Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
THe third Argument will not call for much labour.
They argue from a Gospel promise, Mat. 25. 29. Unto every one that hath shall be given: Whatsoever gifts a man hath, if he improve them, God will increase his gifts.
Ans. It is true, every one is to exercise his gifts, but every one suo modo, and debito ordine, as hath been frequently said, according to his capacity and place, and after a right order. What if a man be prudent and very fit to manage the Deacons work, and to distribute the Church-alms? must he undertake it (upon pretence of exercising his gifts) before he be called to it? No surely; 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let them first be proved, then let them use the Office of a Deacon. Or if a man hath gifts to rule a State, must he take upon him that work, before he be called to it? Surely no: And therefore a Preacher also, however gifted, yet must not publickly exercise his gifts till he have a call, some call I say or other, for I meddle not now with particulars, what that call is; only I say, besides gifts a call is required, without which he sins not, in the not exercising of his gifts in such a way (although exercise them he may divers waies.) And if our Brethren allow this in the Office of the Ruling Elder and Deacon, that how well soever they are gifted for those works, yet without a call, a call (I say) distinct from that which may be pretended by vertue of their gifts, they may not exercise those gifts, why should they not allow it in the Preaching Ministry? Why should not only the Offices, but also the works of these inferiour Offices be inclosed, and that higher and much more difficult work of the Ministry lie in common? And this shall suffice for their second Argument, wherein though divers things are said, yet nothing of strength is added, which hath not been considered and enervated under the foregoing Argument.
Their third Argument is taken from Gospel presidents or examples: They instance in two, 1. In Apollo. 2. In the scattered Saints, Acts 18. 24.
1. In Apollo, and the marrow and strength of what they say of him is this; He preached publickly, &c. and yet was not ordained, for he knew only the Baptism of John (not the Baptism of Christ) to which the institution of Ordination was subsequent; he had but an imperfect knowledge of the doctrine of Christ.
Unto this instance divers things are said, which our Brethren take notice of, and attempt to confute.
1. Whereas some Answer, That Apollo was an extraordinary Officer, that he is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. that he is called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3. 5.
To this they Answer, 1. Let him prove it that will assert it: All that the text saith of him is, that he was eloquent and fervent, &c. which a man may be without those extraordinary gifts, p. 71.
Reply If this place doth not, yet others do imply that he was an extraordinary Officer, 1 Cor. 1. 12.
Exc. But that was afterward, when he went to Corinth; He might be a gifted man first, and yet afterwards an Officer &c. p. 73.
Ans. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts is very probable from that 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with persons so qualified, but when he received them, the Scripture is silent: The Scripture intimates that he had them at Corinth, but that he received them not before, ne foreign quidem. The distance of time is not so great between his being at Ephesus, that is Acts 18. 24. and in Achaia, that is v. 27. of the same Chapter: And therefore it is most probable he had those extraordinary gifts when he was at Ephesus.
If it be objected against this, that he was ignorant in many truths, instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, p. 71. The Answer may be this, that this is not inconsistent with his being a Prophet: God revealed not all his mind at once to all his Prophets. Those Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others, as well as to speak themselves. The Apostles had extraordinary gifts when Christ lived, though not in such a plentifull and glorious manner as afterwards, and yet were ignorant of those great and glorious truths of Christs death and resurrection, &c.
Inst. But after his departure the people of Ephesus were ignorant of those gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 19. 1, 2.
Ans. That might be, neither they nor Apollo might know distinctly what these gifts of the Holy Ghost were, and yet Apollo might have them; his face might shine and he not know it: As a man may be converted and yet not know that he is converted, nay possibly he may not clearly understand what the work of conversion is.
2. Whereas it is further said, that Apollo's might have a Commission from John to preach. They say, Let them prove it that can, the Gospel is silent as to that, p. 71.
Reply 1. Our Brethren must remember the proof lies upon them to make good that he was not ordained, not upon us to prove that he was ordained: For if we lay down this position, That meerly gifted men ought not to preach, &c. if they offer any instances to the contrary, they must make this good, that such were only gifted men, and not ordained: They are not so unacquainted with the laws of disputation, as not to know that the proof lies on the opponents part, which they manage in this place.
2. The Gospel is silent as to the Mission and Ordination of divers others: We reade nothing of the Ordination of Titus, of Epaphroditus, of the Pastors of the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2, & 3. Shall we therefore conclude they were not ordained?
3. Whereas it is said he preached only where there was no Church: They say, Let them prove that it is more unwarrantable to preach where a Church is, than where no Church is.
Reply This will easily be proved by that ingens telum necessitas: I hope there is a far greater necessity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not, than in a Church where they are.
4. To these I may adde, that we do not find Apollo's preaching in a Christian Church, but disputing in a Jewish Assembly, a liberty which we as readily allow to gifted men, as to write in defence of the truth.
5. Say that Apollo's were not ordained (which is all our Brethren can extort or desire) yet this gives them no help at all, for the extraordinarinesse of his gifts might well supply the defect of an Ordination, and that is no president for such whose gifts are but ordinary.
And thus much for their first example.
The second is that locus foreign, that famous instance of the scattered Saints, Acts 8. about which I shall not ingage my self, nor detain the Reader with repeating those various Answers that are given to it by the Provincial Assembly, which might easily be vindicated from their exceptions. I shall not stand upon this; That the persons scattered were, if not solely, yet mainly the Officers of the Church, who might therefore preach, &c. But that which wholly invalidates this place as to their purpose, is that which is commonly said, that this was an extraordinary case, a case of necessity. And mark the weight of our Brethrens deduction from this place: Because the scattered Disciples in a persecuted state of the Church, in a time when all Church-order was broke, preached and taught Jesus Christ to Heathens and unbelieving Jews, occasionally (it may be in private, or with Paul in the market places &c. or in their Synagogues disputing with them) therefore now unordained persons may preach publickly and solemnly to a Christian Church settled and constituted, wherein are plenty of able and godly Pastors, and where as their preaching is not necessary, so to many fearing God it is highly scandalous. This is the true state of the Argument, and if our Brethren be not sick of this consequence, I shall say they have good stomacks.
But this must not passe so, and therefore they make an assault upon it, and there are three or four things which they say (lest they should say nothing) which stand in the room of Answers, with which I must professe I wonder how sober ingenious and conscientious men (such as I hope our Brethren are) can satisfie themselves. But such as they are we shall give them a fair hearing.
1. They say, Persecution laid no necessity upon them to preach, p. 85.
Ans. Yes, it laid a necessity upon them, i. e. in order to Gods glory, and the salvation of souls, which could not be had without preaching, Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way; upon this supposition, that in those times God would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, it was necessary that they should preach, for as much as there can be no salvation without preaching, Rom. 10.
2. They say, It is questionable whether necessity can make that lawfull, which is in it self unlawfull, as to forswear a mans self, p. 86.
Ans. There are two kinds of evil and unlawfulnesses, Some things are simply and absolutely evil, and prohibita quia mala, forbidden because they are intrinsecally evil; as to forswear, to blaspheam God, &c. and these no necessity can excuse: But there are other things which are in themselves indifferent, and only mala quia prohibita, are therefore only evil because they are prohibited, and because they are against positive precepts. Now those things which are only evil this latter way (and such is preaching without Ordination) they may, though not ordinarily, yet in cases of necessity do. Thus in a case of necessity, David might eat the Shew-bread, the rest of the Sabbath might be violated, Periculum mortis pellit Sabbathum: And of this kind is order in a State or Church, which is a duty to be observed ordinarily, and yet in case of evident necessity may be violated. And, as in a State, in such a case, every man is a Constable, so in the Church, in such a case, every man may be a Preacher.
3. They say, It is an extraordinary case when Ordination cannot be had in Gods way, i. e. when Election doth not go before it, p. 86.
Ans. 1. That Election must necessarily and continually go before Ordination, is but one of their foreign, and suppositions to be confuted hereafter.
2. And if ordinarily Election must go before Ordination, yet, as we say of preaching, when Ordination cannot be had, it may be done without it; so it is true of Election when it cannot be had, Ordination must be taken without it; and when Ordination cannot be had exactly in Gods way, as to all the particulars, it must be had, as it may. The Shew-bread was ordinarily according to Gods way, to be eaten by the Priests alone, but in cases of necessity it might be eaten out of Gods way, it might be eaten by others.
3. It is not every extraordinary case that carries it, it must be a case of necessity, such as this is not; for what if neither Election nor Ordination can be had by them in Gods way? There is no necessity of their preaching in a Church which is constituted. And thus we see how firmly this Answer stands against all their exceptions, and that all their assaults are but like the beating of a storm against the wall. So that there is one flaw in their Argument which will for ever condemn it of insufficiency.
But that is not all: Mark how the Argument is laid by our Brethren; Those who were scattered abroad they preached: But many unordained men were scattered abroad; Therefore many unordained men preached, p. 74.
Ans. 1. You shall see what an hopefull Argument this is: I will make use of their own Argument against them, and I desire no other Umpire.
They who were scattered abroad they preached: But many ungifted persons were scattered abroad; Therefore such preached: And because this example they bring as a president for us, therefore ungifted persons may now preach publickly; which because it is not only false, but contrary to their own sense, therefore (that we may not be put to deny the Conclusion) we must find fault with one of the premises, and that can only be done our way, i. e. by saying that, not all that were scattered preached, but only some of them preached: Only here is the difference, these some that preached, say we, were Officers; say they, they were gifted men, which yet they cannot prove, and if they could, it reacheth not our case, nor our times, for it was a case of necessity, as hath been argued.
If they like not this, I will put it in another dresse: They who were scattered, preached: But women as well as men were scattered, so they say, the scattering was subsequent to Pauls haling men and women, &c. and that the All that were scattered, were not all the Officers, but all the Church. So that by this Argument here is a warrant for women-preachers, if this example be a president: Nor let them fly to their usual refuge, that women are elsewhere forbidden, for although they were ordinarily prohibited, yet in cases of necessity (such as this was) they might do it, as that woman did who preached to the Iberians, and converted them.
To this I may adde, that all that can be extorted from this place is this, that they preached; which we may grant without any prejudice to our cause, for there are divers kinds of preaching or teaching, they might do it divers waies. It might be true of all, that they preached and taught Jesus, but not all alike, nor all in the same capacity; the Officers might teach publickly, the rest privately; the Officers constantly, the others occasionally; the Officers might preach officially in a Christian Church, the rest might discourse to a company of Heathens, or dispute with them; and all these may be called teaching or preaching. So that our Brethrens Argument is a genere ad speciem affirmativè, which will not hold water.
For what they say, that It is indefinitely said that they that were scattered, preached.
Ans. They know that indefinite propositions, in materiâ contingenti, in a contingent matter (such as this unquestionably is) are not equivalent to an universal: Supposing that Officers and people were scattered, I say, that if the Officers alone had preached, that had been sufficient ground to say of the whole they preached, as oftentimes that is said to be done by all Israel, which was done by the Officers of the Congregation.
And thus we have seen those two great topicks of our Brethren, from Scripture precept, and Scripture president overthrown. And so much for the third Argument.
Their fourth Argument is that principall place and pillar of their opinion, which if I shall satisfactorily Answer, there will be little ground left for our Brethrens confidence in this cause. 1 Cor. 14. 29, 31. whence they draw this Argument,
All that are Prophets may publickly preach: But some men who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets; Therefore some men who are not ordained Officers, may publickly preach.
