The Shepherds Wanderings Discovered, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards foure next main Arguments are weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and found too light.
I Am come now to the ſecond argument (which you call a maine one.
That it is no where forbidden in the word of God, and then it cannot be unlawfull.
Your Logick is this.
What is not forbidden to be done is not unlawfull:
But the ordinary preaching of gifted uncalled men in a conſtituted Church is not forbidden, Ergo. Arg. 2
As you deliver your mind we muſt be forced firſt to diſtinguiſh, then to anſwer: 1. A thing is forbidden either generally or ſpecially, either directly or by conſequence.
If you meane that what is no way forbidden in Scripture, neither by any generall precept, nor by any particular precept, neither directly, nor by conſequence, is not unlawfull, then we grant you that what is not forbidden in that ſenſe is not unlawfull. But every thing not commanded or allowed is in that ſenſe forbidden, for Rev. 22.18. It is forbidden to adde any thing to the word of God.
But then we deny your Minor, and ſay, that the ordinary preaching of perſons uncalled publikely in conſtituted Churches or publike aſſemblies, if they be ſuch as have not the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt (which are now ceaſed) is forbidden.
1. For how ſhall they preach except they be ſent, Ro. 10.15. and no man takes this honour to himſelf.
2. It is no where commanded nor allowed, therefore implicitly forbidden.
3. Conſequentially they are forbidden, for it is an act of office which they are (by your own confeſſion) forbidden Math. 28.18, 19.
…. If you meane by not forbidden, not forbidden in ſo many words, we deny your Major, and ſay it doth not follow a thing is lawfull, becauſe it is not forbidden in ſo many words. For upon this ſcore the Surples, the Croſſe in Baptiſme, bowing at the name of Jeſus: in ſhort, moſt of the Popiſh ceremonies are not thus forbidden.
But you ſay, this duty is alike neceſſary with prayer, and you know not any reaſon why the ſame rules and liberties ſhould not be granted in one as the other, that it be done in all places, and at all times and all manner of wayes, 1 Tim. 2.8. Eph. 6.18. 1 Theſ, 3.10.
1. We grant you that expounding of Scripture is neceſſary, but it is not alike neceſſary for every private Chriſtian to expound Scripture as to pray, Prayer is a piece of naturall worſhip, Preaching a piece of Inſtituted worſhip, and we muſt keep to the Inſtitution, God hath bid all pray, he hath not bid all preach.
2. The places of Scripture you quote prove nothing for preaching onelyonly, but for praying, which none denies you; yet you ſet your Scriptures as if they ſhould prove both, but there is no ſuch matter.
Your third argument is this.
That the word doth command it, for it doth every where command to exhort,Pag. 32. warne, teach, comfort, reprove, edifie one another, and this cannot be done without the opening and application of Scripture, therefore it is commanded, for it is an undeniable rule; that when any thing is commanded, that alſo is commanded, without which the other thing cannot be done.
To bring your argument into forme it muſt be thus.
That which is commanded is lawfull, that is unqueſtionably true. But the ordinary preaching and expounding of Scriptures by perſons meerely gifted, not called to the office in publike aſſemblies and conſtituted Churches is commanded. Ergo. This I deny Sir.
You prove it thus:
Where the End is commanded, all neceſſary meanes is commanded: but exhorting, warning, teaching, reproving, edifying one another is an end commanded, and the ordinary preaching and exp unding Scripture by perſons meerely gifted not called to the office in publike aſsemblies, and conſtituted Churches, is the neceſſary meanes to that end? therefore this is commanded.
1: To this I anſwer, Sir, that I grant God hath commanded private perſons to comfort, reprove, exhort, edifie one another, this is an end commanded.
2. That God hath allowed, yea and commanded them the uſe of neceſſary meanes to this end, without which the end could not be attained.
3. I ſay, that although by publike preaching this end is promoted, yet this is not the onelyonly neceſſary meanes; but Chriſtians may be edified by their brethren without this, and therefore it doth not follow this is commanded them.
4. Through the ignorance of the preachers, this more probably would be a meanes to pervert them: 2 Pet. 3.16.
5. This argument would prove, that they are command…d to adminiſter the Sacraments too, and do all paſtorall acts; for they are commanded, ſay you, to edifie one another, and theſe are meanes of edification.
