. You say, There was a blessing followed the preaching of "those scattered upon the persecution of Stephen, Acts 8.1, 4. Act. 11.21. I answer:

1. You are to prove, 1. That they were not in office.

2. That they had not the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost.

3. That they preached in a constituted Church ordinarily, when the people might hear such as were in office. You will come short in this proof.

3. It is false that you say; we may as well say, there is no promise made to private teachings, and exhortings of one another. They are commanded duties, which when rightly performed, have promises annexed constantly.

In the next place you come to my brother Halls 17 Argument, p. 48. and my seventh, p. 46.

My Argument was this:

It is likely that that tenet which the Churches of Christ have in all ages rejected; and that practice which the Churches of Christ in all ages have decried and avoided, is not a truth of Christ.

But the Churches of Christ in all ages have rejected and decried this opinion and practice. Ergo.

Now let us hear what you say against this.

1. You say, You are to live by Rule, not by example.

1. Truth sir, but you can show us no Rule for you.

2. Neither is there any Rule that hath not been put in practice by some of the Churches of Christ.

3. Where you can only say, It is not directly forbidden, not that it is absolutely necessary. Example (Sir) if general, or of the most, is not to be despised.

4. Surely the Apostle said something, when he said, we have no such customs, nor have the Churches of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.16.

You say it was not so in the primitive times. Prove that; "Nor so everywhere this day. What's that to the purpose? we have generally sad examples in this age.

We told you, That many of these Lay-preachers were such "as denied Scripture ordinances, Duties, Obedience to Magistrates, Sabbaths, Fastings.

To this you answer:

1 None that are led by the Spirit do so. They do, it may be, "speak against the abuse of duties, and people's resting on them, and performing them carnal.

Sir, (notwithstanding this shameless insinuation) we would have you know we are as much against, and preach as much against resting in duties (that high idolatry) and carnal performance of them, as any others can or do.

2. You say, None that are led by the Spirit do so. But many guifted brethren do so.—Ergo.

1. Whats this to the purpose? do preachers in Office preach down Magistracy?

2. Any one is good when he is pleased. Suppose our Parliament should forbid private persons preaching; or severely punish errors and heresy; what would you do then? we can tell you when the guifted brethren were not such friends to the Magistrates or Magistracy of England.

3. What if some Ministers (not all, Sir) were for a while unsatisfied in the late change? was there nothing in it (Sir) that might startle a tender conscience?

4. We believe that our Parliament doth, and in seven years time will more think them like to be best subjects who most fear an oath, and are most tender of doing anything which might make an appearance of the breach of it.

Another Objection you say we make is,

"It is against Gospel precepts and order. 1 Tim. 5.1, 22. Act. 13.3.

You aim here I believe at my first Argument, p. 23. But you are so wise as not to put it in the form I put it. To this you answer nothing, but Magisterially deny it.

A 13 Objection which you pretend to answer, is drawn from 1 Cor. 7.20. Let everyone abide in his calling.

This I think is one of my brother Halls Arguments.

You answer, That guifted brethren's preaching is a piece of their general calling. But (Sir) I have already proved, that public preaching is a proper act of a particular calling, and no such act can be an act of our general calling.

A 14 Objection. This was to be committed to others, 2 Tim. 2.2. This is now a bit of my fourth Argument. (Sir) you are a shameful disputant. You should repeat my Argument, and then deny a proposition. But you tell us,

"That place is meant of the office of the Ministry, which you contend not for.

Truth (Sir) but you contend for a proper and chief Act of that office, as I have already proved. Whereas you say that the word is committed to the whole Church, 1 Tim. 3.15. I have answered that place before.

In the next place you pretend to answer a fifteenth objection, which is my fifth Argument, p. 40. of my Vindiciae.

Whosoever may lawfully preach the Gospel and interpret Scriptures ordinarily, &c. may warrantably require a maintenance competent for them, of those to whom they so preach.

But this guifted persons cannot &c.

You grant the Minor, and tell me the Major is a Non sequitur.

You deny the plain words of the Apostle (Sir) 1 Tim. 5.18. They that rule well, are worthy of double honor, (countenance and maintenance, viz.) especially such as labor in the Word and Doctrine. Matth. 10 10. 1 Tim. 5.18. Gal. 6.6. He that is taught in the Word is bound to communicate to him that teacheth in all good things.

1. Prove this is meant only of such as are in office.

And then 2. That any are to preach that are not in office, or else you tell the holy Apostle his words are false.

A 16 objection you pretend to answer is drawn from that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12

To this you answer, Who denies this, or what have we "said against this?

You deny it (Sir) when you say God hath ordained all to be Tongues.

A 17. Objection: Then women and boys may preach.

You tell us: 1. Women might if they were not forbidden. I deny it, they must be commanded, or else they might not; this was the old Popish plea for ceremonies, they were lawful because not forbidden.

2. You say women did it, 1 Cor. 11.3. That place (Sir) is to be understood of being present at prophesying, or of extraordinary prophesying, or else the Apostle contradicts himself in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 14.34. which I hope you dare not say.

3. You say, Boys may if they have a gift, and to prove it you tell us Christ did, Lu. 2.46, and Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.42.

1. You have put a pretty uncivil term upon our Savior and upon Timothy, surely they were no ordinary boys (Sir) I perceive you have not read Aristotle, he would tell you there is a Juvenis aetate & Moribus, young men in respect of age, or manners and abilities. You come to an

18. Object. This gift of opening and applying Scripture, "especially hard places, was only temporary and now ceased.

You say right (Sir) this is something, and before you condemn it for false, answer the Reasons to prove it extraordinary, which I have gathered out of several learned and holy men, and presented you with in my Vindiciae Ministerii, p. 50. 51. and when you have done that well, tell me what you think of men having that gift in these days.

