Gospel Public Worship, Exposition · Answer
Anſwer.
To the former, I anſwer: Firſt, that that manner of Argumentation by may-bees, proveth nothing, though the ground were true; for it may be doth not prove ſo much as probably, which is the leaſt proof, ſo that though it might be ſo, yet muſt the matter be inferred that it is, before any thing bee proved.
Secondly, That in this caſe and kind it may not be ſo expounded, it being here adjected to an univerſal, an abſtract, an adjunct, and a ſtate.
1 To an univerſal, both in gifts, which is the general to propheſie, and an office, i. e. to perſonall or membral, and to miniſterial gifts; and alſo in an office, which is the general to five expreſt kinds of offices, as moſt hold, and at leaſt to two, as all hold; and therefore the ſubſtantive kinds, or univerſal parts thereof muſt differ more than in number, and ſo much more than in degree and reſpect.
2. To an abſtract both in gifts and offices, and therefore if there be but four or five men in a church gifted with propheſie, or with one language, or made Deacons, it cannot be ſaid that Church hath divers gifts, tongues, and offices in it in the abſtract, but only divers gifted perſons, and divers officers in the concrete.
3. To an adjunct to Chriſtians, members, or Officers, viz. to the Powers or Offices of ſuch, and not to the particular perſons themſelves, and therefore the ſame conſequence in reſpect of the adjunct and ſubject, here followeth, which before did in reſpect of the abſtract and concrete altering only the one two words for the other two.
4. To a State in reſpect of Offices, which is our caſe, ſo that it cannot be ſaid, that there are divers Miniſterial States in a Church, City, or Nation, that hath but one ſort of Officers, though many particulars of that ſort, and ſo many Officers, who may alſo be different, divers, diſtinct, and ſeverall in degree and manifold reſpects; but if they differ more then in particular, concrete, ſubject, or perſon, as in our caſe they do, then muſt they differ alſo much more then in degree, or in inabling, arbitrary, or other accidentall reſpects, and ſo they cannot be ſaid therefore to be divers, but for ſome higher reaſon, yea higher then that wherein they have their being, i. e. the exiſtent particulars, concretes, ſubjects, and perſons, ſince accidentis eſſe, eſt in eſſe, i. e. the being of an accident is to be in, viz. as ſuch; and ſince exiſtentia ſola agunt, patiuntur & ſubijciuntur, i. e. Exiſtents, (viz. particulars, which only are properly and ſimply in act) only do, ſuffer, and are ſubject, viz. to accidents. Theſe four particulars yeeld four Arguments againſt the former Objection, and fully anſwer it, and might plentifully be exemplified and illuſtrated if further need and occaſion required.
A third or ſixt anſwer is from the predicate annexed in the ſame clauſe, to divers, viz. according to that grace given unto us, which alſo is itterated in the ſame verſe; in, according to that meaſure of that faith, both referring us to v. 3. and ſo inferring the particulars following upon the preceeding generals, and both being anſwered, 1 Cor. 12.11. Eph. 4.7. with 8. to 11. & 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. wherein alſo are three ſorts or heaps of Arguments couched, which I muſt but touch: The firſt is in the words themſelves; firſt, laying the cauſe of that diſtinctneſs in Gods gracious and free Will, not in mans diſcretion, or will, for reaſons within himſelf, in the former Clauſe. And ſecondly; In the proportion of faith, which is here ſet as the formall Reaſon, or ſoul of our Church-eſtate, whether membral, proper, and immediate, faith being the reſpect or cauſe why we have right to be Members of that State, and why all other gifts are given unto us, Mark 16.16, 17, 18. Acts 10.44. to 48. & 20.8.32. and ſo why we are capable of the Offices of the Church, according to which meaſure, whether of Memberſhip, Gifts or State, we are to actuate that we have received diſtinctly, not confuſedly, i. e. of each according to his own Rules and Order, not of any of the other two, as of the State or Offices, by the Rules thereof, not of gifts properly and immediately, though the Office was given to us in reſpect of fit gifts therefore; yet now the predominant and denominant, the conſtituter and diſtinguiſher, and the proper ſubject of order, is the office or ſtate it ſelf, and that only, though they be alſo both Members and gifted, which have alſo their proper Rules, which we are alſo to obſerve in their reſpect, as ſuch; other ARGUMENTS there are alſo to be drawn from theſe words, viz. from given & meaſured, ſhewing us, that the Rule of our exerciſing the Offices, is to be taken from the reſpect, as they are from God, and not as inherent in us properly, though ſecondarily, both gifts and graces are to be reſpected and exerciſed therein, as is expreſſed, v. 8. with ſimplicity, with diligence, with cheerfulnes; and fourthly, from, to us, v. 6. to every one, v. 3. with the reference of v. 6. thereto, ſhewing the ſame, and the ſpecialneſs and ſingularity of the reſpect; but we neither need nor may proſecute every thing to the utmoſt.
The ſecond ſort of Arguments is from ὁ demonſtratively uſed four times, thereby referring us in this point to the matters paſt in the generals, which yeeld ten Arguments as is ſhewn, all ſtrongly, though more obſcurely, proving the ſame diſtinctneſs which is here expreſt.
The third ſort is from the inference of diſtinct executing of thoſe diſtinct gifts and Offices, upon the former proved, and preſent expreſſed diſtinctneſs of them, connecting thereby the generalls and particulars, the Root, Body and Branches; the Soul, Body and Members, and the preceding and ſubſequent matter of this place incorporatingly together, and ſo communicating membrally the force of each Argument to the other; the number & weight of the following Arguments are well to be conſidered and applyed hereto, after I have alſo anſwered the ſecond Objection from the inſtance in the extraordinary Offices, which now ſucceedeth.
To that ſecond Objection; I firſt anſwer, that as thoſe Offices are more hard to know in all the bounds, rules, and appurtenances, and leſs concern us then the ordinary, and alſo yeeld us no preſent light from their practiſe as theſe do, ſo are they leſs diſtinctly known then theſe, and cannot be perfectly paralelled, to make the rules of theſe to ſquare with thoſe, and therefore no good Argument a notiori can be brought from them againſt our point: Secondly, that the rule of the extraordinary Offices, was principally according to the being immediately inabled and directed by God, and not by the ſet State and Office, as the proper ſubject of their gifts, works and end; ſince whoſoever was indued with Apoſtolicall, Propheticall, and Evangelicall gifts, did preſently proceed to the execution of thoſe Offices, without expectation of a farther Ordination, and as being thereby called thereunto; but ſo is it not with the now permanent Offices: Thirdly, thoſe were under the reſpect of Inſtituters, Platformers, and Law, Rule and Worſhip-makers, though mediate, and not as inſtituted after the pattern ſeen in the Mount of the Word, and ſo are not to be meaſured thereby, as our inſtituted Offices are. Fourthly, That Order which is to be obſerved in them, is rather by reflex from the Church, to which they moſt properly are given, 1 Cor. 3.22. 1 Cor. 28. 1 Tim. 3.15. viz. in their Conſultations, Acts 1.15.21, 22. and in Ordination, Acts 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. & 4.5. then by any ſet Rule in themſelves, which yet is ſo ſparſim and ſparingly obſerved that it cannot be ſaid to be the Rule of extraordinary Offices.
Fifthly, They had divers properly diſtinct functions, works and duties, according to their inſpired abilities, which were ſpecially and ſingularly diſtinct in ſeverall perſons, 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10, with v. 28, 29. eſpecially v. 11. foreign diſtributing to every one privately (perſonally, peculiarly, or ſeverally) as he will; and their Offices which came therewith, and thereupon were alike, diſtinct, properly and in kinde.
Sixtly, For authoritative Offices, which required not only ability, but alſo a ſending or calling unto the Functions, immediate or mediate, about which is the greateſt queſtion; they had alſo and eſpecially their diſtinct Functions, Works and Duties alotted to them, either immediately as Apoſtles, Mat. 28.18, 19, 20. Acts 1.26.9. with 26.14, to 18. or mediately, deputedly, and inferiorly, as Evangeliſts, 1 Tim. 1.3.18. & 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6.4.1, 2. Tit. 1.5. to 13. Divers hard queſtions do here ariſe, as, whether Barnabas were properly an Apoſtle or no? Whether Philip had the ſame authority with Timothy and Titus? Whether Timothy and Titus had that Authority by Pauls deputation, or by their Evangelicall gifts or office? &c. but for theſe I refer thee at this preſent to my four firſt Anſwers, and proceed to the ſeventh.
Seventhly, Neither all, nor any of the extraordinary Offices, were common in all works, nor ſo only divers in kinde, nor in number, as differing only in gifts, and their exerciſing, which the two oppoſite opinions hold, that the three overſeeing ordinary offices are: but divers alſo in office, both in name and nature, and therefore the inſtance from them is for neither of them: oppoſite I ſay they are, both againſt themſelves in terms, affection and courſe; and in the two former clauſes of the predicate in kinde, in number, and alſo againſt the ſcope of this writing; and I think of Rom. 12.1. to 9. the ſubject thereof in matter, affection, and courſe; and in the two latter clauſes of the predicate, in gifts, in their exerciſing, though in the latter part of that predicate they be one, and thereby deſtroy the unity and order of Gods Worſhip, giving, yea making way, yea as Beza Annot. on Rom. 12. very Divine-like, and judiciouſly, and it is likely experimentally obſerved, cauſing that great Babyloniſh confuſion in the ſame, paſt and preſent, & is to be feared, as he there ſaith, to continue and increaſe, if the cauſe be not taken away; ſo great a matter is it in the judgement of our greateſt Divines, howſoever cuſtom and practiſe prevail againſt great and ſmall.
