A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
Anſwering what Mr. Pool ſaith in defence of the Provincial Aſsemblies eight arguments against doing the work of the Ministry without Ordination.
THe Provincial aſſembly urged eight Arguments to prove, that none may do the work of the Miniſtry without ordination.
Arg. 1. Their firſt argument is, that work for the doing of which God hath deſigned ſpecial Officers of his, neither ought nor may be done by any others, &c. We anſwer, prayer, diſtribution of wordly goods, exhorting and rebuking are ſuch works, yet others may performe them.
Ob. 1. Prayer he denyeth to be a worke for which the Office of the Ministry was deſigned. The Deacons work is the diſtribution of the Churchs Goods, which none but Deacons may do. The work of reproving and exhorting they may do, but privately, not publickly, Mr. Pool. page 96.
Anſw. 1. That prayer is a work for which the Office of the Miniſtry was deſigned, is ſtrongly intimated, Acts 6. v. 4. where foreign is appled to prayer, as well as the Miniſtry of the word, and it is a word very ſignificant, it denoteth a mans making it his work and buſineſſe, and that conſtantly, his attending, bending and applying himſelf to it, and being inſtant in it; to which his inſtance about hoſpitality, 1 Tim. 3. 1. runneth not paralel.
In the Biſhops daies, when liberty of praying was almoſt denyed Preachers, then it was accounted their work; and if it be not, private men may pray publickly, as well as perform other acts.
2. Exhorting and Rebuking are the works of Paſtors, and diſtribution of wordly goods is the work of Deacons, and this is enough to ſhew the invalidity of their argument; for hence a propoſition directly oppoſite to theirs is true, viz. That ſome works, for the doing of which, God hath deſigned ſpecial Officers of his owne, ought or may be performed by ſome that are not deſigned unto thoſe Offices; and ſo their argument is falſe.
That they are the Churches goods which Deacons diſtribute, onelyonly ſheweth that none but Deacons can act under that Office relation, and ſo we grant none may preach under the relation of a paſtor, but he that is an officer. Therefore Mr. Pool runneth to the manner of acting, They may exhort and … buke, but privately, not publickly.
We tell him if an officer exhorteth or rebuketh in private, it may be an act of office.
Ob. 2 That no act but a publick act is an act of office, we afirme not; an Officers private rebuke is an act of office.
Anſw. 1. Hence it followeth, that publickneſſe is not an inſeparable property of Office, or is not that which maketh an act to be an act of Office; and therefore men cannot be charged with aſſuming or invading office barely for their exhorting in publick.
2. This …overturneth their argument for private exhorting and rebuking (being as he granteth acts of office) are works, for the doing of which God hath deſigned ſpecial officers of his own, yet they may be performed by ſome that are not deſigned unto thoſe Offices.
Their exhorting and rebuking in private might as well be called a uſurping Office, as their doing it publickly.
To prove their argument they bring the examples of Saul and Vzzah.
We tell them,
1. Either theſe inſtances are impertinent, or none out of Office may preach in caſes of neceſſity.
Ob: 3. The caſe is not paralel, nor is the neceſſity alike; Preaching is abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, ſo is not ſacrificing, pag. 97.
Anſw. 1. Preaching is neceſſary, but not abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation; it is one, but not the onelyonly means; for parental and other private inſtructions may be uſeful to that end.
2. To prove that ſuch as are onelyonly mala quia prohibita, may be done in a caſe of neceſſity, himſelfe (pag. 65.) …lledgeth Davids eating the Shew-bread, yet that did not make ſuch a caſe of neceſſity as there is of preaching unto ſalvation, and ſo our argument is as ſtrong as his.
3. This is a meer fallacy; for he ſpeaketh of the work of preaching being more neceſſary then the work of Sacrificing; whereas we ſpeak of the neceſſity that perſons are under to performe thoſe works. And if the neceſſity of preaching unto ſalvation will juſtifie the preaching of men out of office, they can never want a caſe of neceſſity. What he addeth about ſacrifices and Sacraments, is not againſt our objection, but ſeemeth to intimate that Sacraments are more limited and confined to office then preaching, though they be not ſo neceſſary to Salvation, and ſo proveth their fourth argument to be falſe.
2. We tell him that theſe acts of Saul, Vzzah and Vzziah were expreſly forbidden, and ſome of them threatened with death, Numb. 4. 15, and 16. 40. &c.