Which Argument may be cut off in a word, for their Conclusion may be granted without any detriment to our Cause; and our Brethren might have known, and ought to have considered, that we grant, that persons unordained may preach, in a double case; 1. In the case of necessity. 2. In case of extraordinary gifts, and an immediate Commission from God, which we take to be the case of these Prophets, of which more hereafter. In the mean time let us follow them: For their major it is granted on all hands: For their minor, it is this, That some men who are not ordained Officers are Prophets; where there is a double defect and insufficiency to the proof of what they intend. For 1. The Prophets might be Officers, though not ordained; so were the Apostles, neither of man nor by man. 2. If the Prophets were not Officers at all, yet the extraordinarinesse of their gifts was a sufficient warrant for the publick exercise thereof: But neither of these are to be found in the case of those unordained preachers we plead against, but they differ foreign from them, for neither are they Officers at all, ordained or not ordained, nor are their gifts extraordinary; so that the minor might be granted, and yet the truth not wronged. But let us see how they proceed: I fear it will prove ominous to them, thus to stumble in the threshold: They argue thus, to prove their minor, All that have the gift of prophesie are Prophets: But some men who are not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie; Ergo, Some men, who are not ordained Officers are Prophets. For the major, though we grant it, yet, according to our Brethrens principles, it might be denied; for, if it were as they say, that those prophesiers here spoken of had the gift, but no Office, I should deny such to be Prophets, because the name of Prophet, both in vulgar acception, and in Scripture use, connotes an Office; Caiaphas did prophesie, Ioh. 11.— and yet I beleeve our Brethren are not so hardy, as to say that Caiaphas was a Prophet. The minor will lead us to the main point, which is this, Some men not ordained Officers have the gift of prophesie; which they attempt to prove by three steps:
They say, this prophesie 1. is a gift, not an Office. 2. That it is a gift still continuing. 3. And which some unordained persons have, p. 90. And if these things be proved, they say something to the purpose; but let it be considered, if there be a flaw in any one of them, their whole Argument fals, and how much more, when every one of them will be taken tardy. The last Proposition they place first, and use three Arguments to prove it, whereof the last is that which the other propositions treat of, the two former are these which follow.
1. (Say they) Some not ordained have this gift of prophesie, because we find no Scripture warrant for the ordaining of Prophets.
Ans. 1. What if there be no particular warrant, it is sufficient that there is a general rule for the ordaining of all Church-officers, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, &c. and (at least, if these be ordinary Officers, as our Brethren make them) a parity of reason (which is a sufficient Argument to sober minded men, such as I take our Brethren to be) will prove that they also are to be ordained.
2. But if they be extraordinary Officers (as the Provincial Assembly affirm) preferred before the Evangelists, and having this priviledge above the Evangelists (for ought we read) to be immediatly and infallibly indued, &c. then what wonder if in this they partake with the Apostles, who as they were not of men, so neither by men, and needed no Ordination, nor had it, unless in relation to some special work, as Acts 13. 1.
2. (Say they) They must be discerned to have the gift before they be ordained, and therefore some not ordained may have the gift of prophesie.
Ans. This Argument is built upon the former mistake, as if there were a necessity of such a Prophets Ordination; whereas, I say, Gods indowment of him with extraordinary gifts, is a kind of Ordination, and supplies the defect of an Ordination by men. But (complying thus far with our Brethren, to own these Prophets to be unordained persons, and their gifts but ordinary) I further Answer, that this is wholly impertinent (as was intimated before) for in the case of a Pastor, the question is not, Whether one not ordained may have Pastoral gifts, which we assert he may have, nay he must have, and must be known to have them before he be ordained; but the question is, Whether a man not ordained may commonly and ordinarily exercise those Pastoral gifts, which is quite another thing: It is one thing to have gifts, another thing to exercise gifts. A man may lawfully have divers gifts, (v. g. of ruling an Army or a State, &c.) which yet he may not lawfully exercise.
