word, that we may grow thereby, if fo be we have tafted that the Lord is gracious.

There is no controverfy more famous among us at this time than that concerning the right of the Christian people to elect their pastors, and the power of the paftors in that mat

ter.

The people's right was not long ago debated with no small heat among the Epifcopal diffenters from the established church; and these of them that found their interest in it pleaded moft zealously for it, with all the criticisms on συγκαταψηφίζομαι and χειροτονέω, and all the quotations of the ancients that their reading could furnish them with; for all forts of clergymen will stand up for the rights and liberties of the people, when they find this neceffary to raise them: felves; though, afide from that, it will take a power of grace to make a clergyman a hearty friend to the liberty of the Chriftian people. After much contention among these clergyman, they at length faw their intereft lay in coming together, and fuch union of the clergy is not the most friendly thing in the world to the liberty of the laity. But we are now again amused with a very hot debate in the established church on the fame fubject. And one would think there must be something in this right of the people, when no fort of church-rulers are afhamed to have recourfe to it on proper occafions; yea, they can glory in patronizing it, though, at the fame time, it must be owned there is a principle (not ve ry Chriftian) in the people, that inclines them to give good heed to thofe teachers that zealously proclaim their right, and make the loudest complaints to them of their fuperiors as incroaching upon it. And this contention in the church is not very unlike the strange buftle and confufion in the state about the excife-bill. Yet, because it pretends an interest in the fcriptures, and a concern in religion, it demands the atten, tion of them that believe the fcriptures, and would not defire to be utter ftrangers to any thing that pertains to true reli gion, let the interefts of the differing parties be what they will. For whether this debate iue in their feparation from one another, or their coming together on fome general terms of agreement, (in both which cafes we may fuppofe, from what has hitherto appeared, the clergy will fee to themselves); yet the truth is the truth ftill; and fomething ought to be faid for their fakes who may be honeftly inquiring after it, let the number be never fo fmall. For however whimfical they may appear that feck the truth without any worldly defign, bus

with a refpect to the world to come, no man's labour is ill bestowed in contributing to their fatisfaction.

The question about the call to the miniftry of the gospel or word of faith supposes the truth of that gospel; and they that are fo unhappy as to difbelieve it, cannot plead any concern in the question. They can go no further than this, that every man has a right to instruct his neighbour in every thing that is good for him to know, as far as he is able, and as is confiftent with the good of the body-politic wherein they enjoy privileges together; and fo it must be in the power of that body, to take care that it suffer no damage by any pretended exercise of this right among the members. But as to the church or kingdom of Chrift, his officers, and the whole order of that fociety, they have nothing to do about it, except it be to fhew their greateft diflike and contempt of whatsoever appears most agreeable to the gofpel; though, after all, it cannot be reckoned exceeding difcreet in them thus far to meddle with other mens matters, whereof they are not the most fit to judge. They are indeed fometimes called upon and appealed to by both parties in this and other questions about the Chriftian institution, when they plead reason and nature's light against one another, where they have least to fay from the fcriptures; but this is their folly and weakness to inquire at the light of nature what a pofitive inftitution fhould be.

It is not a fign of the greatest regard to the gospel, in them that profefs to believe it, to speak as if what the New Teflament fays of the miniftry of the word and fuch things ferved only for that age wherein it was committed to writing. For if this were the cafe, why had we any thing but the ef fentials written to us in that book? And why do we obferve and admire the divine providence in the prefervation of that book, in a fociety that corrupted the whole of Christianity, and in the bringing of it again forth to the view of the na tions in their own languages, as his teftimony against all the corruptions of that fame society? And may not these of that Roman church as well alledge, that the New Testament ferved indeed for the time wherein it was written; but as for after-ages, it belonged to them to adapt Chriftianity to these, as the New Teftament was fuited to that age? However, it is manifeft, they speak lies in hypocrify who make infinuations this way, to the difcredit of the only rule of Chriftianity, and yet pretend, that the New Teftament, and the practice of

the

the first Chriftians recorded there, is the rule of their con sciences as to this matter of the people's right.

That the writings of the Old Teftament and the New contain a complete revelation of the will of God to men cannot be denied without the highest reflection on the truth of that revelation, that plainly fets itself out as a declaration of the whole counsel of God, to which nothing can be added. The Old Testament plainly promised, in its conclufion, a further revelation, and the New Teftament declares itfelf to be that revelation, while it concludes with a curfe on them that add to it, as well as on them that take from it. If therefore the New Teftament fay nothing on this question about NewTeftament minifters, that depends entirely on the gospel, no man can say any thing of it that can be fubmitted to as a divine inftitution, unless it could be proved that the New Teftament has lodged a power in any man, or fociety of men, to fay in this matter what they think fit, or to act in it as they please; and till this be done, which in all appearance will never be, we must rest ourselves content with what the fcriptures fay, and examine every thing that men tell us by

that.