Ob. 4. A thing may be prohibited either in expreſse termes, or by ſolid conſequence; Vzzah 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. He argueth from 1. Corin. 14. 34. That an expreſse prohibition is not neceſſary. And addeth that there is no more expreſſe prohibition to reſtrain men from administring the Sacraments, then from preaching, the reaſon of the prohibition is the ſame in both, to wit, becauſe Officers were appointed for thoſe works, Mr. Pool, pag. 98, 99.
Anſw. 1. We grant that we are to be ſatisfied with Scripture conſequences, but that the preaching of gifted men out of Office is prohibited by any ſolid conſequence, we find not.
2. We wonder how Mr. Pool durſt ſay, that Vzzah was not puniſhed principally, at leaſt not ſolely, becauſe he did touch the Ark with his hands, ſeeing it is ſaid expreſly, 1 Cron. 13. v. 10. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Vzzah and he ſmote him, [becauſe he put his hand to the Ark] and there he died before God.
3. For 1 Corin. 14. 34. we have ſpoken to it before. It cannot prohibit the preaching of all perſons under authority; for all Church-officers are under authority to Magiſtrates; and all young Scholars (whoſe parents are living) are under authority to their parents, yet if they have ſubmitted to Ordination, he will grant they may Preach; and if ſuch a being under authority be intended, as is peculiar to women, then nothing can be concluded thence againſt the preaching of gifted men.
4. That Gods appointing officers to do a work, doth not prohibit others doing of it, we have already evidenced; and therefore Officers being appointed to Preach, doth not by conſequence prohibit others preaching.
5. An expreſſe prohibition, or Gods appointing Officers to adminiſter the Sacraments, are not the chief, much leſſe the only Arguments againſt their doing it, who are no Officers; there are many other mediums that prove the adminiſtration of Sacraments to be more reſtrained unto Officers then Preaching; as from others not having ſuch a Divine allowance for that, as we have proved they have for preaching, from the Sacraments, being purely by inſtitution, &c.
There is no prohibition either expreſſe or by conſequence, of gifted mens preaching, and though this doth not prove that they may preach, yet it ſufficiently evidenceth the weakneſs of their Argument againſt their preaching; for the Acts of Saul, Ʋzza and Ʋzziah were expreſly forbidden and threatned; and ſo their Argument hath colour onelyonly, and no ſubſtance. As to pag. 100. publick preaching is not the whole work of a Miniſter, any more then private exhorting or rebuking; and ſeeing he granteth private rebuking by an Officer to be an act of Office, either private Chriſtians doing this, rendreth Gods Officers void or unneceſſary as to that act of their office, and ſo one appointment of God ſhould be vain (which it were an impeachment to to the wiſdom of God to aſſert, yet he ſaith little leſs, pag. 100) or elſe gifted mens preaching in publick will not render Gods Officers vain or unneceſſary, as to that act of their office, viz. publick Preaching.
Himſelf granteth that men are not reſtrained by humane or Divine Lawes from keeping School, yet a general liberty for that publick work breaketh no order, no more doth a liberty for gifted mens Preaching in publick.
But our inſtance of a Fathers and a Schoolmaſters, Teaching prove, that diſtinction between relations is not deſtroyed by their doing the ſame works, and this we produced it for.
Argu. 2. Their ſecond Argument, is from gifted perſons not being appointed or warranted thereunto: for then every gifted man that Preacheth not is guilty of a ſin of omiſſion.
We anſwer, gifted men are appointed to Preach, yet the want of opportunity or a Call from others, may free it from being a ſin of omiſſion.
Object. 1. Peter was forbidden to preach, yet he accounted it his duty, Act. 5. 29. if gifted men were appointed by God to preach, no men (by negligence in not deſiring them) could diſoblige them, pag. 101.
Anſ. 1. Officers are called to preach by the Churches they are over, and if thoſe Churches ſhould grow negligent and not deſire them, yet they ought to Preach, if they will hear. In ſome caſes Officers are obliged to preach (as Peter was, Act. 5. 29) when men forbid them, yet when circumſtances do not concur, they do not ſin though they forbear.