But let us now come to their next Proposition, which is more to the purpose, viz. That this prophecying is not an Office but a gift. If this be proved, it amounts to something, but I doubt the premises will fall a mile short of the conclusion. I passe by the foreign they run into, which Dr. Collins takes notice of, and shall rather consider how they attempt to prove it; which they do by two Arguments.
1. All who have the gift of prophesie are Prophets: But all that have the gift are not Officers.
Ans. If these Prophets were ordinary persons, I deny the major, for then besides the gift, they must be ordained (as in other ordinary cases:) But if these Prophets were extraordinary persons, I deny the minor, for the very having of such a gift extraordinarily inspired, is an immediate call, and makes them extraordinary Officers, as it was in the Prophets of the old Testament.
Arg. 2. That which ought in duty, and might in faith be coveted by every member of the Church of Corinth, was not an Office but a gift: For 1. God no where promised to make every one an Officer there. 2. This was impossible, for then all the body had been the eye; and if these were extraordinary Officers, much lesse might they covet to be such: But now this prophesying they ought and might covet in faith. v. 1. 39.
Ans. 1. The major is denied: 1. An Office might be coveted as well as a gift, 1 Tim. 3. 1. If a man (Gr. foreign, if any man) desire the Office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work. Yea an extraordinary Office might be coveted, as is evident from the desires and endeavours of the sons of the Prophets in the old Testament.
2. Let our Brethren shew where God promised to every member of the Church of Corinth these extraordinary gifts, and I will shew them where God promised to every one of them to be Officers.
3. If extraordinary gifts might be desired, (as our Brethren say) why not an extraordinary Office? If an extraordinary Office might not be desired, this is either because this is an Office, or because it is extraordinary; not because it is an Office, that hinders not but it may be coveted, as we have shewn; nor, because it is extraordinary, for then extraordinary gifts might not be desired. That extraordinary gifts might be desired, appears from the very words cited by our Brethren, 1 Cor. 14. 1. Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesie; whence it is most evident, that not only prophesying, but the other gifts mentioned there, i. e. of tongues, interpretation, &c. were to be desired: So that our Brethrens Argument is feeble to prove this to be an ordinary gift, because it was to be desired.
4 For every member in the Church of Corinth to be an Officer was not impossible: True, it was impossible for all to be Officers there in that Church, but not to be Officers in other places: And this I would desire our Brethren to ruminate upon, whether, supposing, that all the members of the Church of Corinth might in faith desire, and so obtain gifts fitting them for Office (which our Brethren grant) & supposing that the exigencies of the Church required their Office-relation, which might well have been in those times, and that their being in other callings ought not to hinder it (as our Brethren sufficiently intimate, pag. 53.) I say, whether, supposing these things, it were either impossible or unlawfull for every member of the Church of Corinth to desire to be an Officer, where he might be serviceable to the Church: That in this case it is unlawfull or impossible, I suppose our Brethren will not readily say; and if they say it, nothing more easie then to disprove it: And if they grant it to be possible and lawfull, then all their Argument fals to the ground, then every member ought in duty, and might in faith, covet, as to have gifts necessary for an Office, so (in due order and fit time) to be Officers, though not in that Church, yet in some Church, which is enough to our purpose. Adde to this that if this prophesie be an Office, this is no more then that wish of Moses so much insisted upon, at least according to their sense of it, I would that all the Lords people were Prophets.
And thus I have shewn the insufficiency of their proofs alleadged for the defence of their first and most considerable Position, That the prophesying here spoken of, is a gift, not an Office: This Position they uphold only by two Arguments, which I hope any ingenuous Reader will discern to be so farre answered, that they have no great reason to be confident upon these grounds: And yet I must intreat the Reader to consider, that here lies the great stresse of the cause; for if it be not a bare gift, (which you have seen our Brethren cannot prove) but an Office, then the preaching of these Prophets is no warrant nor example for the preaching of any that are not Officers: Now although I might acquiesce here, for as much, as, if any assert that these were barely gifted men, it lies upon them to prove it; yet, ex abundanti, there is a reason given, whereby it doth more then probably appear, that these Prophets were Officers. In the mean time, let this be remembred, that if we could not prove that these preachers, 1 Cor. 14. were Officers (no more then they can prove that they were only gifted persons) yet our cause stands unshaken, and all that would follow in that case would be this, that this place must be laid aside, both by our Brethren, and by us, as not demonstrative to the point in hand.