19. Object. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.

This is one of my Brother Halls arguments, and all you can say can never answer it, for it will not serve your turn to prove it is of faith, because it is not specially forbidden.

But you tell us, it is warranted by Scripture, where (Sir?) this is all you will say to this argument, I believe it scared you, and you made hast to quit your hands of it.

20. Object. There are two ordinances of Parliament in force against it.

In answer to this you grant

"1. That it is a practice restrainable by Authority.

Now see (Sir) how obedient our gifted Brethren are to Magistrates.

2. You say Authority doth connive at it.

Connivence (Sir) doth not frustrate public acts nor warrant disobedience to them.

3. But you hope in time the Parliament will repeal them.

It is possible, but if they do not do it till they find them inconsistent with the laws of Christ, they will be in force long enough.

4. You grant it irregular and inconvenient for them to preach till authority doth command or allow it, then I see our Brethren though they may have the Spirit are not infallible, in their principles and practices they may be irregular.

But I cannot but observe how upon all occasions, our brethren are more beholden to you then our God is: you grant Magistrates in this case, have power to command and restrain, Ro. 13.1. Let every soul (saith the Apostle) be subject to the higher powers. —v. 2. Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God, and receiveth to himself damnation, this is undoubtedly true of resisting true and lawful powers in things which they may command and restrain, yet you mince it prettily, not sinful and unlawful, but irregular and inconvenient when it concerns the gifted brethren.

I have now done to the doctrinal part of your Book, and have proved your doctrine false.

The Application (if such as it should be) must only be the conclusion from these premises. I have denied the premises, I need not deny the conclusion, I will only in one Chapter note a note or two.

CHAP. XXII. Containing some short notes upon Mr. Sheppards fourth Chatper, p. 73. to the end of his Book; Concluding with a short application unto him.

1. YOu chide the preachers, p. 74. that they never press upon the people their duty to interpret Scriptures, we must (Sir) first know it is their duty and not their sin, you go on, p. 74. 75, 76. in some things scandalously aspersing, in other things unwarrantably reproving the Ministers, impertinently applying and shamefully wresting Scriptures, and lastly calling away our people from us as from Babylon, Rev 18.34 — Bona verba quaeso. As is a man, so is his tongue, Causa infirma est semper querula, here's hard language enough (Sir) but your arguments before, and your sense here, is as soft as a bulfist; Sir we hate Popish superstitions with as full an hatred as yourself.

Then you turn to the gifted brethren, and give them eight wholesome rules, against which I have nothing to say, but only think there is one wanting, viz.

That they submit themselves to Examination and Ordination, much else there is of good in the latter pages of your book, but nothing argumentative.

I shall here close; I have not Sir (I think) aspersed your person, you are a stranger to me, and (if I may judge by some things in your book) one that professeth much to the fear of God and the honor of Jesus Christ, whom I desire to fear, and in whom alone is my hope, and whom I desire to serve in my spirit; If I have made myself merry with your Logic sometimes.— Hanc veniam damus petimusque vicissim.

Now I beseech you (Sir) by the Love of God, and by the Lord Jesus Christ, seriously to weigh this thing, and to consider,

1. Whether there be any Gospel precept or plain president for this practice?

2. Whether there is not ground enough in Scripture to think this act of preaching a proper and restrained act, when as it is plainly betrusted to officers in so many Texts?

3. Whether, these things considered, it can be an act of Faith in them to preach who are not so called?

4. Whether usually such preachers be not puffed up with an opinion of their own parts?

5. Whether most of the heresies and blasphemies by which the precious name of our God is dishonored this day, be not branches from this root and still maintained by it.

And (Sir) let us not contend for Masteries but for Truth. Can you think Sir that (as the polluted state of England's professors now is) this is a way to reform us? can a gifted brother convince a gainsaying Socinian or Anabaptist, or Arminian think you? are not some of these in every corner of the Nation? Is not a gifted brother more likely to be seduced by their subtilities, then to convince and oppose or answer? shall not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ suffer when a public preacher of it shall turn his back upon an adversary? (Deare Sir) I beseech you by the Lord Jesus Christ consider these things, and take heed of pleading for Baal, no, let him plead for himself; I beseech you to peruse Dr. Seamans Book: Mr. Halls Pulpits guarded, Mr. Ferribies answer to Collier, the Book called Church Members set in j • ynt, and that called Lay preaching unmaskit, and (if you will stoop so low as to read my Vindiciae ) you will find there collected what Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Rutherford (those two holy and learned men) have said in answer to all arguments. For my part I am resolved to take up pen no more, except I find something more objected that these Reverend Fathers and Brethren have not answered, but if you say anything that one of them hath not answered, or invalidate their answers. I will promise you a sober reply. But (Deare Sir) strive not for Masteries Magna est veritas & praevalebit, the great God and his truth shall one day conquer all. Believe it (Sir) I could heartily wish all the Lord's people were Prophets, O that their knowledge might be doubled if conjoined with Sobriety and humility and the fear of God, let me be accursed that day that I desire anything that my conscience tells me should tend to Ecclipse divine light, no let it Triumph till the Prince of darkness be driven out of every corner, till our understandings be fully enlightened: thus far Sir, I hope we agree. The Lord guide us into all truth: