Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 9 – Response to chapter 10
CHAP. IX.
ANd to this purpose they urge eight Arguments, which to me still seem very considerable, and my perswasion is, that if any judicious man of another minde, could but redeem himself from the prevailing power of prejudice, and duly ponder our Arguments and their Answers, he will find that all the assaults they make against them are vain and ineffectual: But it shall not be taken upon my word.
I will 1. propound our Arguments. 2. Take notice of their Answers; wherein I promise them not disingenuosly to conceal or neglect any thing wherein their strength lies. 3. I shall adde something (where it is needfull) for the vindication of those Arguments.
Arg. 1. That work, for the doing of which, God hath designed special Officers of his own, neither ought, nor may be done by any others; But God hath designed special Officers for this work of preaching.
The minor is granted; but all the doubt lies about the major, and that is the Proposition which our Brethren deny, and they give three instances to the contrary; Prayer is the special work of Ministers, Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves to prayer: And so is exhorting and reproving, &c. Tit 1. 5, &c. Distribution of worldly goods is the Deacons work, and yet others may Pray, Exhort and Rebuke, give Almes, &c.
Reply 1. For Prayer, it is true, it is the duty of all men, and of Ministers more than others, but that it was a work for which the Office of the Ministry was appointed, neither doth this text assert, nor did ever any man dream, and so that is wholly impertinent to the case in hand: One may as well say, that the Office of the Ministry was designed for the work of hospitality, because they especially must be given to hospitality, 1 Tim. 3. 2. as to say, that it was designed for the work of prayer, because they especially must give themselves to prayer.
2. For the Deacons work, that is not barely the distribution of worldly goods, but the distribution of the Churches goods (which our Brethren here do either subtilly or unwarily, which I rather think, confound) and this latter none but the Deacon may do, so that this may be retorted upon them, that as the appointment of the Deacon for that work of distributing the Churches almes, is a sufficient reason to prove that no private man ought to do it, so also is the appointment of a Minister, for the work of preaching, a sufficient intimation that other persons may not undertake that work.
3. For that work of reproving and exhorting, they may do it, but privatly, not publickly.
Against this our Brethren object two things.
1. If an Officer rebuketh a member in private, this he doth as an Officer, so that the publicknesse of an act is not necessary to make it an act of Office.
Reply. This depends upon a meer mistake. It is one thing to say the publicknesse of the act of exhorting, &c. makes it an act of Office, or that a publick act is an act of Office, that we affirm. It is another thing to say that no act but a publick act is an act of Office (as our Brethren mistake it) this we affirm not, nor is it for our purpose to assert it; nay, we assert that an Officers private rebuke is an act of Office.
2. They say, If it be the different way and manner of acting, that maketh an act to be an act of Office, then their Argument concerns not the work it self, but the manner of working, and so all which it proves is this, that none ought to do the Officers work in the same manner as he doth it, i. e. not officially, and this we readily grant.
Reply. Our Argument concerns the work, but then it must be the work in question, and that our Brethren well know was not exhorting in general, but publick exhorting: But of this more hereafter. It must now be remembred, that the Provincial Assembly confirmed the major by three Arguments.
The first was this, Because God hath severely punished such as have done those works, for which he hath appointed special Officers, as Saul, Uzzah.
To this our Brethren Answer two things.
1. That these were cases of necessity, and so if they prove any thing, they prove that gifted men may not preach, no, not in a case of necessity, which is allowed by your selves.
Reply. The case is not parallel, nor is the necessity alike, of Preaching and Sacrificing; Preaching (as our Brethren will grant) is absolutely necessary to salvation, so is not Sacrificing; nor was Sacrificing necessary in that case for Israels deliverance (if God had denied an opportunity of sacrificing) I conceive the paralell will lie right between their sacrifices and our Sacraments, neither of which are necessary to salvation, necessitate medii. And hereby the Argument will receive further light and strength, i. e. Because God hath appointed peculiar Officers for the administration of our Sacraments (as well as their Sacrifices) therefore they ought not to be administred by persons out of Office, no, not in any case of a pretended necessity (forasmuch as there is no absolute and real necessity of either Sacrifices or Sacraments to salvation.) And thus far our Brethren must consent with us, unlesse they will turn grosse separatists, and allow a liberty also for gifted men to administer the Sacraments, which I am confident they will not.
2. They say the case is not alike; for there was an express prohibition of these acts to any, except Officers, Num. 4. 15. & 16. 40. Numb. 1. 5. & Numb. 18. 22, 23. The preaching of gifted men is not thus forbidden: And besides not only the manner but the matter of these workes were forbidden to others.
Reply. A thing may be prohibited two waies, either in expresse terms, or by solid consequence: I suppose our Brethren are far from that dotage which divers Anabaptists and Socinians run into, that we are not to be satisfied with Scripture consequences, but to look for express Scripture, as if men must not beleeve what God saith, unlesse he speak it in their way: There are many things confessedly unlawful, which are not prohibited in express terms, but only by some general rules and Scripture consequences: What if I should keep to the instance of Uzzah? who was punished not principally, at least not solely, because he did touch the Ark with his hands, but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders; which the Levites were to do: Now (I say) as in this case, Gods command that the Ark should be carried upon the Levites shoulders, was a command that it should be carried so only, and it was a prohibition to the Levites or any other, to carry it any other way; so in our case, Gods appointment of Officers to preach, is a prohibition to others to invade that work. Again, let me make this supposition (which no ingenuous man can disallow of,) Suppose that Paul had not expresly prohibited women to preach, I desire our Brethren to answer me, whether, in that case, it had been lawfull for gifted women to preach publickly or no: If they say yea, then I argue thus against them, that Paul doth not establish a new Law, but revives and interprets an old Law, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence—for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as saith the Law. So that it was forbidden by the Law before that time, and had been unlawful, though Paul had never prohibited it. If they say, no, then I argue thus, that an expresse prohibition is not necessary, for such there had not been in the case supposed, nor had women been prohibited any other way but thus, Preaching was committed unto certain men in authority, commissionated for that work: Ergo, it was prohibited to persons under authority, and because all women are under authority, therefore are they universally excluded from this work: I add further, that it is a granted case in the businesse of the Sacraments, the administration whereof is prohibited to all un-officed persons (our brethren themselves being Judges) and how prohibited? There is no more an expresse prohibition to restrain men from administring the Sacraments, then from preaching, but only it is therefore judged prohibited, because God had appointed Officers for the doing of that work, and therefore implicitly prohibited the doing of it by others; and surely the prohibition doth equally concern both preaching and administring the Sacraments by others, forasmuch as both the manner of prohibition is the same in both, and the reason of the prohibition, to wit, because Officers were appointed by God for those works: And thus I have vindicated the first proof of the major, wherein I have been the larger, because it is a principal point, and because what our Brethren excepted had some colour of reason, although I am not without hope, that our Brethren themselves by this time may see, that it was a colour only, and no substance.
2. The major was proved thus, That otherwise the Officers God hath appointed are made void, or at least unnecessary and insufficient.
To this they say, This will prove as strongly that Officers are unnecessary, at least to the work of private exhortation, seeing private Christians may do it.
Reply. It is very true, and naturally follows, that because private Christians may reprove privatly, therefore there needed no peculiar Officers to be set apart for that work of private reproving, and if that were the whole work of a Minister, there would need no Officers for the work of the Ministry: But because there is another, and an higher work of the Ministry, which private Christians may not do, i. e. the work of publick preaching, therefore it is that there are Officers appointed for it.
3. Hereby the order instituted by God in the Church is confounded.
To this they say, It is not. As a Fathers teaching of his children doth not destroy the order of Schoolmasters, nor take away the distinction between Master and Schollar, &c.
Reply. It is true that a Father teaching privately, doth not destroy the relation of a Schoolmaster and Schollar, but if Fathers did, and might promiscuously teach in a publick way, this would destroy, or at least much prejudice that comely order. In like manner, that a Father or any Christian teach others privatly, is no way prejudicial to publick teaching, but eminently subservient to it, and we heartily wish it were more conscientiously and diligently practised; but if publick teaching were promiscuously allowed to all gifted men (whether Masters or Schollars) surely this would be repugnant to the order instituted by Christ, that one member of Christs body should usurp the acts of another. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of the first Argument used by the Provincial Assembly.
The second Argument was this, No religious service may be performed by any persons not appointed, nor warranted thereunto: But persons gifted are not appointed nor warranted thereunto.
Our Brethren deny the minor, they say, gifted persons are appointed to preach. Against this, was argued as followeth, If they are appointed to preach, then every gifted man that preacheth not is guilty of a sin of omission. To this they answer, he is not guilty, if he want an opportunity, a call from others to exercise his gifts.
Reply. I would gladly know whether the Apostles had been excused if they had refused to preach at all, for want of a call from men to preach; What if both Magistrates and people had not desired them to preach, whether did this give them a supersedeas or no? If they say it did, I suppose many are not of their mind, I am sure for one, that was Peter, when he was not only not call'd to preach, but forbidden to preach, yet he accounted it his duty to preach, Act. 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather than men. If they say it did not discharge them from preaching, then I demand why it did not; surely all the account which can fairly be given of it must be this, They were by God appointed and obliged to preach, and therefore no men can dis-oblige them: And upon the same ground; if gifted men were appointed by God for that work, the negligence of men not desiring them, (provided they would permit or hear them) would not dis-ob…ige them: Add to this, that whatever gifts a man hath, he is bound to exercise them wherever he can (where he is not restrained, and put under some kind of impossibility of doing it) whether he be desired or no: A Christian having received a gift of private instruction, he is obliged to instruct persons not only when they desire him, but when they do not, whenever he can have conveniency and opportunity so to do: And in like manner (if our Brethren say true, that all gifted men as such, are appointed by God to preach) if a man have a gift of publick instruction, he is obliged to use it whenever he can be permitted so to do, and not only when others call him to the exercise of his gift. And this is the more forcible against them, because they reduce those preaching gifts unto the talents spoken of Mat. 25. which talents whoever useth not, is under a most dreadfull curse and commination: Now, as it is in other talents, if a man have received riches, honour, parts, interest, &c. he must use and exercise them for Gods glory, whether he be desired or no; so in like manner according to their hypothesis, his preaching talent must be laid out, whether the people desire it or no.
Our third Argument was this, No man may do the Office of a Magistrate or Deacon, who is not called to it: Ergo none may do the Office of a Minister, who is not called thereunto.
To this Argument they Answer divers things.
1. If this Argument hold, then, as no man that is no Magistrate, may do one act of the Magistrates, so no man that is not ordained, may do one act of the Minister, he may not preach once, though as a probationer, which is against our Brethrens own principles.
Ans. There is a double flaw in this discourse; For,
1. There is not Par ratio; there is not equal necessity of mens trials in order to both works: It is necessary a Minister should do the work of a Minister, viz. Preach in order to his Trial and Ordination to that work. But it is not necessary a man should do the work of a Magistrate in order to his trial, for his abilities may be fully known other waies.
2. In cases of necessity private men may do the work of the Magistrate: It is proper to the Magistrate to take away a mans life, and yet in a case of necessity, as if a private man be assaulted by a Rogue upon the high-way, it is lawfull for him, if he can, to take away his life.
2. They Answer, Care may be taken otherwaies, there may be approbation without Ordination.
Reply. It is true, men may devise twenty waies of their own, as indeed there is a marvellous pronenesse in men to set up their own devises in Gods worship; and whenever they are convinced of the necessity of using any means in order to an end, rather to contrive means and waies of their own, than to use such as God hath already appointed, which, I fear, is our Brethrens miscarriage here: God hath appointed an Ordination, and an examination and approbation in order to Ordination, and of Ordination the Scripture speaks more clearly and frequently, than of any other approbation; nor do I remember that ever it speaks of the approbation of any Preachers, but in order to Ordination; our Brethren have forsaken this Institution of God, and introduced a new device, of approbation without Ordination. And because the occasion here leads me to it, I cannot but take notice of one thing, whereas I am informed some persons, through carelesnesse or oscitancy, or wilfulnesse, or ignorance, have taken up this conceit, that an Approbation from the Commissioners appointed for the tryall of Publick Preachers, is a kind of Ordination, and may serve in stead of it: I would have them here to take notice, that this is not only false in it self, but against the very words of that Act whereby they are constituted, wherein an expresse protestation is made (as elsewhere hath been observed) That they themselves do not intend that this shall be taken as an Ecclesiasticall call, but only a Civil dispensation of the Magistrates right to particular places.