2. Gifted men are ſo obliged to preach, that no men can diſoblige them; but as to the exerciſe here or there at this or that time, many things may hinder an obligation to that, as we proved before. To pray, read, hear, and privately to exhort, &c. are duties that Chriſtians are obliged to by their general calling, yet men may ſin if they act in theſe, ſo as to neglect or juſtle out the works of their ſpecial calling, for it is duty to be exerciſed therein alſo; and therefore mens acting in ſuch duties muſt be determined by the ſpecial calling (as to the time) or by conveniency, opportunity, &c. and ſo for gifted mens Preaching.
Object. 2. If Preaching gifts be talents, Mat. 25. then whoever uſeth them not is under a curſe, pag. 102.
Anſw. Talents (though not uſed) are not as talents wrapped up, unleſs through ſlothfulneſs or wickedneſs, the uſe be neglected, Mat. 25. ver. 26. If one 'hath a talent of Counſel, and counſel be deſpiſed, he that hath the talent is free.
Argu. 3. Their third Argument is, no man may do the Office of a Magiſtrate or Deacon who is not called to it.
Mr. Pool taketh a little piece of our reply, and ſeeketh to anſwer it with his caſe of neceſſity, which we have ſpoken often enough to; our chief anſwers he ſaith nothing to.
Whereas he telleth us of ſetting up our own devices in Gods worſhip (pag. 103.) we wiſh their way were not more guilty of this evil then ours. And if it be a ſin for ungifted men, or ſuch as are erroneous, to preach, ſurely a Church is to take care that its members be not guilty of it, and this will amount to little leſs then a proof, that there may be approbation without Ordination.
Our inſtance of believing, which he mentioneth (pag. 104.) proveth, that one may perform a work of greater conſequence, and yet may not perform a work of leſs conſequence, and ſo was no fallacy; but now he reſtraineth it unto ſuch works as relate to others, we ſhal inſtance in private exhorting, this is a work of greater conſequence, difficulty and danger, then the works of Magiſtrates or Deacons, and that for the reaſons they mention (Jus Divin. Min. pag. 87.) viz. becauſe if they miſcarry in private exhortation, they deſtroy ſouls, yet private Chriſtians may do that.
Arg. 4. Their fourth Argument is, none may adminiſter the Sacrament who is uncalled, Ergo, none may preach who is uncalled; for theſe two are joyned together, Mat. 28. 19. Our firſt reply to this, Mr. Pool again would anſwer with neceſſity, but that in any caſe they may preach, but may not adminiſter the Sacrament, it ſpeaketh their Argument invalid. We tell him, Mat. 28. is no commiſſion authorizing them to preach and baptize, and ſo their being joyned together there is no proof, that onelyonly thoſe may preach who may baptize.
Object. 1: Mr. Pool thinketh that they were not Apoſtles, nor had their Commiſſion as Apoſtles till Mat 28. 19. 20. this he ſaith is probable by theſe three conſiderations. 1. That an Apoſtle was a new Teſtament Officer, and the new Teſtament did not begin till the death of Chriſt. 2 They had not Apoſtolical gifts before the death of Chriſt. 3. They wanted Ʋniverſality of juriſdiction, &c. Mr. Pool. pag. 105.
Anſ. 1. When we urged Mat. 28. 19 20. he taketh it for a miſſion that doth not authorize to a work (p. 87.) elſe his anſwer cometh to nothing; and yet here would have it be the Apoſtles Office-making Commiſſion; how he is conſiſtent with himſelf herein, we ſee not, one of theſe replies muſt be naught.
2. Long before the death of Chriſt its ſaid, Luke 6. ver. 12. 13. He continued all night in prayer to God, and when it was day, be called unto him his Diſciples, and of them he choſe twelve, whom alſo he named [Apoſtles.] We prove that they were Apoſtles before, Mat. 28. 19. 20. by theſe conſiderations.
1. Chriſt impoſed the name of Apoſtles upon them, (Luke 6. 13.) before Mat. 28. Ergo, They had the Office of Apoſtles upon them before. For ſurely Chriſt would not put the name of an Office upon them, if they had not the Office that anſwered that name. The ſeventy were ſent out to preach, yet had no ſuch title put upon them, but the name of Apoſtles was conſtantly given to the Twelve before the death of Chriſt, Luke 17. 5. Luke 22. ver. 14. Mat. 10. 2. and therefore Mr. Pool is too bold with Scripture, to put other names upon them (as Prophets or extradinary Teachers) when the Goſpel never knoweth them by theſe names, but by the name of Apoſtles.