And, feeing the holy fcriptures contain a complete revelation of the will of God to men, no man can now pretend to be fo called of God to the miniftry of the word as the infpired men, whom he chufed to give out that revelation, and to whofe miffion he bore witnefs in an extraordinary manner. But what these men were to them that had the divine oracles from their mouths, that their writings are to us, as our Lord faid of the writings of Mofes and the prophets; "they have Mofes and the prophets, let them hear them; "and if they will not believe Mofes and the prophets, nei"ther will they be perfuaded though one rofe from the "dead."

The queftion then is, How the holy fcriptures declare that men are called to the office of feeding Chrift's people by his word fully contained in these fcriptures? For if the whole counfel of God be declared in them, and the miniftry of the word of revelation depend wholly on that revelation, no man can lawfully pretend a call from God to give out the leaft addition to that revelation; and as little can any pretend to be called of God to the miniftry of the word already contained in the feriptures, but according to these feriptures; and every man that is called according to them has his call. The New-Teftament law speaks not fo clearly of any thing,

touching

touching that miniftry of the gospel which the apoftles left behind them on the earth, as of the characters of them that fhould exercise this office, which are exp efs in the epiftles to Timothy and Titus, and of the manner wherein they ought to exercise it, as is to be seen in Paul's discourse to the Ephe fian elders, in Peter's exhortation to elders, and in our Lord's commiffion to minifters, with whom he promises to be prefent to the end of the world.

It was most neceffary, that the Christian law should be ex prefs on the characters of the perfons that should exercise this facred office, feeing it is not confined to any fleshly feed or particular family, as was the priesthood under the Old Teftament. And if we may not be as certain whom we are to receive as minifters of the word, by the description that the Christian law gives of the perfons, as the church of the Jews might be of the defcent of their priests from Aaron, we are at a confiderable lofs beyond them; especially when the New Teftament requires fuch duties to be done to them, as cannot be done unless we know them, and contains fuch threatenings to them that reject them, and fuch promises to them that give them fuitable reception, as muft make every true Chriftian anxious to know who they are; and for what end are these characters fo exprefs and particular, if it be not, that we may by them know who are called of God to that office, and who not? And can it then be faid, without a reflection on the Christian law, that this end cannot be reached by it? or, that we cannot thereby have as great cer tainty as the nature of the thing requires, concerning them whom we are bound to receive as minifters of the gospel ? If the rule of the New Teftament were in all things followed, there could be no difficulty in this matter. For no new convert could enter upon the exercise of this office, till he was well known in the Chriftian fociety whereof he was a mem ber, and wherewith he affembled, and daily conversed, and which compared him with the description given of a minifter of the word by the apoftles and evangelifts; and, this defcrip. tion was the fame that is now written to us in the New Teftament. In fuch a fociety did a man then enter upon the exercise of this office, baving the apoftolic defcription of a minister applied to him by a people profeffing fubjection to Jefus Chrift, in fubmitting to the overfight of an elder or bishop called by him to that office. The cafe of Apollos was a little extraordinary. He had been a teacher among John's difciples, and was privately inftructed by Aquila and Prifcilla, VEL. L

3 L

who

who were well known to the church in Corinth; and they, upon intimate acquaintance with him at Ephefus, where there was yet no church, recommended him to the church in Corinth, where he first exercifed the office of a minifter of the gofpel. However, even in this cafe, the church where he be gan his miniftry had enough of certainty about his cha

racter.

It is not in the power of any to add to or diminish from the defcription given of a minifter of the gospel in the New Teftament, fo as to infift on any qualification as needful that is not mentioned there, or to make any qualification there spoke of needlefs. Neither has Jefus Chrift, the lawgiver, gi ven to any minifters or people any power or right whatsoever, to call, fend, elect, or ordain any perfon to that office, who is not qualified according to the description given in his law as he has not given any power or right to reject the least of them that are qualified according to that law. Let a man have hands laid on him by men that could prove an uninter. rupted defcent of impofition of hands to him from the a poftles, let him be fet apart to that office by a company of minifters the most conformable themselves to the scripture. character of minifters, and let him be chofen by the most holy people on earth; if yet he do not anfwer the New-Teftament defcription of a minifter (which is poffible, if the scripture be not the rule of their judgment in this particular case), he is not called of God to that office, and is indeed no minifter of Chrift, but runs unfent. And if this be the cafe, they boat in vain of any manner of election and ordination, who ftudy not conformity to the fcripture-description of a minifter in the exercise of that office. For no manner of or dination of ordinary minifters can pretend fuch a clear foundation in the New Teftament, as the defcription of the perfons that fhould be minifters. And they that do indeed study conformity to that defcription, can fecurely hear their miniftry called in queftion, and rejected by all forts of men, on grounds whereof the Chriftian law makes no mention: yea, their miniftry cannot be rejected, without difobedience to Jefus Chrift.

Thus, whoever is conformable to that defcription the Chriflian law gives of a minifter of the word, has all the call and miffion that the Lord gives any man to that office; and whoever wants that, whatever he have, has not God's call. The only part, therefore, that any fort of men can claim in this matter is that of obedience to the Chriftian law.

Minifiers,