Eightly: It doth not appear that any one Office did, or might do the works of all other offices, either extraordinary or ordinary; but the contrary in the former, Acts 21.10. to 14.20.25. with 2 Tim. 4.20. Trophimus I left at Miletum ſick, which muſt needs be at his coming again to the ſame place after his releaſe from his firſt impriſonment at Rome, mentioned in the Acts, to which alſo the ancient Hiſtories, and Fathers agree in the fact, and is ſo generally received, though not in the matter of Trophimus; ſo that Paul himſelf neither did nor could do, nor therefore might indeavour to foretell any thing prophetically, and as of himſelf, or of his office or gift, neither can it be proved that any other Apoſtle might, much leſs any other but the Prophets themſelves: and the latter, Acts 6.2. where we are to preſume, that the 12. Apoſtles would have prevented the murmuring, & ſupplyed that need both, at leaſt ſo well as any other ſeven, if they had done the work of Church-diſtributing, and therefore that they did it not; and alſo if it had been within their charge and office, and that therefore it was not; for that there was need of the work, and alſo of preventing the murmuring of a great part of the Church, for the not due performance thereof, is expreſt both in terms, v. 2, 3. foreign, i. e. in this need, or neceſſary work, and alſo in the whole matter; ſo that it appeareth not that the Apoſtles themſelves did, yea, that they neither did, nor ought to adminiſter the Church-alms, & ſo had not all Church-Offices included in, nor annexed unto their office, much leſs any other extraordinary officers, and yet much leſs any ordinary, but yet leſs the exhorter than the ruler, in ſo much as he is leſs authoritative, as they muſt hold, that put the diſtinctneſs of the offices in the degree of their execution, and hold their denomination and proper being from that more principal degree and emphaſis of their function; nay, in that he is not at all ruling, if any of theſe arguments or chief particulars of theſe lines be true; yea, yet a fift degree leſs hath the Exhorter, commonly called the Paſtor, the Rulers office included in, but leaſt of all ſubordinate under his office, as thoſe hold and practiſe, that are the occaſion of my preſent writing, whoſe Arguments (whereof one, if not the principal, is from this very place, of Act. 6.) ſhall anon be anſwered, after I have confirmed the contrary by the other four remaining Arguments from the branches, and alſo by five compound Arguments of the other fifteen; yea laſt, and leaſt of all is the Ruler ſubordinate to the Exhorter, by this place, ſince the very Deacons are not.
The twelfth is, from the expreſs, diſtinct particularizing of the Offices themſelves, v. 7, 8. the Teacher, the Exhorter, the Diſtributer, the Ruler, the Pittier; the former Arguments ſheweth that the Word ſaith that the Offices are diſtinct; this, that it maketh them ſo, and exactly particularizeth them into five ſeveral exiſtents in kind, and not only in number, accidentary reſpects or degrees; this ſpecial diſtinctneſs in name, and nature, in ſtate and ſubſiſtence, and what not, that is properly and evidently to our point, is of its ſelf ſufficient to the moſt ſolid and judicious, if ingenuous and willing to ſee what they in truth do ſee; yet if any will be wiſer then Solomon, Eccleſ. 7. in walking rather in the ſoul, i. e. on tiptoes, or above his pace, power, or means, as the oppoſition, v. 1…. ſheweth; and in emulating comparative accurateneſs, as v. 16. explaineth; yea wiſer than he ought, yea than the diſcreet diſtribution and meaſuredneſs which the Holy Ghoſt hath in this Rom. 12. viz. v. 3. ſaid, is ſet and ordained in theſe things by God, and to be modeſtly and diſcreetly obſerved by us, He ſhall be ſet on his he…s as a man with the King of Babylon, Dan. 7.4. By the accurateneſs in three particulars following, the former arguments not forgotten; for whereas it might be ſaid, that we are not preſently to be ſwayed by the ſeeming litteralneſs of any place, without many conſiderations; nor by the ſeeming kind like diverſity of the Church-offices in this place; without proofs of their intended diſcreetiveneſs, and diſtinctneſs from each other of their conſtitutedneſs, and kindlike exiſtency, and of their functional propriety, and peculiar definedneſs; all which is here convinced; All this is well gain-ſayed in the three particles, foreign & foreign, annexed to each of the five offices, foreign to the general, i. e. Offices, for its diſtinctneſs from perſonal gifts, and to the two firſt and principal particulars, which ſeem moſt inſeperable, and ſo evidently to be ſupplyed in the other three, ὁ and foreign, expreſly to them all.
From foreign (which is the thirteenth Argument) I thus argue: What Offices are ſo eſſentially, properly, and expreſly diſtinguiſhed, (as any are from each other) as Propheſie is from an office, and as diſtinctive terms can do; thoſe are ſo diſtinct, as I have ſaid, or intimated; but the five Church-Offices are ſo eſſentially, &c. therefore this addeth ſo expreſs, and clear proper diſtinctneſs, as the two former, and they with this, as need to be; for that theſe are ſo diſtinct as any civill offices, and as propheſie, or other perſonal gifts are from Church-offices, is not to be denyed, nor that any terms are more diſtinctive than foreign, until they be named, or rather created, mean while I proceed.
To me yet the fourteenth Argument from the denotative article foreign is more than all the reſt; for though it paſs ordinarily under the account of a ſlight, or redundant particle, as the VVord-worſhip as ſuch, doth among all but the truly-religious, or as above an ordinary Harould when it is emphatically uſed, as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth among the Papiſts, and Lutherans, being yet by them bereaved of the ſoul of a Sacrament, as this is of its ſpecifical denotation; yet is it in its proper nature conſtitutive, and denotative, of the proper ſpecifical exiſtence of all things, and here of the Church-Offices: Now, ſo far as to conſtitute, is more primary in it ſelf, and proper to the form of every thing, than to diſtinguiſh, appropriate, actuate, or any thing but to conſtitute; ſo far is ὁ above all other particles, where it is uſed in its proper nature of denotating that conſtitution, as here; for before I took it as Iames doth works, Iam. 2. declaratively, not properly, when I ſaid it was conſtitutive, and ſo far as a right line doth better ſhew which is a right line, and which a crooked, than any crooked whatſoever doth either, except that which is juſt alike, and then it, but as like; ſo far alſo doth the denotative article foreign exceed all other in the caſe of conſtitution, or diſtinction, and much more of appropriation, actuation, paſſion, relation, or any adjunct whatſoever, which either inſtituteth, or denotateth as inſtituted the office, and not only the action of ſhewing mercy, and ſo maketh it a divers office in nature, the like followeth in the reſt, as before which is expreſly proved in foreign, in the Maſculine Gender: Yet leſt any thing, eſpecially what is ſo much reſpected, and in this caſe expected, the propriety of all the offices, and that onelyonly and always, ſhould be wanting in this high and uſeful matter; theſe things are added in the third particle foreign, which is the fifteenth and laſt argment from Rom. 12. Now that it may the better be perceived, three things are to bee pointed at.
1 The ſimple uſe of foreign, confining within, or unto any thing.
2 The adaequatum, or proper object, or function, in, on, and unto which each office is confined, viz. the very actuation of that gift that maketh the matter or officer in potentia, worthy and fit to be informed with the inſtituted office of Chriſt, anſwering to the name and nature of every office, viz. the Teacher, in teaching, in exhorting, in diſtributing, &c.
3 The ſecondary qualification of the Officers, which is more remote and a poſteriori, than the former, and alſo more qualitative, as the other is more quantitative, viz. the Teacher in, on, and with intelligibleneſs; the Exhorter in, on and with perſwaſiveneſs, the Driſtributer in, on, and with ſimplicity, and ſo of the Rulers diligence, and Pittyers cheerfulneſs; all theſe joyntly and ſeverally evidently prove the point; yet for the eminent clearneſs and ſtrength of theſe proofs, I will connect all the ſorts of them, into which they may ſpecially be divided into one Argument: And firſt, of the firſt five oroot.
What diſtinctneſs the worſhip, will, and word of God, and the fleeing the contraries, do require more peculiarly and ſpecially in the Church-Offices, then are in the civill, that is properly diſtinct in kinde, and very religiouſly to be yeelded to God; but all theſe require more peculiar diſtinctneſs in Eccleſiaſtical, then is in civil Offices, therfore that is properly & in kind diſtinct, & very religiouſly to be obſerve
Secondly: Of the ſecond five, or body, thus: What diſtinctneſs in the Church Offices is revealed in the Word, to be as the diſtinctneſs of the Organicall Members of the body, in oppoſition to the oneneſs of the body in kinde, and of the Members in mutuall uſe, and in reſpect of their divers exiſtence, Functions, and eſſence, that is moſt proper in kinde, and mutually excluſive; ſuch diſtinctneſs is revealed to be in Eccleſiaſtical Offices: Ergo.
Thirdly: Of the third fl…e, and Branches, thus: What Offices are ſaid expreſly, Rom. 12. to be diſtinct and divers from each other by the diſtinct gift of God; yea, and are there ſo diſtinguiſhed into their ſeveral ſorts, & that both disjunctively, denotatively, & apportionedly, or confinedly: thoſe are moſt properly in nature, & highly in degree, diſtinct in kind from each other: but the 5 eccleſiaſtical offices are ſo ſaid & diſtinguiſhed, therfore they are moſt properly in nature & highly in degree, diſtinct in kind from each other: Any of theſe 3 connections are alone ſufficient, yea the 3 laſt Clauſes of the 3 d, do compleatly conclude the point, ſo if any of theſe nineteen Arguments bee good, the Eccleſiaſticall Offices are diſtinct in kind, properly & perfectly; yea if the conſequence of none of theſe ſimple or compound Arguments would hold, yet the combination of them all would, which ſhall be the twentieth Argument, and the concluſion of the poſitive proofs of the Point, from Rom. 12. I will now come to the oppoſite part from the Scriptures, referring the proofs from reaſon, both poſitive and oppoſite till after them, and reſerving the other proofs from other places of Scripture, for the better clearing all Objections, ſuppoſing the proofs from Rom. 12. ſufficient to eſtabliſh the Point poſitively.
The firſt oppoſite Argument is from Acts 6.2, 3. thus: The Apoſtles had all offices included in theirs, and did on occaſion execute them, and in particular the Deacons office, Acts 6.2, 3. therefore the Paſtors now ſo have, and may do. For anſwer whereto, firſt, See what is ſaid before, both againſt the antecedent and its conſequence, and then I think there wil be ſo little appearance of likelyhood, and leſs of certainty in the antecedent, (which is enough) and yet leſs, yea none at all, of either in the conſequence, that none wil require farther diſproof of that, for which it is brought againſt me, and farther wil I not meddle therewith here, though it be for me.
The ſecond is from 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. thus: If ruling and teaching be jointly requiſite to the office of a Biſhop, 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. then are they not the diſtinct functions of two ſeverall Church-offices; but ruling and teaching are joyntly requiſite to …he office of a Biſhop, 1 Tim. 3.1. to 8. therefore they are not the diſtinct functions of the Teacher and Ruler, as they have two ſeverall Church-offices: this is the principal, and almoſt the only argument from the Scripture of all 3. ſorts of my Oppoſites, who are as much againſt each other as me, and each will hold with me, rather then with each other; yet muſt I not take notice of their enmity againſt each other, nor me, nor of their frendſhip, but plainly anſwer them all.
Of the two groſſer, the former under the name of Biſhop, holding only one in number and nature; the latter holding the three overſeeing Offices, one in kind, & divers only in number, and the more refined acknowledging them divers in kinde and number, yet differing only in degree and emphaſis: a wonderfull refined diſtinction, in appearance nearer to me, and yet in truth farther from me then the groſſer in appearance; I cannot readily ſay how much, but I can ſee and think it very much, and make ſome uſe thereof.
But firſt: For a ioint anſwer to them all, I ſay that, that place intendeth, firſt, no diſtinguiſhing of Offices, but a furniſhing, qualifying and making worthy of the Churches Offices, the perſons, Officers, and Executors of thoſe Offices▪ Secondly, No inſtituting, nor denotating, as inſtituted, any Church-office: nor, thirdly, any appropriating, confining, nor adaequating any Offices and theit Functions, as the handled place of Rom. 12. doth in all three points; ſo that neither of the two Opinions can challenge either matter or words to be framed and expounded by the ſcope and courſe of any diſtinctneſs, as Rom. 12. doth: Neither, fourthly, is there any ſuch ſtrong inducement from the generall body, or ſpeciall, or from any particularizing in the place, as in Rom. 12. that we are to expect any of them, either expreſly, or by any ſtrong intimation: Fifthly, and more particularly; the ſubject of all the adjuncts is ſet in a generall term, common to three Offices, and therefore no diſtinguiſhing, conſtituting, nor appropriating is here intended, for a Biſhop or Overſeer indifferently extendeth it ſelf unto the overſight of the underſtanding, heart and actions in its etymologie, ordinary, yea only uſe and in the correſpondencies with this place; in all but the laſt clauſe there is no doubt: By the correſpondencies I intend three places, viz. 1 Tim. 3.8. to 13. Secondly, cap. 5.1. to v. 18. Thirdly, Tit. 1.5. to 10. In the laſt, Biſhop and Elder being promiſcuouſly uſed, as in this place; and in the two firſt, Deacons being alſo alike extended, as a Generall to the Diſtributer and Pittyer, promiſcuouſly, and equivolently with helpers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Neither is that word any where uſed more for the Diſtributer then the Pittyer, yet once on the contrary, Rom. 16.1. for though 1 Tim. 3.12. it be ſaid that a Deacon muſt be the Husband of one Wife, which in word cannot agree with the Widow, yet in the ſcope and general reaſon, which is the ſoul and form of the place, it anſwereth ſo well to her, as to the Diſtributer, i.e. a… it is a teſtimony of Continencie, which is more required in her than in him, and is ſo expreſſed, 1 Tim. 5.9.2. which is the Expoſiter or ſupplement of that place, moſt indeed in the ſerving Offices, there being moſt left to be underſtood in them; but in one or two ſpeciall particulars alſo, in the Overſeeing Offices, v. 17, 18. leaſt the diſtinctneſs ſo much reſpected, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. and alſo their maintenance ſhould ſeem to have been befor neglected, yea leaſt in the point of diſtinctneſs: 1 Tim. 3. ſhould ſeem to oppoſe thoſe places, for it confirmeth that point ſo much, as in ſo many words any man can deviſe, and as needeth to the making an expreſs diſtinctneſs in terms, in, foreign & foreign and matter, in oppoſing, ruling and, preaching in their Offices, and making two ſorts of Elders, and the one the more worthy.
Secondly: For anſwer to the two moſt groſs and oppoſite Objections from this place, I firſt appeal to what is ſaid in and from Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 1…. Eph. 4. and eſpecially to the twenty late Arguments: Secondly, to the five laſt general anſwers, which principally, and moſt ſtrongly confute all Arguments from this place; for the oneneſs in kinde. Thirdly, I deny the conſequence of the major, ſince the office of a Biſhop, 1. Tim. 3.1. is taken generally, and indifinitely by an uſuall metonimy of the particular, and definite for the generall and indefinite, Biſhop being a generall, indefinite, and common Name to the three Overſeeing Offices, as a Deacon is to the ſerving, and an Office or Miniſtry to them both; and alſo as a Philoſopher, Mathematician, Lawyer, Tradeſman, eſpecially as an Officer of the State, Law, Courtt, Army, City, or of a Ship, are to their proper particulars, yet is there one diviſion of all thoſe Offices, neceſſary to make the exemplification clear and exact, for all thoſe Offices are either overſeeing, or ſerving, i. e. Epiſcopall, or Diaconall in the originall Terms, which ſheweth the full reaſon of that certain Propoſition, whoſoever deſireth the office (or Miniſtry) of a Biſhop, deſireth a worthy work: If yet a farelier reaſon of the Particulars of the qualification of theſe two ſorts of Offices, ſeverally, and of each of their particulars joyntly, be expected, it is to be underſtood, that as in God there are three perſons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, from which all exiſtents & deſignments have their life, moving and being, ſo there are in man natural, eſpecially ſpiritual, three ſubjective and overſeeable faculties, as exiſtent from and by God, viz. his wil; wit, affections, or working power; and as many mediate and overſeeing deſignable Powers and deſigning Offices, or deſignments (as before oft and at large) all which require both a joynt and ſeverall qualifying, according to their joyntneſs in the generall, as overſeeing, and ſeverallneſs, in ſpeciall, as ſeverally overſeeing, which is alſo anſwered in the particular qualifyings objected, and in what is hereunto to be ſupplyed, from Tit. 1. for their help, if their ground be good, or for the compleating my project, if it be good; ſince therefore Biſhop is a common Name to three Offices; all the properties of theſe three are common to it with any commonneſs thereupon, following between any of the three Offices, or their Functions, if they be elſewhere diſtinguiſhed and peculiarized.
Fourthly: So far as it is intended and inſiſted on, that the Office of a Biſhop is a particular, and properly exiſtent office; ſo far I deny the minor, and require good proof thereof.
Thirdly: For a particular anſwer to the refined Objectors from this place: I ſay, that though all the ſyllogiſm ſhould be granted, yet they get nothing thence for their purpoſe diſtinct from the former opinions; and ſo indeed theſe three Opinions are all one, and ſo the laſt is nothing but a pile of witty words, forging a diſtinction without a difference, and ſo it vaniſheth in the fire, like the ſtone, called a Thunder-Bolt, looking-like Silver ore, but is only of a ſulfurious and icie mineral matter, yea though it ſhould be condenſated with ſome of the Clay of Antichriſts Legs, Dan. 2. even by ſaying that the Biſhop, Paſtor, Elder, and Exhorter, are all one Office, called by divers names for divers reſpects, viz. Biſhop, as Overſeer of Overſeers; Paſtor, by an emphaſis, as the chief feeder, and exhorter: Elder, in reſpect of his yeers, gravity, wiſdom, and perſonal fitneſs to rule, as the proper reaſon wherefore he is all of the reſt; and this ſurely is that ſtrugling Eſau not yet come to the birth in our Church, though it be at leaſt that reviling Goliah of Gath, his younger brother, with whom I am neither occaſioned, nor enabled to fight; but will only proſecute my preſent object occaſioned; anwering more particularly,
Firſt, That if it ſhould be granted that the Exhorter, or Teacher, or both, by a community of offices, through this community of actions objected, could do all that I have appropriated to the Ruler; yet by the ſame community of actions, the Ruler may do the like for them, and then though they ſhould ſhuffle down Gods miniſterial bounds, they would get nothing, except the Rulers wife be better than the others, which ſurely they will not ſay.
Secondly, if they will uſurp the appropriation of the Biſhoprick from the Ruler, or the Exhorter from them both (as reaſon and experience give us to ſuſpect,) yea, and of all power in the Church, which now they grant them upon the eminent and emphatical reaſons mentioned; they build ſuch forces for Hierarch…ans, and dig ſo fit Burroughs for Badgers, through magnifying their Office, that the epitome of the Hierarchy which they form within the church, will acknowledg kindred with its mother Iezebel, yea and by degrees with its Grand-father Ethbaal too, and ſo alſo open the door of community between us and them, by the ſame reaſon further proſecuted, and ſpirit further inflamed, as the opinion, book and courſe of Mr. Iohnſon, and many with him, have lamentably experimented, even unto the eminent and imminent fear of the ruin of a ſpecial Church; if we ſhould come to ſift the differences, I doubt we ſhould not finde them ſo great, as would give ſecurity of better ſucceſs, outward, than hath that Church, or inward than the Hierarchy, though the goodneſs of the preſent order and matter would delay (it may be long) this infection from raging, at leaſt till the iron of civil, ſingle, double and treble crowned authority, id eſt, Claſſical, Synodical, and National Courts and Courſes made Eccleſiaſtical, be added unto the former clay, and both adde ſtrength to the rotten legs of Antichriſt; but I not daring to open my mouth freely in this bad aire, will reſerve my breath for better uſe.
Thirdly, and ſpecially, If that courſe which is obtruded on this place, ſhould be alike obſerved in all places of the like reaſon, (as it muſt be,) we might prove ſtrange matters, yea what not? I could prove, that Samuel prayed for, and brought out water of the Rock in the wilderneſs, at leaſt that God ſpake there unto him out of the cloudie pillar, and puniſhed his Idolatry, foure hundred yeers before he was born, out of Pſal. 99.7, 8. and out of 1 Tim. 5.4. that Aunts are Parents, that all the Elders and Brethren of the Church of Ieruſalem ſpake by the infallible and immediate inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt, and by abſolute and immediate authority from Chriſt, gave Laws, Decrees, and burdening, conſcience binding, and neceſſited Prohibitions to the Churches of Antiochia, Syria, and Silicia, and by conſequence to all the Churches of the Gentiles: from Acts 15. with cap. 16.4. & 21.25. and other innumerable abſurdities and falſities, out of 1 Cor. chap. 1. v. 1. concerning Soſthenes, in 2 Cor. 1. chap. v. 1. and alſo Phil. and Col. ch. 1. v. 1. of Timotheus; in 1 Theſſ. ch. 1. v. 1. and 2 Theſs. of Silvanus and Timotheus, and more almoſt in every Epiſtle; ſhould I deſcend to particulars, I ſhould be intollerably, becauſe needleſly tedious, it being obvious to every one, that any thing might be proved out of any thing, if that courſe might be allowed; beſides, it would pervert all the other places of Scriptures which begin with generalls and proceed to particularize them, which are innumerable, and indeed would deſtroy all analyſing of them, which is not expreſt, and then it would be needleſs, yea there might then be proved out of one place thereof, conſiſting but of ſeven verſes, viz. Heb. 11.32. to 38. many ſevens of falſehoods, abſurdities, and what not, that ſhould make men ceaſe from neceſſiting this Expoſition of 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Heb. 11.32. to 38. a whole heap of lying wonders, viz. that Baruch ſubdued Kingdomes, and did a dozen great works at leaſt more then he did, that Sampſon did ſo, that Iephtha did ſo alſo, that Dnvid, Samuel, and all the Prophets did ſo alſo, and that much more clearly and ſtrongly then any can out of 1 Tim. 3. that the Exhorter may excommunicate or do any proper ruling act by the ſame reaſon, yea expreſly, it that reaſon be good, that all adjuncts that are annexed unto two, three, or more joint ſubjects, muſt be verified in every one of them, & therfore I leave it for bad, holding every adjunct to be ſorted to its proper ſubject by the rules of Nature, & the word in other places that intend that peculiarizing & ſhew us the ſame by better means, referring theſe objected unto Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. for their diſtinctneſs: And again, Rom. 12. and 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. unto 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. and the like, for their compleating and full exemplification in matter of practiſe.
Fourthly, the word foreign wherein is the whole force of this Argument, is by all the holders of the third Opinion, applyed only to that Teaching in the ruler, which is neceſſary for the diſcharge of his Office and work of Ruling, which nothing proveth the undiſtinctneſs in queſtion, nor more then I have oft granted in the caſe of the Exhorters Teaching, as neceſſarily ſubordinate to his office, and alſo grant in this caſe with the proviſoes there mentioned.
Fifthly: The queſtion is not properly about this Teaching, ſimply or ſubordinately conſidered, but as Eccleſiaſticall or Miniſteriall, and ſuch as carrieth with it, as an Appendex to the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, to ſignifie, ſeale, and convey the thing taught unto the perſons, miniſterially taught, but ſuch teaching is alſo confeſſed by them, not here to be intended, nor within the Rulers Office.
Sixtly, foreign is apt, prone, and ready to Teach, ſignifying rather the goodneſs and grace of the heart, then the power and gift of Teaching, to be requiſite in the Ruler, and no more can be inforced out of that word, on which the whole ſtrength of all the three oppoſite Opinions doth conſiſt; yet I will grant a Propheticall gift of teaching to be requiſite in the Ruler, partly becauſe it is a diſparagement to his Office, and Exerciſe thereof, to be inferior to the Prophets therein, who have no Office at all, partly becauſe it wil be a diſcouragement unto the Prophets, to have their inferiors in gifts of Eccleſiaſticall reſpect, to be advanced above them in Eccleſiaſticall Office; and partly, becauſe the Speakers to the Edification, Exhortation, and Comfort of the Church, do beſt of all the Members deſerve to be honoured by the Church, & manifeſt their deſerts, fitneſs, and worthineſs of the ſame, yea in evident and eminent likelihood, and humane judgement; they are the moſt fit for any overſeeing Office, which is all that the ſcope of the place, or any thing material therein doth inforce, yea intimate, in any of the many other particulars.
Seventhly, foreign v. 5. & all the other particulars, but one or two do evidently import only qualifications, with grace in the heart, requiſite in the overſeers of the Church, and not common gifts which only diſtinguiſh the Miniſtries and Funnctions of the Church, which proveth that this intendeth not the conſtituting and diſtinguiſhing them, as Rom. 12. doth eſſentially, formally, and properly, as our caſe requireth; but onelyonly the informing the Chuſers, and Ordainers of ſuch Officers, what qualities are requiſite for their well being and the acceptableneſs, and efficacie of their Office in a ſpeciall manner, above other, and making them fit above others for thoſe Offices, ſuch as are aptneſs and fitneſs to entertain ſtrangers, courteſie, and having obedient and meek Children, &c. but to ſay that the want of any one of them, exclude the every other ways fit for thoſe Offices, would exclude the fayer from the moſt; yea, almoſt all Miniſterial Communion, and Chriſtian acceptableneſs.
Theſe three oppoſite Opinions are ſo neer each other in truth, (though in courſe and affection vehemently adverſe) that I cannot cut down the one, but the other two wither alſo: ſo that all the Arguments ſeem alike againſt all, and I acknowledge a kind of confuſion in them, as in the Oppoſites: and ergo in the following Arguments I will refer the ſorting to the Reader, whether it be from one, two, or all three of the Objections. The firſt unſorted Argument is from 1 Tim. 3.8, 12. which prove, that the ſame may be ſaid of the Deacons, which they ſay of Biſhops or Elders, either as one in number, or as divers in number; and alſo in gifts or emphaſis: but all three acknowledge the caſe otherwiſe in the Deacons: The firſt, in that the Diſtributer, and Pittier, or Widow, are as divers, as I hold the three Overſeers. The ſecond, in that there were 7. of them, Act. 6. the 3. ergo much more than either. For, Ro. 16.1. doth as expreſly call the Widow a Deacon, as any place calleth any one, two, or all of the other Offices, Biſhops: And all the qualificat…ons, 1 Tim. 3. agree in their reaſon or ſoul, as well to the one, as the other; yea, all but one, literally alſo.
The ſecond is, from Ver. 12. and Cap. 5.10. where the ſame qualifying cond…tion is required in the Deacon in generall, and in the W…dow in particular, which is in the Biſhop; whereby he challengeth the power of Ruling, and ſo by the ſame Reaſon, they ſhould alſo rule, if the ſcope of theſe places were to define the Offices, and deſign the Functions: but that they all abhor to ſay.
The third is from 1 Tim. 5.17. Firſt, becauſe the Ruler is by expreſs denotation, and place of ſtate, diſtinguiſhed from the Labourer in the Word; by the denotative Article foreign i. e. they truly that, but they that; for they are not here demonſtratively taken, neither of their ſubjects having been mentioned long before; and if yet they be referred to Cap. 3. then they conclude the matter expreſly for me: nor yet much leſs redundantly, they being ſet oppoſitely, relatively, or mutually reſpectively: Secondly, becauſe the Oppoſition is between thoſe Offices themſelves, and not onelyonly between the well-diſcharging the Offices; for neither of both are worthy either double or ſpeciall honour or maintainance, except they do their duties well and diligently. Thirdly, foreign, eſpecially adding an emphatical difference between the two offices, & exclud…ng both Particles foreign from the ſame, at leaſt from their only emphatical uſe, which is the only evaſion & pretending ſhift from this place in that diſtinctnes I plead for; eſpec…ally from the latter of them, which is moſt inſiſted on, if not only: Much may be ſaid from this place to my purpoſe; but I haſt, though the length of the matter hold me long in it.
The third oppoſite Argument, is from Act. 20. verſ. 28. in that they are all called Biſhops, or Overſeers, and Paſtours, or Feeders: I may as well ſay, they are all called Elders, Presbyters, or Ancients, ver. 17. & then it flatly overthroweth the firſt and third Opinion, that make a d…fference between the Biſhop, as the firſt will have it; or the Paſtour, as the third will be called; and the Presbyter or Prieſt, as the Hyerarchians of Rome and England term them; or Elders, or Ruling-Elders, as ſome new Hierarchians call them; onelyonly the third may ſay, this proveth that the Paſtors may rule, becauſe they are Biſhops and Elders: it maketh indeed for Mr. Smith, but neither of the reſt love to hear of that place, but in hope that men will overſee that Ruler is by it made as good a Biſhop and Paſtour, as thoſe that engroſs thoſe Titles to themſelves; and I wonder, that the late named Biſhop durſt bring it as his chief Engine againſt us, that evidently battereth down all Biſhops over more Churches then one; and alſo bringeth in more Biſhops then one, into one Congregation; and alſo, that Mr. Robinſon will alleadge it, to prove, that the Paſtor or Exhorter may more do the works of the Ruler, then the Ruler his, it ſo plainly proving, the flat contrary. I, but he alleadgeth it, to prove, that the Paſtour may rule: I, but that will not ſerve his turn, except he turn of Mr. Sm…th's ſide; but that I doubt not, but Rom. 12. will keep him from, and therefore for the preſent reſt, acknowledging, that this place maketh neither for nor againſt him.
The laſt Objection is from Reaſon, which ſeemeth to croſs that diſtinctneſs we ſtand for; partly, through the uncapableneſs of the matter; and partly, through the miſchiefs which enſue the ſame. The former part of this Objection ſeemeth colourable, becauſe Teaching, without Exhortation to what is taught, worketh no grace in the heart, but onelyonly the Theory thereof in the head. Exhortation, without Teaching, worketh no true Chriſtian grace, but blind, ſuperſtitious, and Antichriſtian Devotion; either, and both, are externally fruitleſs, without Ruling; and Ruling without both is internally barren: ſo that the 2d. end of Gods Worſhip, i. e. our Holineſs, is defeated thereby. For this, we are firſt to conſider this caſe in the right and compleat Eſtabliſhment of Gods Worſhip; and then in the growing eſtate thereof; in the mans and adult eſtate thereof, wherein all things are grown to a ripeneſs, it may well be cleared; for when all the Offices are conſtituted in their Purity, and exerciſed in ſincerity, we are to ſuppoſe the Rule of 1 Cor. 14.40. to be obſerved; which requireth, that all Gods Ordinances be done comelyly, and in order. Now, if in the exerciſe of each Ordinance, Purity be obſerved, both in comelyneſs, as reſpecting it ſelf, not excluding the Order of combination with others: and in order with the reſt, yet preſerving decorum in it ſelf; and alſo Sincerity in all ſanctified peculiar and ſociall reſpects, according to the Light of Nature, and the Word: then ought the Labourers in the Word, ſo to aſſociate their Converſation and Studies in the Week-days, and Miniſtries on the Lords day, that the Exhorter is to know (at leaſt) the Doctrines that the Teacher will gather out of the part of the Word to be handled, whether by their own diſpoſing, or publike Order: and that he therefore will build upon the Foundation▪ thereby laid for him, by the Teachers Grammaticall, Rhetorical, and Logical Expoſition and Extraction of Divine Doctrines, bo…h poſitive and oppoſite with their Proofs and Illuſtrations, Marks and Means; yea, all things pre-requiſite to Exhortation: Then alſo ought the whole Company of overſeeing Officers to be acquainted with the occaſions of exerciſing the Ruling-Office, that the Teacher may the better be provided with matter of Information and Confutation, and the Exhorter of Exhortation and Dehortation▪ and the Ruler may the better diſpoſe of his manner of ordering and cenſuring; and each again with the ſum of the others purpoſes, that each may further and ſuit with the others courſes; for in each of theſe three Offices eſpecially, there are two eſſential properties which have both a peculiar and a ſocial reſpect: the one extenſive, quantitative, material, and inſtitutive, viz. the apportioning and adequating the Offices and their Functions, as the Teacher, and his Teaching, &c. The other intenſive, qualitative, formal, and conſtitutive, viz. the adaptating or ſuiting the Officers and their Offices, as the Teacher, and his knowledge and ability to reach, the Exhorter, &c. as before in the Table at large, and it's Epitome: In the former, is the purity of the Offices, and God's Worſhip, to be diſcerned: In the latter, is the ſincerity of the Officers and Worſhippers to be tryed. Alſo, in the peculiar reſpects of both, the godlyneſs, or fixt link of Peter's golden Chain of Election and Salvation, 2 Pet. 1.7. is required to be exerciſed: and in the ſociall or mutuall reſpects, the brotherly kindneſs or 7th. link is called for. Now, all the ſervices of God being obſerved and exerciſed in their purity compleatly, and all his ſervants therein practiſing all ſincerity, there is no diſſonancie, much leſſe impoſſibility in this diſtinctneſs of the Church-Offices: But if there be a failing in this purity, compleatneſs, and ſincerity, or in either of them, then there muſt be much of the matter of the Objection granted, and will be more appearing, which is the ſecond conſideration of the former part of the Objection. To which I anſwer: Firſt, that I intend not at all to pacifie the fury of Hierarchians, by palliating this matter in any reſpect toward them, among whom all the Order of God's Worſhip, is deviſed by Antichriſt, and ſo made in appearance Chriſtian, but in true underſtanding is Antichriſtian, i. e. diverſe from, and oppoſite to Chriſtian; for the order thereof is Babyloniſh, diſorderly, and confuſed, in reſpect of Gods order in his Word, though to the Spirit of the World, it ſeemeth very, yea onelyonly uniform and orderly in Nature, and in it ſelf; yea, and thereby the parts of God's Worſhip are perverted, and ſubordinate to another ſuperiour or end, and ſo loſe their proper nature, at leaſt, in reſpect of the Conſciences of the Uſers, which is to be eſteemed according to the intention of the principal and predominant Inſtitutor and Author of the Work and Worſhip it ſelf; and therefore it were great folly to indeavour to conſonate the Order of Chriſts Worſhip unto Antichriſts, as it is to make good Muſick on an Inſtrument put wholly out of Tune; and therefore I leave the Mother of Rome, and Daughter of England, to their folly and fury in this caſe, wherein I cannot prevent them.
Secondly, that though I will yield much to the weakneſs of the exerciſe of the Order of God's Worſhip in the preſent Reformed Churches, and will endeavour to ſhew, that this diſtinctneſs is, and may be obſerved in them: yet if men be not ſatisfied therewith, I will not yield, that the Rule is to be framed according to the preſent building, but that to the Rule of God's Word; and if excuſes be made, that all things cannot by them be eſtabliſhed, according to the perfect Rule, both through the hinderance of the otherwiſe informed Magiſtracy, and for the want of fit matter or perſons thereto qualified, and maintenance for them, if they be to be had: Firſt, let not Pleaders of extenuations, no nor of excuſes, be Judgers of that Law, from the breach whereof they excuſe themſelves; for that were more then childiſh pettulancy, even to bite and whine: Secondly, though indeed they be excuſes from all fault, yet cenſures for diſſonancy are not ſeaſonable, till things are in their compleat and adult eſtate; for as exactneſs is not to be required from, ſo alſo not by a child under Age and Tutors until he come to his mans eſtate.
Thirdly, for the matter, though one or two of the Offices be wanting; yet may the two or one remaining, conveniently agree with this diſtinctneſs; the onelyonly ſeeming otherwiſe, is between the Labourers in the Word, eſpecially in the Exhorter, who, without Doctrines before laid, proved and cleered, cannot exhort to the obſervation of them.
To this I have anſwered before, to which I refer thee; adding onelyonly, that though in the caſe of neceſſity, and without which, Exhortation cannot be, it be lawful, yea neceſſary for the Exhorter to Teach: yet without thoſe caſes, and where there is a Teacher, that doth his duty; yea, and where there is equally neceſſary matter of Exhortation, received as true by the Church, it is not lawfull, much leſs his bounden duty, to teach the Theory of Divinity.
Secondly, for the Teacher, there is no neceſſity of not teaching, though there be neither Exhortation nor Ruling, to bring it's Teaching to its more powerful and plentiful effect; and ergo the ſame reaſon warranteth him, not to exhort or rule in any expreſs, plain, and known act, though he be not forbidden all manner of acts that are hortatory or ruling ſo abſolutely; as Murder, Adultery, Robbery, or the like: but there is a Brotherly Fellowly, and mutual freeneſs, and friendly boldneſs to be preſumed on and allowed; yea, in ſome occaſionall acts, even to the danger of Uſurpation, if thoſe acts ſhould be conſtantly and functionally uſed: As for the Ruler, none plead for his adminiſtration of the Sacraments, which are Appendices to Teaching and Exhorting, and Signs and Seals of the ſame things, to the other Senſes, which they ſpeak to the Ears, or rather through them all, to the Underſtanding and Heart: but thoſe that hold them one Office, having divers names, who are not the Objectors of theſe Inconveniencies; and therefore I need ſay nothing againſt the ſame.
Fourthly, though matter of conveniency and inconveniency, pertaineth properly to Wiſdome, and not to Duty, and is but a little better then Humane Authority: yet ſince it is ſo eſteemed, and inſiſted on by many, I will put the conveniencies of the diſtinctneſs I ſtand for, into the other ballance, both for the cleer confutation of this Argument, and proving the point by the benefits thereof, if any ſuch proof be therein, as men account; and I grant, in reſpect of the Wiſdome of God, if the matter be clearly ſhewn, though as a proper and original Argument, which is onelyonly from the Word, Rom. 12.2. I dare not obtrude it, but onelyonly in the reſpects mentioned, and comparatively, and as a retorted, plauſible, and probable Argument: Now the Name and Nature of conveniencies lead us to conſider of the anſwering reſpects of theſe Offices, which are, 6. viz. Chriſt, the Church, each other, eaches ſeveral work, the Lords of the Gentiles, and Antichriſt. Chriſt is the Monarch, Head, Law-giver, and Maſter of his Church, ergo it is fit that he alone ſhould be Supream and Primitive; and that each Office of his Church ſhould be derived out of his Primacy, and none others; elſe ſhould the derived have another Lord and Maſter than Chriſt, for which no ordinary perſon is fit in any reſpect, though extraordinary perſons by Gifts and Functions, immediate as Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, and Prophets, and by Offices made types of Chriſt by the Word, were; and alſo ordinary Corporations, which are of an higher nature than any perſon, but no man than any other; which is the reaſon, that in Common-wealths, that are moſt conveniently governed, no Ruler may depute a Deputy-Ruler under him; though, where the conſtitution of the Common-wealth is otherwiſe, it be lawfull to depute, to be deputed, and to ſubmit to either: yet our preſent point is, Whether Deputation and Superiority of Church-Officers be more convenient in reſpect of Chriſt, than equality between them. Secondly, for confuſion of the three Offices, or Functions, whether it be more convenient in reſpect of Chriſt, than their diſtinctneſs, which the three anſwering, yea primitive reſpects of Chriſt, as God, Man, and Mediatour, before parallelled, do evidently clear, viz. that equality and diſtinctneſs are more convenient.
Secondly, the Church is the Baſis, End, and Owner of the Miniſters, 1 Cor. 3.9, 10, 16. Chap. 12. all, eſpecially v. 28. 1 Tim. 3.15. & therefore is it moſt fit that it ſhould have the deputing and diſtinguiſhing them, and not any ones Authority, in the former, or diſcretion in the latter.
Thirdly, though a diſparity ſhould be granted, which of them ſhould have the Superiority? Surely the Paſtour: Why? becauſe his Office is to ſeed the whole Flock, and ſo the other Officers. Now foreign ſignifieth alſo to rule, and ſo he is to feed by Ruling: There is no fear of this Argument, except the Arguer be made curſt by Antichriſtian hands and breath, at his Ordination and Cuſtome in his Practiſe; and alſo long horned by Authority, Reputation, and Gifts: and yet then, God is more to be ſeared, and his Truth more to be regarded, than our Skin, and he to be anſwered: Firſt, that that name is common to all the Three, ſo well as Biſhops and Elders; as is plain by Act. 20. where Paul is ſaid to ſend for the Elders of Epheſus, and charge them to feed (foreign) the Flock, whereof the Holy Ghoſt had made them Biſhops: Why therefore doth he not claim the name & nature of Biſhop and Elder ſo well as of Paſtor? that all the World, and Epheſ. 4.11. do give him: What the Word, Epheſ. 4. doth give him, I will reverendly conſider: but what all the World doth, I regard not, leſt I ſhould be little regarded by Chriſt, Jam. 2.1. Indeed, Epheſ. 4. nameth Paſtours: but, firſt, the drift thereof is, to declare, that the Spiritual Offices were all given by Chriſt as a tryumphant King; but neither to conſtitute, nor diſtinguiſh them.
Secondly, he firſt ſheweth, that the principall Offices, viz. The feeding, were ſo given by him; and then, that the principal of them, in reſpect of Gifts, and extraordinary need, through its leaſt ſupply from Nature (which is the unum and particular ſcope of that place, viz. The Teachers, were ſo alſo, Whether you take Teaching generally, for Labouring in the Word: as 1 Tim. 5.17. doth; or ſtrictly, as Rom. 12.7. Under which, two terms are compendiouſly comprehended, the leſs principall Offices alſo, a majori; for if he gave the chief Offices or Gifts, whether in a generall, or particular regard: he both would and could, much more give the ſecondary alſo.
Thirdly, all the Offices are not there reckoned, either generally, ſynedochically, nor particularly, but as I have ſaid; for no mention is made of the ſerving offices at all otherwiſe, therefore there can thence no exact particularizing of the Church-offices be concluded, but ſuch as is ſupplyed out of other places. Secondly, for their Unity in kind, if it ſhould be ſuppoſed, yet why may the Paſtour (as he is called) more excommunicate, than the Ruler adminiſter the Sacraments? which is the main of the Controverſie. No anſwer hath been given me herein, though I have oft and inſtantly demanded it; neither know I any, and therefore I muſt conclude, that the Exhorter cannot attain that Ruling-power, claimed by the right of the Word, or Reaſon, from that exaltation above, or confuſion with the other overſeeing Offices, which is pretended; nor by any other, but Babyloniſh; becauſe his Collegues will not, nay may no, y…eld it him, though I ſhould yield him that Super…ority and oneneſs which he ſtandeth for; wh…ch yet in the third place I deny him, for the Reaſons before-mentioned; and alſo, leſt he oppreſs them, if he be of that Spirit, and eminently gifted, or be oppreſſed by the inequality of his work, if he be equally gifted, and modeſtly ſpirited, which will the better be diſcerned in the proſecuting the fourth ſort of Arguments, viz. which ariſe from peculiar and diſtinct reſpects of each office, which now ſucceedeth.
Fourthly, as every Officer is immediate from the Church; ſo is it convenient, 1. That his Functions and Actions ſhould be aſſigned him from the ſame, and not by the diverſe perſonall abilities of the other officers; for elſe doth he not walk in the particular aſſignment of the Church diſpoſed to him, according to his gifts; but in his own, allotted him by his own diſcretion, or of his Collegues.
2. That his Authority of diſcharge, of h…s diſtinct office, ſhould be abſolute in his place, in reſpect of the parts thereof, and every other Office under it, and it's Parts, Function, and their Exerciſe; as that the Teacher ſhould be above all the other Offices in teaching them their Duties, the Exhorter in charging the other four to do their duties; the Diſtributer, to diſtribute to the o…her four; the Ruler, to order the reſt circumſtantially, and to execute the determinations of the Church toward the other four; and the Widow to ſhew mercy to the reſt; beſides, their duties to themſelves, and the whole Church, in their joynt Authoritative Actions, and their ſeverall ſanctified Converſations; and alſo toward the Prophets in their Exerciſe: both wh…ch Arguments confute both their Superiority and undiſtinctneſs.
3. Another Argument againſt the former parts of this fourth ſort, is, that elſe none were fit to be an Exhorter, except he were firſt enabled to every office.