2. Chriſt choſe them before, Mat▪ 28. & the name of Apoſtles being at the ſame time put upon them, hence they were choſen to be Apoſtles▪ Luke 6. 13. and this was after ſolemn prayer. Ergo, They were Apoſtles before, for Election is the conſtitutive act of their office.
3. They had Apoſtolical gifts (though not in ſo full meaſure) before the death Chriſt, Mat. 10. ver. 1. He gave them power againſt unclean ſpirits to caſt them out, and to heal all manner of ſickneſs, and all manner of diſeaſe. And this anſwereth his ſecond conſideration.
4. Matthias was put into the ſame Office that Judas was in, before the death of Chriſt, for its ſaid, Act. 1. ver. 25. He is to take part of this miniſtry and Apoſtleſhip from which Judas by tranſgreſſion fell. Now Matthias undeniably was an Apoſtle, Ergo, ſo was Judas and the eleven before the death of Chriſt. Yea this Text calleth the Office both of Judas and Mathias an Apoſtleſhip, and to be ſure Judas was not an Apoſtle after the death of Chriſt, for he did not onelyonly betray his Maſter, but alſo hanged himſelf.
3. To his firſt conſideration we anſwer, The new Teſtament if taken for the doctrine of the Goſpel as 2 Corin. 3. of which they were Miniſters, was begun long before the death of Chriſt, Luke 1. 78. and 2. v. 10. as alſo in other acceptations of it; but ſuppoſe the new Teſtament did not begin till the death of Chriſt, Baptiſme is a new Teſtament Ordinance, and this he cannot deny ſeeing he maketh it the onelyonly door of admiſſion into the new Teſtament or Goſpel Church. (p. 25.) and it is eaſie to prove it upon truer and better grounds; Yet baptiſme was adminiſtred by the twelve long before the death of Chriſt, Job. 4. ver. …. 2. and to multitudes by John the Baptiſt: And the firſt conſtitution of Apoſtles (new Teſtament Officers) might as well be before the death of Chriſt, as the firſt adminiſtration of Baptiſme (a new Teſtament Ordinance) might be before it. If after the new Teſtament began, Apoſtles became officers, and Baptiſme an Ordinance thereof, yet as it was the ſame Baptiſm, ſo they were the ſame officers. viz. Apoſtles, before and after. And this alſo may anſwer his third conſideration, If thoſe that were Baptized before the death of Chriſt were Churchmembers, then there was a Church which the Apoſtles might have juriſdiction over; if they were not, why might not they be Apoſtles without juriſdiction, as well as perſons be baptized without Church-memberſhip if Baptiſme be (as he would have it) a door of admiſſion into the Church?
Officers he ſaith they were, and to be Officers without any juriſdiction. (as he ſaith theſe were) is as ſtrange as to be Apoſtles without Univerſality of juriſdiction. And if all this were not enough, the extraordinarineſs of their Call or that time, might better be alleadged in this caſe, then it is in many againſt us.
Object. 2. It muſt needs be granted that it is a renewing, confirming, and enlarging of their former Commiſſion, and this double work being equally impoſed upon them, muſt by like reaſon be equally restrained to them, unleſs better grounds can be ſhewn to the contrary, &c. Mr. Pool. pag. 14.
Anſw. 1. Any impartial Reader may ſee enough in our former book (Preacher Sent, pag. 168. 169.) to take off this reply.
It was an enlargement of the Apoſtles Commiſſion to the Gentiles, making them capable of being preached to and baptized, but its no proof, that onelyonly thoſe may preach, who may baptize.
If it ſhould be ſaid to Elders and Deacons, Go teach, Rule and diſtribute to the Church in ſuch a place, would the joyning of theſe together in an exhortation, prove, that every one who may Rule may Teach, or that none may diſtribute, but he that may Teach? Surely no. Thus, Mat. 28. 19. 20. Its ſaid to Preachers and Baptizers, Go Preach and baptize all Nations, yet this cannot prove, that none may preach but thoſe who may baptize; it onelyonly ſheweth that ſuch as had power to Preach, might now lawfully Preach to the Gentiles, and ſuch as had power to baptize, might now adminiſter baptiſm to the Gentiles, which before they might not. He impoſeth the works on thoſe that had power for them, doth not reſtrain the power to perform the one unto them that had power to perform the other. The intendment of this Text is not (that it can be proved) to ſhew that all who may Preach may Baptize, but to warrant ſuch as may do thoſe works, in their Preaching to, and Baptizing the Gentiles.