And whereas it was urged, that The work of the Ministry being a work of greater consequence and difficulty, than the work of the Magistrate or the Deacon, it requires greater care.
They Answer, Men may perform some works of greater consequence, who yet may not perform works of lesse consequence. To beleeve is an act of higher consequence, than to do the work of a Deacon, yet every Christian may beleeve.
Reply. This is a meer fallacy, for though beleeving is a work of greater difficulty and consequence in relation to a mans self, yet not in relation to the Church and other men, and that is it we are treating of; so that the work of beleeving is altogether impertinent in this place, for we are speaking of such works as relate to others, and wherein there is a care required in relation to others, but beleeving is a work confined to a mans self.
Our fourth Argument was this, None may administer the Sacraments who is uncalled; Therefore none may preach who is uncalled, for these two are joyned together in that Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. and preaching is the greater work, 1 Cor. 1. 17.
Our Brethren make many exceptions against this Argument.
1. They say it makes against us, For you (say they) separate between preaching and baptizing, you allow men to preach probation-wise, not to administer the Sacraments probation-wise.
Reply. The reason of the difference is apparent, Preaching probation-wise is simply necessary in order to their Approbation and Ordination, for the trial of their gifts, and so this preaching is in a case of necessity, and therefore allowable; but there is no necessity at all of trying their gifts by administring the Sacraments, seeing there are none of their gifts exercised there, but such as are fully discovered by their trial in preaching, &c.
2. They say, Matth. 28. is no Commission authorizing them either to preach or baptize, (that Commission they had afore, Mark 10. & Joh. 4.) and therefore could not now be constituted afresh.
Reply. 1. Give me leave however to propound it as my private opinion, though I shall not be positive in it, and I know there are some difficulties in the way, that the Apostles were indeed Officers before, but not Officers of the same kind, and therefore might well require another commission: If a man be a Captain in an Army, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Collonel, he must have a new Commission: If a man be a Deacon in a Church, he is an Officer; but if he be made a Minister, he needs a new Commission: If a man had been made a Pastour and Teacher in the Apostles daies, this man had been an Officer; but, if he had afterwards been made an Apostle, he had needed a new Commission: And this I take to be well-nigh a parallel to our case: For the Apostles it is true, were Officers before this, but I humbly conceive they were not Apostles before this; which I think will be probable by these three Considerations. 1. That an Apostle strictly so called, was a new Testament Officer, and therefore such an Office was not in being before the new Testament began: But the new Testament did not begin till the death of Christ (as all intelligent Divines grant) for that was it which rent the vail, and abolished the Jewish pedagogy. 2. They were not Apostles properly and formally, untill they had Apostollicall gifts: But these gifts they had not before the death of Christ. 3. They wanted universality of jurisdiction (which was the constant character of an Apostle) nay indeed, so far were they from having a jurisdiction over all Nations before that time, that they had not jurisdiction over all the Jews, nor (to speak strictly) over any of the Jews, for as much as they were, till Christ death, subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priests, that being not taken away but by the death of Christ: And surely it is something strange to fancy them to be Apostles without any jurisdictions. I conclude therefore, they were rather Prophets, or extraordinary Teachers, than Apostles, (and so Mr Firmin affirms of Paul before Act. 13. Mat. 10.) and had not their Commission as Apostles, till Matth. 28. 19, 20.
2. Put case that Mat. 28. is not a formal Commission, yet it must needs be granted, that it is a renewing and confirming, and enlarging of their former Commission, and therein their work is afresh proposed to them, and enjoyned upon them, and that is sufficient for our purpose; for this work is double, preaching and administring the Sacraments, which being equally imposed upon them, must by like reason be equally restrained to them, unlesse better grounds can be shewn to the contrary, than have yet been given.
3. They say, It is denied by some that preaching is a greater work than baptizing. The sealing of a Deed is a greater work than the writing of it; every Clerk may write it, but only the Conveyancer can seal it.