This being premised, I come to our Argument, which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers, and (which is most considerable) placed before the Evangelists. I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath.
They say, Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words; seeing oft-times the worse is placed before the better, as Priscilla before Aquila, the woman before the man, p. 93.
And thus far it is true, that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity; and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first, sometimes last, so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded, and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted, especially when it is punctually observed, that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned, they are placed next after the Apostles, and that this is done so solemnly, and with such emphaticall words, 1 Cor. 12. 28. foreign, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, &c. And as it may fairly be collected, that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers, because generally they are placed first, and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them, because generally they are placed last, so also it is considerable (and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it, were it for their cause, as much as it is against it) that Prophets are generally placed in the second order.
For what they adde, If Prophets be Officers, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets, who did foretell of future events, as Acts 11. yet this hinders not, but this prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift, &c.
Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets, (that I may accommodate my discourse to our Brethrens conceptions) to foretell future events; for Iudas and Silas as Prophets, did exhort, Acts 15. 32.
2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets, the one by Office, the other by gift, as it is but a begging of the question, so it will by wise and indifferent Readers, be lookt upon but as subterfuge, and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles, two sorts of Evangelists, &c. the one by Office, the other by gift? It had been somewhat tollerable, if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesie, but not called Prophets (seeing, as our Brethren say, the doing of some Acts occasionally, as v. g. ones teaching occasionally, doth not denominate a man a teacher) but seeing they are also called Prophets; impartiall men will easily gather, that they are the same which are known by that name in other places. Thus much for the first Proposition; which being dispatched, I now come to the second, and shall try whether that succeed better in our Brethrens hands; and that is, That Prophesying is an ordinary gift, and still continuing in the Church. This they undertake to prove as followes:
Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use, and no Gospel Rule can be shewed for the repeal or ceasing of it, p. 96.
Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two waies. 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it: or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it. Who knows not that the gift of Tongues, praediction, and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased? and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus, because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them.
Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary, Ergo still continuing.
Ans. The proposition is altogether needlesse, for if it be ordinary that is sufficient, and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provinciall Assemby (that this Prophesying is extraordinary) And therefore let us hear what they have to say, or what they alledge to prove it ordinary.
For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to, p. 97. I shall only say this, Wise men before they had made such a bold charge (especially making use of the dreadfull Name of the Lord) would have understood the grounds of it, which indeed are none at all: for the Authours of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici, were only three or four reverend City Ministers, whereof one or two are since gone out of the City; and, not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth: And being different persons, though agreeing in the main of this controversie; it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance: however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose, i. e. that the gift was extraordinary. Besides, I suppose, our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction, for these two may very well consist together, to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift, and yet the ordinary Pastours of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation: And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church, it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastours of that Church quoad exercitium muneris: And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin. regim▪ affirm, and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts, i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastours of that Church and yet both grant, that for their gifts they were extraordinary; and that is the thing now in question: So that in stead of a contradiction feigned, here is a real agreement found out; all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose: and all asserting, 1. That these Prophets were Officers. 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts: To which their special relation to Corinth, and residence there, and doing the acts of Pastours is no more a prejudice, than it was to the Apostles, who though they were extraordinary Officers, yet some of them at some times were as Pastours to some Churches, &c. which occasioned that apprehension that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, &c.
That this Prophesying was ordinary, our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove.
Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary, p. 100.
Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers. Extraordinary Officers, 1. Must act orderly. 2. Must speak in a known language, 3. Must speak to edification. 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers, yea people also, as the Provincial Assembly fully proves; of which our Brethren take no notice: Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine.
Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary, i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation, and comfort.
Ans. 1. This also was the work of Apostles. 2. The work indeed was ordinary, but the manner of doing it was extraordinary, in as much as these did it infallibly, and by immediate revelation.
Arg. 3. But here is no mention of extraordinary work, of a gift of praediction, which is required to all extraordinary Prophets, but the contrary is intimated, and this prophesying is here said to be, not a sign for them that believe not (which praediction of events is) but for them that believe.
Ans. 1. Date non concesso, that these Prophets had not the gift of prediction, that no way hinders but they might be extraordinary Officers, for besides this they had another extraordinary gift, to wit, a gift of infallible teaching by immediate revelation. Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of praediction, that we read of, and yet I hope our Brethren will give them their passe for extraordinary Officers.
2. For my part I am prone to conceive (and let our Brethren disprove it) that the praediction of future events was rather a priviledge indulged to some New Testament Prophets, than common to all Prophets: The gift of miracles was a gift bestowed upon Prophets, and yet some wanted it; for Iohn (though a Prophet) yet did no miracle, Ioh. 10. 41. However, the great and principal work of these New Testament Prophets (and the old also) was preaching, &c. and therefore (although these Prophets, 1 Cor. 14 had the gift of praediction) yet it is no wonder that the title of prophesying should be appropriated to the most common principal,Analogum per se positum sum…ur pro famosiore analogata. and famous part of the work, which is preaching.
3. And how poor an evidence is this to prove, that these Prophets could not foretell future events, because it is not mentioned in this Chapter? the rather because he here speaks of the Prophets, not in relation to unbeleevers (for whose-sake the gift of prediction was given) but in relation to beleevers, and to the Church, and concerning the ordering of the work of prophesying or preaching in and to the Church-assembly.
4. We readily grant all which can be proved from this place, which is only this, that the preaching of these Prophets (for it is that act of the Prophets which is here called prophesying) is not for them that believe not, but for them that beleeve: It is not said, that these Prophets were given not for a sign to them that beleeve not, &c. (which had been more to the purpose) but that, that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe, &c.
5. If they had not that particular extraordinary gift of praediction, yet had they divers other extraordinary gifts, as that of Tongues, and the interpretation of them, &c. and that was sufficient to make the persons extraordinary, though they wanted some other extraordinary gift.
Arg. Publick Prophesying extraordinary was allowed to women, Luke 2. 36, 38. But this publick Prophesying was not allowed to women, v. 34. let your women keep silence; Therefore this publick Prophesying was ordinary p. 102.
Ans. That extraordinary Prophesying was allowed to women in publick, either in the old or new Testament, hath been often said and supposed; but never yet could I see it proved; nor can one instance be given of it, that I know of, to wit, that any woman did preach in a publick Assembly; and there lies the stresse: Anna might speak to all, i. e. severally, as they came by turnes to the Temple, and so might Priscilla occasionally speak privately, as she had opportunity: And indeed we read that when she preached, she chose to do it privately, Act. 18. But neither of them in a publick Assembly.
But that Argument is so fully handled by others, that I shall not need to dilate upon it here.
And thus we have seen how infirm our Brethrens Arguments are, which are brought to prove that this Prophesying was ordinary.
In the next place I should come to lay down Arguments to prove that it was extraordinary: I shall not insist upon all the Arguments used to prove it: Some were proposed by Dr. Collings, and are by him vindicated in his last piece; others I dare venture to stand upon their own legs, and refer the comparing of them and the Answers here given to any indifferent Reader: And besides, Dr. Collings hath eased me of that burden.
This only I take notice of, that this Prophesying was by revelation, v. 26. Every one (i. e. of you Prophets) hath a Psalme, a Doctrine, a Tongue, a revelation, an interpretation. And v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
To which our Brethren answer two things.