2. Let it be obſerved what their Argument is come to; it ſhould prove, that none may Preach but thoſe who may adminſter the Sacraments, and at laſt it is, unleſs we can ſhew reaſon to the contrary, the works are equally ſtrained; we have given reaſons enough to the contrary, and ſo the Argument proveth juſt nothing.
Argu. 5. Their fifth Argument is, To Preach without calling and Ordination to the work is to uſurp authority over the Church; to prove which they aſſert preaching to be an act of authority, Hebr. 7. 1 Tim. 2. 12.
The weakneſſe of this argument we largely ſhewed, Preacher Sent, pag. 171, 172, 173. but Mr. Pool replyeth not to what we have there ſaid. He telleth us (pag. 107.) if a man preacheth to heathens, he cannot uſurp authority over the Church, and this enervateth their argument. We deny that men uſe office-authority towards heathens in preaching to them, they do not act as over them; his very inſtance confuteth this; for an Ambaſſador hath not authority over him that he is ſent to treat with in a large ſenſe, we have proved that gifted men have authority, and that from the Scripture, to preach without ordination; and ſo we do not croſſe the golden ſaying of Tgnatius, which he mentioneth, pag. 107.
As for Hebr. 7. we ſaid (amongſt other things) he that bleſſeth, by an original inherent power, as Chriſt doth, he is greater then he that is bleſſed, and of ſuch bleſſing the Text ſpeaketh, &c.
Ob. This is very groſſe; the Text evidently ſpeaks of Melchiſedeck, who bleſſed onelyonly miniſterially, and not by an original power, &c. pag. 108.
Anſw. 1. We did not ſay that Melchiſedeck bleſſed by an original power, our words plainly give that power to Chriſt onelyonly.
2. That the Text hath reference unto Chriſt (who hath an original power to bleſſe) we proved, and it is clear, Heb. 6. v. 20.—Jeſus made an high Prieſt forever after the order of Melchiſedeck, and Heb. 7. v. 11, 12. 14. 17. After the ſimilitude of Melchiſedeck, there ariſeth another Prieſt, ve. 15. Whence it is evident that the Apoſtles main ſcope, drift and deſigne is to ſet forth Chriſt in his greatneſſe and excellency, by comparing him with Melchiſedeck; for ſeverall things are ſpoken of Melchiſedeck that do more properly belong unto Chriſt, then to him; as he is ſaid to be without Father, without Mother, and withuut beginning, Heb. 7. 3. yet Melchiſadeck was a man, and not God, and ſo as to his natural being, had a Father, a Mother, and a beginning; and therefore theſe things are ſpoken of him, (as Calvin ſaith) as of one cloathed with the perſon of Chriſt.
Thus the Apoſtle declareth, not onelyonly how Chriſt concurred in the particular act of bleſſing Abraham; but the greatneſſe of Melchiſedeck, who bleſſed Abraham is mentioned, chiefly to notifie the greatneſſe of Chriſt, who bleſſed the faithful after that ſimilitude, viz. with an extraordinary High-Prieſts bleſſing.
From all which it is evident, that if Melchiſedeck bleſſed only miniſterially, yet ſeeing the chief deſigne of the Text is to ſet forth Chriſts acting as a high-Prieſt in bleſſing, hence as it hath reference unto him, ſo a bleſſing by an original power is intended.
3. Melchiſedeck bleſſed by an extraordinary authority; and this can be no proof that all ordinary perſons who bleſſe others, have a ſuperioriry over thoſe that are bleſſed; and ſo this ſpeaketh nothing to his purpoſe.
As to 1 Tim. 2. 12. we told them there is a plain diſtinction and difference in that very Text, between teaching and uſurping authority, as [nor] doth intimate.
Ob. 1. It is a familiar thing to uſe a word diſjoyning one thing from an other, when indeed the one explaines the other, Rev. 22. 15. Gal. 1. 12. Mr. Pool pag. 108.