Ans. The Question is not, whether preaching or baptizing be greater in regard of the dignity of the work? but in regard of the difficulty of it: As in the instance proposed; The sealing of the Deed is a work of greater dignity, but the writing of the Deed is a work of more difficulty, and therefore belongs to him who is appointed for such works, and who hath more skill in the management of such works: So in this case, preaching which answers to the writing of the Deed, being a work of far greater difficulty, than the applying of the seal, it was requisite that greater or at least equal care should be taken in it, and that it should be managed by none but such as are both fitted for, and appointed to the work.
The fifth Argument was this, To usurp authority is a sin; But Preaching is an act of Authority, and therefore for persons not in Office to preach, is to usurp Authority, and so to sin, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 7. The losse is blessed of the greater: Women must not preach, because they must not usurp Authority, 1 Tim. 2. In Preaching the key of the kingdom of Heaven is used, which is an authoritative act.
Against this our Brethren offer divers exceptions, some whereof are impertinent, and some frivolous: All that hath any appearance of probability, I shall take notice of.
1. They say, Preaching is no act of Authority, for if a man preach to Heathens, where no Church is; How can he usurp authority over the Church?
Reply. True, he cannot usurp authority over the Church, but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth, when Paul preached to Heathens, it was an authoritative act, no lesse than when he preached to the Church: He preached as an Ambassadour to one as well as to the other: And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens, or such as are yet unreconciled, preacheth as in Christs stead, it can be no other than an act of authority.
2. They say, There may be other waies to give authority to men to preach, besides Ordination.
Reply. Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius, foreign, to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence: Ordination, we know, and there are clear Scriptures warranting that, and much more clear and undoubted for that, than for Election (as hath been often observed) but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorizing men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination, we know none, and if our Brethren know any, they should do well to inform us.
3. For Heb 7. They say, Indeed he that blesseth by an original, inherent power, as Christ doth, he is greater than he that is blessed, and of such a blessing the Text speaketh; but he that blesseth Ministerially, and instrumentally is not alwaies greater than he that is blessed.
Reply. This is very grosse, and contrary to the Text, which evidently speaks of Melchizedek, who blessed only Ministerially (and not by any original power) and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle alledgeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed, and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek, it were wholly impertinent to the present cause, which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
4. They say, There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man, so the Text runs: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, 1 Tim. 2. 12.
Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture, wherein it is so familiar a thing, to use a conjunction disjunctive, or a word disjoyning one thing from another, when indeed the one explains the other: Shall any, who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, thence infer that these sorcerers, &c. are not the dogs there intended, because they are distinguished from them? This would be plainly childish. And (to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction) Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel, he saith, For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Iesus Christ; where the latter is not distinct from, but expositive of the former, for how could he receive it from man, any other way then by being taught it?
2. For their phrase in this place, the Apostle hath so hem'd it in on both sides with an exegesis, that no rational man can doubt of it: On the one side of it teaching is forbidden; on the other side silence is enjoyned: and nothing can be more evident, then that he speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching, and is opposed to silence. And for what they adde, That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man, i. e. her husband, not over the Church. Answer, This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush: For, the man here is not to be understood singularly, for her husband (there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense) but indefinitely, for any man: For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general, not husband and wife in particular: And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands (which I beleeve our Brethren will not deny) then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church, not over an husband. To which may be added, that the authority here spoken of, is not an Oeconomicall, but a Politicall, an Ecclesiasticall authority; not an authority in the Family, but in the Church; not an authority assumed in some Family administration, but in a Church affair. If it be further said (for I shall improve their Argument to the highest) that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women, allows it to the men; I Answer, It no way follows, no more then it follows, that the French Laws, when they prohibit women from usurping authority, or wielding the Scepter, do allow it to all men; or then it would follow, if a Law were made, that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation, that therefore every man ought to do it, which is so far from being true, that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also, but all others untill they were called to it.
3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrestings of the Text, a parallel place will put an end to duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence—it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, as saith the Law: Whence the inference is plain and undeniable, that to speak, i. e. in the Church, is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection: And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women, therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach, for my part, this is so clear, that he that shall resist such evidence, I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man.
I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things, which concern our present controversie.