And a fourth, that a man were fit to be of one of the other offices, if there be an Exhorter eſtabliſht, though he be but half fit thereto, ſimply and without that ſuppoſition, which four diſtinct perſonal, and peculiar reſpects, prove, that the Exhorter hath not all offices included in his.
Fifthly, againſt the latter part, viz. the undiſtinctneſs: Firſt, elſe there ſhould be no more diſtinctneſs between the three over-ſeeing offices, than between the particulars of each of them, and between the Deacons; yea, the Prophets: I will inſtance in the Deacons, one of them is fitter then the reſt to hu…band the goods of the Church, in diſpoſing their employment; another to follow neceſſary ſuits in the Law, for defence or recovery; a third, to excite to due contribution; a fourth, for ſimple and diſcreet diſtribution; a fifth, to provide for, and tend on the help of the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, &c. and according to this fitneſs, every of them is diſpoſed, either by themſelves, the Church, or the over-ſeeing Officers; or elſe by ea…hes ſeverall inclination: This, for the preſent, being ſuppoſed, ſhall we thereupon conclude, that theſe are five, or moe diſtinct ſerving offices: Surely, he were unfit for the meaneſt of the five, and much more for any of the three over-ſeeing offices, that ſhould ſo judge, except he could find where the Word did diſtinguiſh them; and if he could, then were it as great weakneſs to hold them but one office in kind: and yet greater, ſo holding, to hold alſo that they may promiſcuouſly execute each others Function, whereby they are found and held diſtinct; but moſt of all, to lay it as a general rule, that they may ſo execute: and yet to exempt the Paſtour onelyonly from the ſame, without giving a peculiar reaſon therefore. The like and greater intricateneſs and diſtraction is in our caſe, becauſe it is evident in the Word, that there is ſuch a diſtinctneſs, in kind, to be found and held. Now, if there be but one Office in kind, as the Deacons, then is every one charged with every over-ſeeing action by God, and no mutual agreement, nor Church-aſſignment can excuſe any one, if any one overſeeing action be wholly omitted: But on the other ſide, if they be three in kind, and diſtinctly aſſigned by the Word, the one is excuſed, though the other fail, either in being, or well-being: nay, he ſhould as much fail as Vzzah, if he ſhould ſupply the failing office, through the affinitive of his office, or perſonal devotion. But in the third place, (to conclude at laſt) to be put to hold and practiſe both, is to be put into an inextricable intricateneſs, and labyrinth, without light or clue, to help him out, or to work within it; which is more then ever God charged upon man, or man could diſcharge unto God; yea, if they be flat contradictories, as they ſeem, more then God can diſcharge, for he cannot lie, and then he can charge, for he cannot oppreſs: Let not us therefore give or take an higher office, nor harder work, then God himſelf will either give or take to himſelf, or any other. The like may be ſaid of the Deacons and Widows, and both may be exemplified by the legal and preſent joynt practiſes, Numb 3. and 18. and very oft in poſitive and oppoſite reſpects.
Sixthly, and ſecondly, it is ſaid, 1 Cor. 12.28, 30. that God hath given ſome to be Teachers, and ſome other Governours, and not Teachers, and ſo on the contrary; the ſcope of the place being to ſhew, that excellency, above others, cannot be had in the offices of the Church, becauſe they are ſeverally diſtributed by God, and not divers to one perſon; as is before fully proved.
Hereupon, if a man ſhould frame his practiſe in any o…fice, it ſhould be diſtinctly to obſerve the peculiar Function of his ſo diſtinct office: but if he, according to the ſecond opin…on, hold them bo…h one o…fice; or according to the third, that though they be d…ſtinct offices, yet they are common in their Functions and Execution: he ſhould look unto his gifts and diſcretion, or to ſome aſſignment beſide that of God, the Church and his Office, and ſo muſt ſhape a clean different, if not contrary courſe, in the diſcharge of his office: Now, therefore the deſtruction and entoxication will be little leſs hereby than in the former Argument; ſo that a man, by theſe Opinions, muſt be rent from himſelf, yea and the word, in the Underſtanding and conſcionable diſcharge of his office to God.
I might have added other Arguments againſt the firſt Opinion, that all Offices are in the Paſtour, out of 1 Cor. 12.7. and Rom. 12.8. with 1 Tim. 5. The former place ſhewing the end of Chriſts diſtribution of the Offices, to be, to profit the Church, and not to magnifie any Officer: But that his end, is to magnifie the Paſtour above the reſt, and ſo that the diſtinction ſhould be as great, or greater, then the former two: and the latter places, ſhewing the fift Office to be a Womans, and not a mans, and ſo unfit for the Paſtour to diſcharge; as becauſe her office is night and day to attend the Sick, both men and women: But I leave them for you to proſecute, by your own meditations, ſuppoſing the other fully ſufficient.
The fifth head, is the reſpect of the Lords of the Gentiles, from which the Church-officers are expreſly forbidden, Matth. 20.26. Mar. 10.43. Luc. 22.26. viz. in that they rule, or are ſuperiour one over another in Office, Place, Authority, and Dignity; for, other Superiority, is either not in rerum natura, or not intended in this place: Or, thirdly, not pertinent to our point, or elſe not ſpiritually inſtituted, or peculiar to an inſtituted Church: but the Hierarchical ſuperiority of Order, whereby ſome Reformers palliate the ſuperiority of Biſhops over Prieſts, and Arch-biſhops over them, &c. is neither of all theſe four; for the beſt Philoſophers admit it not into the eſtate of a being; and therefore we may exclude it out of the laſt three; for, by beſt Philoſophers, I intend both Ancient, Modern, Chriſtian, Heatheniſh, and Antichriſtian: a taſte and ſumme of all whoſe Judgments, in this point, is ſet down, Timpler. Metaph. lib. 3. cap. 7. and Kecker. Suſtema Logicum, l…b. 1. cap. 6. and the ſum of them in this Diſticon;
Tempore, natura, numero, doctrina et honore Fine que lege, loco, dic ſimili que prius; that is,
Time, nature, number, knowledge, worth, end, ſtate, place, likeneſs to theſe, onelyonly yield, BEFORE.
If other order or priority ſeem to be in the World, it is either for want of diſcerning the intent and extent of theſe 9. or elſe it is but the ſtamp of the Myſtery of Iniquity ſet upon Worldly orders, ariſing from the reflex of the Antichriſtianing order, oft mentioned by our Writers, to extenuate the evils of the Biſhops, between the Apoſtolical, and Apoſtatical times, i. e. between Anno Dom. 100. or 200. unto 300. and after, out of which Antichriſt aroſe; and according to that reflex, reflecting on Civil or Monkiſh Eſtates, forged and framed them, as a refuge for their brood into the Mothers belly in time of danger, like the Serpent and it's brood, mentioned by Aelian.
Now the direction which Chriſt giveth unto his Miniſters, from the negative or contrary, to find and keep his Eccleſiaſtical Order, being, not ſo as the Lords of the Gentiles: and yet the courſe which I now oppoſe, in reſpect of the firſt Opinion, being according to them: What diſtraction of mind, & diſturbance in practice (or rather what not) muſt this breed in and amongſt the Underſtanding and Conſcionable? Let it here be remembred, that though the occaſion of this Argument, be but to prove an inconvenience or miſchief: yet I omit not it's abſolute proof of the point of equality of Chriſts Biſhops; but againſt theſe places, it may be objected with the Jeſuits, and other Hierarchians, that Chriſt there forbiddeth onelyonly tyranny, pompous, and vain-glorious Titles, and Maſter-fulneſs over Inferiours; and not the ſuperiority over other Miniſters. I anſwer: Firſt, that I hope they will not more deſtroy the generals of Truth, and light of natural Ingenuity, than the Jeſuits themſelves of Rhemes, who in their Annotations on Luk. 22, 24, ſay; The Apoſtles perceiving Chriſts departure from them, and his Kingdome, to be neer, as infirm men, and not yet endued with the Spirit of God, begin to have emulation and cogitations of Superiority one over another; which our Maſter repreſſeth in them by Exhortation to Humility, and by his own Example, that being their Lord, yet ſo lately ſerved them. They, as Expoſitors of the Scriptures, minding their ſcope and apparent truth, ſuffered themſelves with the Pythoniſſe, Act. 16.16, 17. To ſpeak the truth, though it utterly deſtroy their and their Holy Fathers Kingdome; and they as Antichriſtians, and men of ſcared Conſciences, preſently after contradict the Truth and themſelves,; adding, Not forb…dding majority or ſuperiority in them, but Pride, Tyranny, and Contempt of their Infer…ours. How can theſe Jeſuits brook their name without a metatheſis of ſ and u, and b ſet in the firſt place of ſ; then indeed, they with the Jebuſites are treaders of Mount-Sion, the moſt holy place of Jeruſalem, under foot, Rev. 11.2. i. e. profeſſing poſſeſſion of Mount Moriah, yet being true Intruders thereinto, and blind and lame contradicters of themſelves, and the true David and King thereof, and contradicted and deſtroyed with their blind and lame gods.