Anſw. 1. If ſometimes a word diſjunctive be expoſitive, yet uſually it is not ſo; multitude of inſtances might be given where things disjoyned by an foreign (as in, 1 Tim. 2. 12.) muſt be diſtinct one from an other.
2. The Scriptures he alledgeth ſpeak not for him, Rev. 22. 15. uſeth foreign which is copulative, and ſo doth not neceſſarily disjoyne as foreign doth. The things are diſtinct in Gal. 1. 12. I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, &c. i. e. I neither was taught it by others, nor did I learn it of my ſelfe, by my own ſtudy and induſtry; there is a teaching, and ſo a learning which is not by other men, a ſelf-teaching, Rom. 2. 21. and a natures teaching, 1 Corin. 11. 14. yea there are Satanical teachings which are not by men.
3. When the Scripture uſeth a disjoyning word (as here it doth) the things ſpoken of are diſtinct, unleſſe where cogent reaſons enforce the contrary: and what a weak argument then is it to prove teaching an act of authority, when theſe are disjoyned with an foreign in the very Text that is produced for the proof of it, viz. 1. Tim. 2. 12.
Ob. 2. 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 ſpeakes of that uſurpation of authority, which conſiſteth in teaching, and is oppoſed to ſilence. Mr. Pool, pag. 109.
Anſw. 1▪ If things be never ſo diſtinct, yet one muſt be expreſſed before the other, and therefore the putting teaching before uſurping authority, doth not prove uſurpation of authority to conſiſt in teaching; neither is the injoyning ſilence after, any proof of it; for women may uſurp authority by private ſpeaking, and ſo ſilence is oppoſed unto uſurping of authority, which is not publike teaching.
2. Many other phraſes are ſo… hemmed in on both ſides, and yet the things are certainely diſtinct one from another: as 1 Cor. 3. ver. 7. watering hath planting on the one ſide, and Gods giving increaſe on the other ſide; will any ſay, therefore watering conſiſteth in planting; ſo Gal. 1. ver. 1. and Gal. 5. 6. neither Circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion, but faith, &c. uncircumciſion hath circumciſion on the one ſide, and faith on the other ſide, but will any ſay, that uncircumciſion conſiſteth in circumciſion? no more doth teaching on the one ſide, and ſilence on the other prove uſurpation of authority to conſiſt in teaching. Mr. Pool ſpeaketh here with much confidence, but with no evidence.
Ob. 3. The man here is not to be underſtood ſingularly for her husband, but indefinitely, for any man; for the Apoſtle is comparing Sex with Sex, in the general,-it concerns ſuch women as have no husbands; it is authority in a Church affair, that is ſpoken of, Mr. Pool. pag. 109.
Anſw. 1. If [the man] here be underſtood indefinitely, [any man] then [the gift] 1 Pet. 4. 10. is to be underſtood indefinitely [any gift] and this anſwereth what he ſaith, pag. 45. about an indefinite expreſſion.
2. If (as he ſaith) the Apoſtle compareth Sex with Sex in the general, then the prohibition belongeth only to women, and ſo it maketh nothing againſt the preaching of gifted men.
3. The whole ſex is forbidden teaching, but only thoſe that have husbands may be forbidden, this uſurping of authority, becauſe only they are required to be under that obedience of wives. The promiſe of ſalvation in child-bearing mentioned but three verſes after, 1 Tim. 2. 15. doth not concern all women, but onelyonly thoſe that have husbands.
4. That Church authority is intended, he aſſerteth, but hath not proved.
5. Women may uſurp authority, though it be not over husbands, or in teaching publickly, and therefore their argument hence is without proof, though the man be not onelyonly her husband, but any man.
As to what he addeth (pag. 109.) it concerneth not us, and is ſo far from an improvement of our argument to the higheſt, that at the loweſt it will be more concluſive; but ſeeing he hath mentioned it, we ſhall ſay thus much to it.
It precepts expreſſe be prohibitions by conſequence, as Mr. Pool ſaith they are, (pag. 98, 99.) then a pari exceptions expreſſe are conceſſions by conſequence, and ſo the excepting women in the caſe of teaching or propheſying, 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. will be an allowance to men that have the gift; we think one is as ſtrong as the other.