1. That it is not only constant preaching, but even occasionall preaching which is here forbidden them: And so, by a parity of reason, gifted men unless in case of necessity, and with order to trial for Ordination, which also is necessary, as hath been argued, may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly, is as clearly, though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition, as to preach constantly.
2. That it is the work, and not the manner of working, which is here forbidden: The very work of publick preaching is here forbidden them: This I say, to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren, that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons, i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively, yet the work they may do: And why may not I have the same liberty, and apply it to the case of women, and say that they may do the work, although they cannot do it in the same manner, i. e. with authority: If I should say so, it would be easie to silence me, by saying, that the very act of preaching is spoken of, as an act of authority, and that may justly silence them too.
The sixth Argument was this, The Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching. Jer. 23. 21, 22. They are reproved not onelyonly for preaching false doctrine, but for preaching without a call, for running without being sent.
To this our Brethren return this strange Answer; That these were Prophets rightly called by God; and they are blamed for this that being Prophets they did not prophesie right things pag. 128.
Reply. This is a little too grosse, to say, they are by God called to be Prophets, of whom God professeth, They ran but he sent them not: Whether shall we believe God or our Brethren? And this is the more considerable, because it was not with Prophets as it is with ordinary Gospel-Ministers (who besides the delivery of a message to them from God, must also have a solemn mission and authorization for the work) for the Prophets had no other call then this, or at lest, this was Gods usuall way of calling them, he immediately inspired them with an extraordinary message: And when God vouchsafed to send such a message, that was taken for an authorization of them, or a call to be a Prophet, as plainly appears in the case of Samuel, 1 Sam. 3. where after God had delivered a message to and by Samuel, it followes, v. 20. And all Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord: And therefore on the contrary seeing these Prophets were such as had not any message at all from God that we read of) thereby it is evident that they were not Prophets, and he that faith, they were such, as he asserts it gratis, so it is plaine, it is but an opinion taken up foreign to gratify their cause. And I am perswaded had not our Brethren been hurried into this fancy by the favourable aspect it hath to their doctrine, they would have rejected it as wholly ridiculous. Whereas they urge that saying, If they had stood in my counsell, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, but the Lord would not have entailed his blessing upon the labours of false Prophets. I answer. 1. As the words are here rendred, they no way oppose our doctrine, for, The standing in Gods Counsell, and speaking Gods Words, implies a call, as hath been shewed; as if he had said If they had waited till I had sent them, and delivered my message to them, then they might have expected a blessing. 2. It must be observed that there is another reading proposed by some learned men, which as it is very conformable to the Hebrew Text, so it is more probable in it self, and more consonant to the context, to read it thus, If they had stood in my counsel, i. e. if they had stood till I had sent them, &c. they would have profited this people and they would have turned them from their evil way; whereas now they did encourage them in it; so that he brings in this as an evidence, that they were false Prophets.
The seventh Argument used by the Provinciall Assembly was this: The Ministers of Christ have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine, Cal. 1. Joh. 3. 27, 28. Luk. 20. 2.
To this they say: 1. If it prove a call, yet it proves not that this call is ordination.
Ans. That is not the businesse, to speak of this or that particular call, (that is proved in another proposition) but onelyonly in the generall to shew, that over and besides gifts, some other call, mission, or designation from God, either immediate, or mediate, is required; and this is sufficient against our Brethren, who assert, that any man having gifts, is eo nomine, called by God to preach, and his gifts alone sufficiently warrant him, though he have no other call.
2. They say, The reason why Paul proves his mission, was but for his doctrines sake, and although it was necessary for Paul to prove his immediate call; and to prove the divinenesse of the doctrines of the Gospel, yet there is no such reason to make it necessary to prove a mediate call.
Reply. 1. I do not understand that the proof of Pauls extraordinary mission was necessary to prove the divineness of his doctrine, for then, those ordinary officers that preached in that time could not have proved the divinenesse of their doctrine. Besides, there are, and were diverse other excellent and sufficient mediums to prove his doctrine by, he proved it out of the Law and the Prophets, by miracles, by ocular witnesses of Christs resurrection, &c.