6. This argument would prove, that all Saints though not gifted nor any wayes proved or approved, may preach and doe all other paſtorall acts, for they are all bound to edifie one another, and theſe are meanes in order to this end. By this time (Sir) I believe you underſtand your own fallacy. For what you ſay, that the Scriptures have enjoyned theſe duties, and no where reſtrained time, place, or manner. I anſwered that before: there muſt be a time and place too, Sir, obſerved, or elſe you may prove they are bound to preach, when the Miniſter is praying and preaching, as well as what you doe, and for the manner you your ſelf have ſet downe one, p. 25. and pretended to bring Scripture for it. You ſay you
Know no reaſon why they may not ſpeak publikely by exhortation to men, as well as in prayer and praiſe to God.
I will tell you Sir. 1. Prayer and praiſe are both pieces of naturall worſhip, preaching a piece of inſtituted worſhip; in performance of which you muſt keep to the inſtitution. 2. The Scripture doth not ſo fully prove, nor indeed at all prove your duty of publike preaching. 3. By this argument the vileſt men in the world may, yea and are bound to preach for they are bound to pray, Acts 8.22.
Your fourth maine argument as you call it is this.
It being forbidden for women to preach publikely in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. It is ſtrongly implied that it is permitted for men to doe it. As the forbidding of certain perſons the entry into the Congregation of the Lord doth neceſſarily imply, that all others not forbidden might enter otherwiſe that prohibition of the Apoſtle had been alogether impertinent and uſeleſſe. For there were at that time no women in office, but extraordinary propheteſses, who did and might ſpeake publikely &c.
Your argument is this.
The Apoſtle forbidding onelyonly of women to teach and prophecy gives liberty to all men to expound Scriptures publikly, but women are forbidden to prophecy or teach publikely, Ergo. 1 Cor. 13 34. 1 Tim. 2.12.
If any reaſonable ſatisfaction would have ſerved this argument, and the authors and the Abetters of it, it would never have come halting on to the ſtage againe: I know of twice it hath been beaten off. The Browniſts appears with it firſt, holy Mr. Rutherford knockt it downe, in his due right, p. 301. Chillenden brought it on againe, the Author of the Booke called Church-members ſet in joint, knockt it downe the ſecond time, p. 30. of that Booke, to it therefore hath beene already anſwered.
It will infer a liberty for all men as well as gifted men, Church-members ſet in joynt, 308. Rutherford, due Right, 301.and if you put in (if they be gifted) why may we not put in if they be ordained.
2. It will infer that all men may adminiſter the Sacraments too, becauſe all women are forbidden.
3. It is to be underſtood of women that had, or pretended to have the gift of prophecy. This the Author of the aforeſaid Booke proves, becauſe it is not ſaid foreign, but foreign; which particle foreign, as he notes from Scaliger, is determinative.
But to this third anſwer,Gilleſpy, Miſcell. Qu. p. 75. Filodexter Tranſilvanus, p. 30. Rutherford, due Right, p. 302. that women propopheteſſes might prophecy publikely; ſo it could not be meant of them, for they might ſpeake publikly. So ſaid the Browniſts, ſo ſaith Chillenden. But it is anſwered by Gilleſpy, Miſcell. Queſt. p. 75. by Mr. Rutherford, p. 302. of his due right of Preſbytery, by Filodexter Tranſylvanus, in the Book before named, p. 30. that it cannot be proved that women propheteſſes propheſied publikely in Goſpell Churches: nor do any Scriptures prove it: ſee what they ſay ſeverally to this cavill.
4. It is anſwered by Mr. Rutherford, that the Lawes of France forbidding women to fit on the Throne of France, doth not therefore prove every Frenchman may. To this now this Gentleman replies.
That the law forbidding women, doth tolerate any man that hath right, and ſo our gifted Brother hath.
This is a begging the queſtion: we queſtion whether they have right or no, you prove if they have right they may: that is, if they have right, they have right. Pretty Logick.
5. To what you ſay, that the forbidding certaine perſons to enter into the Congregation, Deut: 23. allowes all other to enter.
I deny that; it allowes indeed that all that are not forbidden there, nor any where elſe may, but not that all not there forbidden may: for all the heathen, and all uncleane perſons are not forbidden there, yet it is plaine from other places, they might not enter.
6. Laſtly I anſwer, your compariſon halts, there is no paralell betwixt undertaking the worke of preaching, and entring the congregation; entring the Congregation was a thing common; a priviledge that nothing but a prohibition could debar them from; preaching is a publike act of office, to which a man muſt have a call and miſſion, or elſe he can have no warrant to his worke.