Ob. 4. A paralel place is 1 Corin. 14. 34. to ſpeak i. e. in the Church, is unlawful for thoſe who are in a ſtate of ſubjection, and un-officed perſons are in a ſtate of ſubjection, as well as women, Mr. Pool, pa. 110.
Anſw. This we anſwered twice before: He is ſo confident of the validity of this argument, that he often mentioneth it and concludeth it undeniable, and diſpaireth of ever ſeeing him convinced by man that reſiſteth ſuch evidence; whereas indeed it is a meer empty ſound.
1. Becauſe men may be in ſubjection, and yet be in power: ordinary Miniſters were in ſubjection to the Apoſtles, yet were in power, yea in power to preach; Men not in office were in power to judge, 1 Corin. 5. 12. to pardon, 2 Corin. 2 8. much more to declare the Law in which to proceed to judge and pardon.
Women are in ſubjection, not in power; Women might not preach, if they ſhould be ordained by an abuſe of power.
2. Becauſe it is not every ſtate of ſubjection that forbiddeth preaching, 1 Corin. 14. 34. for then none who are ſubject to Magiſtrates, (and what Miniſters are not ſo) or parents may preach, and ſo it is altogether without proof, that all un-officed men are in that ſtate of ſubjection which is there intended.
3. Becauſe it is not an Eccleſiaſtical ſtate of ſubjection that is is intended, 1 Corin. 14. 34. For then all women are not there forbidden preaching, but only ſuch as are Church-members, becauſe then none elſe were in the ſtate of ſubjection, that is the reaſon againſt womens preaching.
And becauſe womens ſubjection, in one kind, viz. in a civil or natural reſpect, forbiddeth their preaching; for Mr. Pool to ſay by the ſame reaſon, all unofficed men are forbidden to preach, by their being in Subjection in another kind, viz. to Church-officers, who will not ſee the vanity of ſuch an argument?
4. Becauſe the ſtate of Subjection which the Apoſtle proveth womens preaching to be unlawfull by, 1 Corin. 14. 34. is ſuch as is peculiar to women, and no un-officed men ever were in it, and therefore it is no reaſon againſt any mens preaching, no men being in the ſtate of ſubjection ſpoken of; if he will aſſert they are, let him prove it.
He that readeth 1 Corin. 11. will find that Sex is compared with Sex, man with woman, and the woman ſaid to be in ſubjection in way of diſtinction from, or oppoſition to the man.
Becauſe a woman who is one, to whom man is a head, 1. Corin. 11. 3. who was formed after the man, 1 Tim. 2. 13. created for the man, 1 Corin. 11. 9. ſubjected to the man, Gen. 3. 16. becauſe a woman the weaker veſſel, 1 Pet. 3 7. who was deceived, and was in tranſgreſſion, 1 Tim. 2 14. becauſe ſuch a one is to keep ſilence in the Church, muſt not propheſie there; to ſay therefore the man, who is the head of the woman, may not propheſie or preach, this is a lamentable non ſequitur.
Arg. 6. Their ſixt Argument is, from the Scriptures reproving un-called men for preaching, Jerem. 23. 21, 22. I ſent them not, &c.
To part of our anſwer unto this, he replyeth thus.
Ob. 1. This is a little too groſſe to ſay they are by God called to be Prophets, of whom God profeſseth, they run, but he ſent them not. The prophets had no other call then this, or at least this was Gods uſual way of calling them, be immediately inſpired them with an extraordinary meſſage, 1 Sam. 3. 20. Mr. Pool. p. 111.
Anſw. 1. Sending did not make prophets: Samuel had a revelation, yet was not ſent to Eli to declare it, he was forced to draw it out, 1 Sam. 3. 17. yet Samuel was a prophet, as appeareth, v. 20.
Jeremiah was ſent, Jerem. 26. 12. The Lord ſent me to propheſie againſt this houſe, and againſt this City, all the words that ye have heard: yet Jeremiah was a Prophet before this ſending, and not made a Prophet by it; So thoſe 2 Cron. 24. 19. were ſent after they were Prophets: So that the Prophets had a new miſſion as often as God commanded them to go with any new meſſage to any people, and were ſo often made Prophets, if ſending were, (as he ſuppoſeth) their call. Therefore Gods profeſſing that they ran and he ſent them not, doth not deny them to be Prophets, becauſe ſending is not the call.