1. They say, All these enumerated were not extraordinary: A Doctrine is ordinary; the ordinary Elders have a Doctrine, p. 103.
Reply. It is true of ordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine; it is true also of extraordinary Officers, they had a Doctrine, but not both in the same way; in the one it was extraordinary, in the other ordinary, so that from the bare mention of a Doctrine, it can neither be collected that that Doctrine was ordinary, nor that it was extraordinary, but that must be gathered from the circumstances of the place; and for this place, whereas the Office here spoken of is extraordinary (as we have proved) and the word Doctrine is at least ambiguous: It is more probable that this Doctrine is meant of an extraordinary kind (as the rest are which are there enumerated) than that it is meant of an ordinary Doctrine, when nothing else here spoken of s ordinary.
2. They say that the word revelation is somtimes taken for a revelation in an ordinary way, that is by the word, &c.
Ans. That is readily granted, and needed no proof, but it must be added that somtimes also it is taken in an extraordinary sense; so that now we are to enquire which way it is to be taken here, and which way the circumstances of the text restrain that common word: Now that it is meant of extraordinary revelation four things will procure belief with unbyassed Readers. 1. That the word is of the present tense, foreign, if it be revealed, not if it have been revealed, as it should have been, for the revelation of the word was past. 2. The posture in which it is revealed, when he sitteth by. 3. The effect of such a revelation, that it gives a stop to the others discourse: 4. That this revelation was not common to all the Church, but peculiar to these Prophets, and not common to all the Prophets neither, but peculiar to one, foreign, some one that sitteth by, and therefore surely it cannot be the revelation by the Word, which is common to all the Prophets, yea, all the Church. Nor is there any weight in what is further objected by our Brethren, that if this revelation should command silence to a Prophet speaking by immediate revelation, then the same Spirit should clash with it self: For though these Prophets did speak by immediate revelation, yet not so as that they did not at all exercise their ordinary gifts, or that they never spake as ordinary men: For even the Prophets and Apostles themselves, sometimes spake their own private opinions: And why might not these Prophets after the delivery of their revelation amplifie it, and open it according to their private opinion, by the help of their excellent, though ordinary gifts? which (though they were much to be valued and respected) yet well might be corrected by some immediate revelation manifested to another.
But (say they) this requiring the first to hold his peace, doth not necessarily forbid his proceeding so far as he intended, or command a sudden silence, &c. but only commandeth so to contract a mans discourse, as there may be opportunity for others.
And I confesse nothing is more easie then to dictate; This is soon said, but if you ask our Brethren for a proof, I am afraid they will stick in the mire: In the mean time, they having offered no proof for it, must needs allow me to rely as much upon my affirmation, which yet is not mine, but the Apostles, as they upon their negation. It is plain from the words, that it was a thing that fell out beyond expectation, and therefore is brought in conditionally, If any thing be revealed, which condition was needlesse, if the revelation spoken of was ordinary and common. And this may be abundantly sufficient for the Vindication of this place, from which I may justly expect this fruit, that ingenuous men of a contrary mind to us, may abate some of their confidence, and see cause to make a further enquiry into this point then yet they have made.
And this may suffice for Answer to their Arguments, whereby they attempt to prove that gifted persons may preach. Let us now see, whether we have not more convincing Arguments to prove that they may not preach: Albeit this must needs be said, that in course of disputations, it is not incumbent upon us to prove the Negative, but upon them to prove the Affirmative, Asserenti incumbit probatio. So that I might here take take up, and having shewn the invalidity of their Arguments, I might supersede further trouble: And this memorandum I shall leave upon the file, that this Assertion of our Brethren, That unordained persons may preach ordinarily, is neither commanded by any Gospel precept, nor countenanced by any Gospel example (which hitherto hath been alleadged.) But because our Arguments, whereby we have proved our Assertion, are assaulted by our Brethren, it will be convenient to say something by way of Vindication.