THE ſcope of Rome, 12.1. to 8. is exactly, yet ſummarily, to deſcribe, teach, and effectually to charge the matter and manner of Gods inſtituted Worſhip; as is expreſſed, v. 1. in the general, and v. 6. in the particulars: Thoſe two Verſes are alſo expreſly connected by cauſal and illative Conjunctions, which are the abſoluteſt Connecters of the Connection of v. 4. with 5th. and 7th. with 6th. and 8th. with 7th. there can be no doubt. Now, the ſoul and ſinews being of the ſame body, the fleſh and bones cannot but be granted, to be of the ſame alſo: neither is the encorporatedneſs of theſe 8. Verſes onelyonly literall, but eſpecially reall, each without other being maimed, and all joyntly yielding an excellent deſcription and charge of Gods Worſhip; the Root, in v. 7. and 2. giving life to the body in v. 3, 4, 5. and to the branches, v. 6, 7, 8. the body giving ſuſtenance and ſuſtentation with the Root to the Branches, and the Branches ſhewing the Heavenly Fruit of both. Let the words be obſervantly read, and a ſenſe worthy the Scripture be conceived; and the matter being the ſame with the ſecond Commandement, and yet being very imperfectly delivered, but in this place, and here alſo in the common ſenſe: and I cannot but think, that the Underſtanding and Ingenuous will find an admirable conciſeneſs of ſuch a large matter, a clearneſs in this dark and ſ ecial point of the Word, yea, a pleaſantneſs in what is moſt harſh to Nature, as being not onelyonly above it, but mainly intended to thwart it, and to proclaim and conſtrain God's abſolute Will to be ſubmitted unto, as to the Lord and Ruler of all; the Fall alſo of Adam, and the moſt abominable ſinnes ever ſince, were there-againſt, and all deſolations thereout, and the yet prevailing Antichriſtian ſinne, aſſiſting in oppoſiteneſs thereto, and uſurpation thereover.
The drift therefore of the Holy Ghoſt being herein to preach and preſs preciſeneſs in the matter, and diſtinctneſs in the manner of God's ſpeciall Worſhip: The latter of this place, and the reſt of this ſubject, muſt have their ſpirit from hence; which alſo, will not onelyonly eaſily, but excellently ſort therewith, and better than with any other; and though the manner or order of any thing cannot be ſhewn, but upon ſuppoſition of the matter known, or in the ſhewing to be withall made known: yet when the Apoſtle cometh, v. 6. to aſſume and conclude his intent in the premiſſes, v. 1. to 5. he ſeemeth to have ſuppoſed, and intended onelyonly the diſtinctneſs of the Church ſtates, by their peculiar Functions, and the order of exerciſing them in the Church Aſſembly; onelyonly in the handling, Paul, after the excellent Scripture-manner, interlaceth the peculiar vertues of three of the Offices, which were hardeſt to be known, leaving the other two eaſier to be by the like courſe underſtood, as on the other ſide, he expreſſeth his main drift of charging the diſtinctneſs of the Offices, and their Functions, onelyonly in the two firſt, leaving the like to be ſuppoſed in the other three; ſo that it is expreſly proved, that the Offices are diſtinct, v. 6. which after are expreſſed to be five. In the Inference therefore of v. 6. is the drift of the Holy Ghoſt expreſſed, which is the Soul and Life of the whole Context: upon it, therefore, we are to ſtand as we uſe to do, on the parting of the Branches from the Body of the Tree; for the beſt finding and gathering the Fruit of the Tree, whereby the Nature of the Tree, and Intent of the Planter is beſt to be diſcerned; that therefore ſaith, We having then gifts (or ſince then we have gifts) according to the grace (meaſure of Faith, v. 3. that is given, (meaſured v. 3.) different, (divers or diſtinct) whether it be Propheſie (the eſtate or ability of a Church-Prophet, or both): according to the proportion (meaſure v. 3. gift v. 6.) of Faith (grace v. 6.) 2. Of the Intereſt in Chriſts body, v. 4, 5. or Worſhip and Will of God, v. 1, 2.) He ſeemeth to have left the ſpeech very imperfect; yet therein he moſt excellently perfecteth the drift of the Holy Ghoſt affirmed; that is, to prove a diſtinct obſervance in the offices, and not to provoke unto vehemency in the execution, which will undoubtedly follow this diſtinct diſcerning the ſpeciall intent of Gods zealous and jealous diſtinguiſhing them. Secondly, it ſuiteth with the ten times greater care that is taken throughout the Scriptures, that Gods Worſhip ſhould be obſerved according to his Precepts, Statutes, or Inſtitutions, or Laws; and Zeal that is uſed, in the reproof of the contrary, than that a zealous Worſhip ſhould be given him. Thirdly, he therein well obſerveth the order of the Commandements, in more regarding the ſecond then the third. And fourthly, the order of Nature, which firſt, and more regardeth the truth of the matter then the meaſure. And fiftly, his own ſcope, intimated in the five former verſes, and oft expreſſed, to take care for Gods Worſhip of his Word, v. 1. of his Will, v. 2. of his apportioning, v. 3. of his diſpoſing, v. 4, 5. of his divers giving, v. 6. and of his exact diſtinguiſhing, v. 6, 7, 8. more than for the meaſure thereof. Sixthly, he well preferreth the maine of the matter, before the exactneſs of words, yea than competency: but in this caſe of endangering the proper ſcope of the place, which would have been the eaſier wreſted, to the provoking and ſtirring up the gifts and powers, had there been the leaſt word of provocation or exhortation expreſſed; and therein ſome way ſhould ſeem to have been given to the Babyloniſh confuſion of Gods Worſhip, currant in the World for the true; yea, the zeal for the Worſhip eſtabliſhed, mixed with the acuteneſs and violentneſs of the intereſſed therein, would have made it ſeem, that it had made way for the ſame: but the Holy Ghoſt would not give them ſo much cloak for their ſinne, and deceit of the weak: neither know I what other pretence of the ſcope of this place can yield to any kind of audaciouſneſs of Conſcience herein. Seventhly, he could not have perfected that verſe, (nor v. 7. nor 8.) but he muſt have endangered the other, and ſo the whole, in ſome meaſure; at leaſt, if the phraſe which is as the Charret-man of the Holy Ghoſt, ſhould have failed in this ſore-front of the Battle, the fearful and far-of, would firſt have ſhrunk, and then the next would have followed for company; and ſo the reſt muſt have been overcome by violence; which was the caſe of Darius Codomanus, and the reputed Cauſe of the tranſlating of the Monarchy of the Perſians to the Grecians: But the All-ſeeing Wiſdome better provided for his Charret-man in th…s great Caſe, though ordinarily he rideth more open, plainly, boldly, and at liberty. This, therefore, is a ſecond Argument, that the ſcope of the place, is to teach the diſtinctneſs of the Offices, and their Functions, in that this ſixt verſe is left ſo extreamly imperfect, and no other good reaſon being for it, but to prevent evaſion there-from; for though it be ſaid, v. 6. Let us propheſie; and v. 7. Let him wait on; and v. 8. Let him do it: yet there is not a word thereof in the Original, but the Tranſlators have taken liberty to inſert them all, becauſe to them there ſeemed otherwiſe no ſenſe; whereas they have thereby made new Scripture of their own, yea contrary to the intent of the Holy Ghoſt, if they and their Readers intend any Exhortation to the Acts of Propheſie, Miniſtration, Diſtribution, with Simplicity, &c. or to vehemency in any of them, or to any thing, but the preciſe obſervance of Gods allotment committed to them.
Thirdly, as the firſt Argument proveth the intent to charge the diſtinctneſs, and the ſecond to prevent all evaſions there-from: ſo doth the exact Analyſis of all Church-States, and their Functions in the matter preceding, ſecond both therein.
In ver. 4, and 5. we are to obſerve; firſt the poſitive part, and then their oppoſite; and in the former, their Fabrick it ſelf, and its uſe and end: their Fabrick is a body, with its members and their works: the end thereof, is the entire good of the body, and each part thereof: the other ends thereof are proper to the relation of theſe verſes with the three former, and three ſollowing. The Fabrick it ſelf is two-fold, Natural and Spiritual: the former is ſet by the Holy Ghoſt here, as the Protaſis and Pattern of the latter; and the latter, as the Apodoſis and reflex of the former; not as a bare ſimile or alluſion, but as ſuch a neceſſited and compleat Directory and Pattern of Divine Evangelical Worſhip; as the Pattern ſeen by Moſes in the Mount was unto him for the Tabernacle, and all things thereof, and the Pattern left by David to Solomon, was to him for the Temple, and all things of the Temple, and both for the main Warrant of the Legall Worſhip; ſo is the Protaſis here ſaid to be the Pattern, and thereby made the Warrant of Evangelical worſhip: a diſtinct and intent view therefore is to be taken of this Divine Exemplar, that our writing may be anſwerable, and ſo acceptable, divine, and holy; whereas otherwiſe, the faireſt writing in letters of gold, and with all ornaments, is odious to God, as ſelf-boaſting, yea againſt him. This Pattern is not ſimply a natural body, but as it is the Pattern and Protaſis of a politick body; as the ſcope of the place and the offices, v. 7, 8. being the inſtanced parts of that body ſhew.