It is true he proves his mission for his doctrines sake, and that makes not against us at all, but for us, seeing if Paul had preached without a call, he had given just occasion to suspect his doctrine and to doubt of the certainty of it, (because they that reject Gods warrant to the office, have no reason to promise to themselves Gods blesin the work) And therefore it followes strongly, that much more ought Ministers, who have far lesse gifts then Paul had, to prove their mission and call, or else they must give men leave to doubt of the certainty of their doctrine. It is true (what our Brethren say) that, the proofe of an ordinary call is no sufficient argument to prove the truth of the doctrine, seeing ordinary lawfull Ministers may erre: But yet when a man cannot prove his call, that may render his doctrine doubtfull, and the reason is, because, Bonum oritur ex integris, malum ex quolibet defectu.
To make a mans preaching regular many things must concurre, he must be called, he must preach agreeable to the Word, &c. But the want of any one of these will make it irregular.
Other things they say, but because they are triviall, I wave them, as not having such store of time as to throw it away to no purpose.
The eighth and last Argument was this. That work may not be performed which cannot be performed in faith: But preaching by a gifted Brother, not called, &c. cannot be done in faith; for, 1. Such have no precept to preach. 2. There is no precept for people to hear them or maintaine them. 3. They have no promise of assistance, of protection, of successe, &c.
To which our Brethren say something: But because they adde nothing of any weight, except that which hath been said by themselves before, and by us answered; to avoid Tautologies, I shall ease my self, and Reader, of the trouble of following them: There is one thing onelyonly which is very observable, that they say nothing as to that which is most considerable in the argument, which is the matter of maintenance; which I must desire them seriously, and conscientiously to peruse, and let them take it in this form, and give me leave to improve it.
All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance: But all gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers.
The Major is the maine thing liable to doubt, and therefore I shall prove it. Either all Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance, or onelyonly such Preachers as are in office-relation to those to whom they preach, and of whom they challenge maintenance: But not onelyonly such Preachers may challenge maintenance as are in office-relation to them; Therefore all Scripture-Preachers may challenge this maintenance.
The Minor (for that onelyonly is liable to exception) I prove thus: The Apostles (say our Brethren) were onelyonly in office-relation to the Church, and other Teachers are onelyonly in office-relation to their particular Churches (as they assert) But these might challenge maintenance from others.
The disciples Luke 10. had no office-relation to them to whom they preached; they were no officers in the Jewish Church, and the Christian Church was not then erected, and yet for their very work they may require maintenance. v. 7. And in the same house remaine eating and drinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
And Paul, where ever he sowes spirituals (though it be among heathens) he may require carnals, 1 Cor. 9. And generally in Scripture, the maintenance is rather thrown upon the work then upon the office. The double honour, 1 Tim. 5. 17. and the high estimation, 1 Thes. 5. 13. is for their works sake. And the oxe that treadeth out the corn (though it may be he treadeth not out his own Masters but another mans corn) ought not to be muzled: I would desire our brethren to answer me this question: Suppose a man will go into Wales to preach the Gospel, Whether in that case, they do not believe the people are obliged to give him carnalls for his spiritualls? If they affirme it (as I believe they have too much ingenuity to deny it, and the foregoing places fully evince it) then we have gained thus much, that the maintenance is not due onelyonly to such as are office-wise related to those to whom they preach, but to all Scripture-Preachers, which was the thing to be proved, and so we have secured the Major.
For the Minor, it is needless to spend time about it, for our brethren grant it, and besides it speakes for it self: For if all gifted men be bound to preach (as our brethren assert) and if in Churches, many men are, and all ought to covet to be so gifted (which also they assert) then the maintenance of such would be both absurd and impossible.
And thus much shal suffice for the vindication of the Provinciall Assemblies Arguments, to prove that none ought to Preach without Ordination: And so I have done with the principall Question: OnelyOnly that the Reader may be able more judiciously to compare things together I shall present him with an foreign, or enumeration of the Arguments on both sides.
The Arguments alledged by them to prove that unordained men may preach.
I am the more willing to propound all their Arguments together, because I would not take them at advantage, but set the best glosse upon their cause, for, it oft times falls out, that, quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant, those Arguments which when they are pull'd asunder, have but little strength in them, being united together, seem considerable; so that if their cause have any reall strength in it, we shall see it here, when the arrowes are all put together in one bundle, or else we may conclude, that there is neither strength nor truth in it.
Their first Argument is this. Election must go before Ordination (which they take for granted, though it never was proved) But a person must Preach before Election and therefore before Ordination, and so one not yet Ordained may Preach: So that their Argument is this: Because a man unordained may Preach in a case of necessity, i. e. when he is to be tried for Election or Ordination, therefore he may Preach where there is no necessity.
Arg. 2. Gifted men unordained are▪ commanded to Preach. And here because Peter, 1 Pet. 4. 9, 10, 11. commands every man to exercise his gift they inferre from thence, that this gift must needs include preaching (though it may as well relate to hospitality) and that this gift must needs be exercised in a publick way, by such as have no further call thereunto.
Arg. 3. They argue from examples, Because Apollos (who was a man extraordinarily indowed, and an Officer 1 Cor. 1. 12.) spake publickly to divers Iews, though not gathered together in a Church assembly; and because the scattered Saints (who it is doubtful whether they were officers or no) in a case of persecution and necessity spake occasionally of the things of God to persons they met with, therefore any gifted men may ordinarily, and without a case of necessity preach publickly in a Church Assembly.
Arg. 4. Because some persons, who are called by the name of Officers, Prophets, and therefore may well be concluded to be in Office, because such being inriched with extraordinary gifts did Prophesie, therefore persons who are unquestionably no Officers, and whose gifts are but ordinary, may preach.
And this is bonâ fide the whole strength of their opinion, which, whether it be of sufficient force to transport a man beyond the sentiment or judgement of the Church, in all ages, of the generality of the reformed Churches of the present ages, of the far greater part of learned and godly divines among us: I desire our brethren, and all that are concerned in it, in the fear of God to consider.
And now let us see whether we cannot give a better account of our assertion, and whether it doth not stand upon a firmer basis.
The Arguments alledged by us, to prove that unordained men may not Preach.
Arg. 1. None may Preach lawfully, unlesse (besides their gifts) they have a mission from God, Rom. 10.
Arg. 2. Neither Aaron, no nor the Lord Jesus would undertake their offices, nor-do any work of their offices, untill; over and above their excellent gifts, they had received from God a call and designation thereunto. And therefore persons farre inferiour in excellency and gifts ought not upon the account of their gifts, either undertake any office, or any work of any office, without a further call thereunto; nor are they by 1 Pet. 4. or any other place obliged to it.
Arg. 3. Gospel-Preachers are called by names importing an office: Embassadors, Stewards, &c. And therefore such Preachers are onelyonly officers, for names must answer to things.
Arg. 4. Gifts and calling, are constantly distinguished.
5. Diverse rules are laid down to guide and caution men in the admission of persons to the office of Preaching the Gospel, all which, are superfluous, if gifted men are, eonomine, warranted to Preach.
6. To allow the Preaching of unordained men, opens a door to all confusion.
7. God hath punished such as (though sufficiently gifted and qualified for the work they did) undertook to do a work, to which they were not called, as Uzzah, Saul, Uzziah.
8. None may performe any religious service to God, but such as are appointed, or otherwise warranted thereunto: But all gifted men are not appointed to preach, for then they sinne if they neglect it, &c.
9. None may do the work of a Magistrate or a Deacon, who is not called to it, and therefore none may, without a call, do the work of a Minister, which is a work of far greater difficulty and more importance.
10. None may administer the Sacraments, because he is gifted, unlesse withall he be solemnly set apart for the work. Ergo none but such an one may preach, for as much as God hath joyned both these together.
11. Preaching is an act of authority, and therefore must not be done by such as are under authority, by such as are not officers.
12. Scripture reproves uncalled men for Preaching.
13. Christs Ministers have been alwayes carefull to prove their Calling as well as their Doctrine.
14. Gifted men uncalled cannot Preach in Faith, neither are they commanded to Preach, nor People to hear them, &c.
15. All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance, But all Gifted men, though Preaching, cannot challenge maintenance: Therefore they are not Scripture-Preachers.
The Tenth Chapter concerns Doctor Collings, and is by him answered.