2. There is a ſending which doth not authorize or give a call to Office (as himſelfe confeſſeth, p. 83. 87.) and let him prove that their not being ſent, was their not being authorized to be Prophets, elſe the argument is vain.
3. Thoſe that were authorized and called by God to be Prophets, ſometimes went with falſe dreames or lyes, and ſo ran without being ſent, yet when they carried a true meſſage, they were ſent, Act. 21. v. 4.
So 1 Kings 13… 11. There was an old Prophet, and he Propheſied a lye, pretending it to be the word of the Lord, ver. 18. I am a Prophet alſo as thou art, and an Angel ſpake unto me by the word of the Lord, ſaying, bring him back, &c. and this was a lye, as appeareth, v. 17. 22. 23.
Yet this old man was a Prophet truly called of God, Mr Pool himſelfe being judge; for he ſaith Gods inſpiring with an extraordinary meſſage, was his call to be a Prophet, and this the good old man had ver. 20, 21. as they ſat at table, And the word of the Lord came unto the Prophet that brought him back, &c. Now he had a word from God to declare, and ſo was called to be a Prophet, yet ver. 18. he ran without being ſent. So that as a falſe Prophet may carry a truth, ſo a true Prophet may carry a lye.
We granted (Preacher Sent, pag. 128.) that thoſe Jerem. 23. were falſe Prophets in reſpect of their doctrine which they then preached, but we ſtill apprehend that they were ſtanding Prophets of Iſrael, and true Prophets in reſpect of their call, and we proved it from v. 22.
4. As to 1 Sam. 3. 20. it doth not in the leaſt intimate that Gods ſending a meſſage by Samuel was his authorization or call to be a Prophet, but only that the anſwering his meſſage by the event did give a knowledge, (which the fruits and effects of a call may do) that he was authorized and called; the words are plain, ver. 19. 23. The Lord did let none of his words fall to the ground, and all Iſrael [knew] that Samuel was eſtabliſhed to be a Prophet of the Lord.
5. If they were not extraordinary, yet they might be ordinary Prophets: In old Teſtament times there were two ſorts of Prophets; ſome that had an immediate extraordinary call to foretell things to come, as Iſaiah, Jeremiah, &c. others that were inſtructed in the Scooles under the diſcipline of other Prophets, whence they are called Sons of the Prophets, 2 Kings 2. 7. and 6. v. 1.
Theſe had a faculty with dexterity to interpret Scriptures, and explain propheſies, and a call to do it, and a word from the Lord, 1 Kings 20. 35.
Some of theſe might pretend to immediate Revelations, when they had them not, and therein might run before they were ſent; yet might be ſent to do the worke of ordinary Prophets: and their being joyned with the Prieſts in the ſame reproof, under the name of prophets, Jer. 23. v. 11. 33, 34. ſpeaks much for their being Gods prophets, as well as the other were his Prieſts, though both under a ſad degeneration.
6. If they had no call of God, yet the argument is invalid, and cannot ſpeak againſt gifted mens preaching, ſeeing they (as we have proved) have a call to preach.
To our argument from v. 22. he ſaith,
Ob. 2. The ſtanding in Gods counſe… and ſpeaking Gods word implies a call. There is another reading very conformable to the Hebrew text, If they had ſtood in my counſel, i. e. If they had ſtood till I had ſent them, &c. So that this is an evidence that they were falſe prophets, Mr Pool, pag. 112.
Anſw. 1. It doth not in the leaſt imply ſuch a Cal as they could not be prophets without; for thoſe that were 2 Chro. 24. …19 Jer. 26. 12.before true prophets, yet did ſtand in Gods counſel, &c. in every new meſſage from him; and did ſometimes (as we have proved) propheſie lyes, and therein they did not ſtand in his counſel, or cauſe to hear his words; and ſo all that is here ſaid in ſuch caſes might be ſpoken to true Prophets; and therefore can be no evidence, (as he would have it) that theſe were falſe prophets in reſpect of their call.
2. The Hebrew doth not at all favour ſuch a reading as he ſpeaketh of; the word doth not ſignifie miſſion, but counſel or ſecret, as Gen. 49. 6. O my ſoul, come not thou into their ſecret. It were ſtrange language to ſay come not into their miſſion, and as ſtrange to ſay if they had ſtood in my miſſion, but if they had ſtood in my counſel, or ſecret, is conſonant to the Hebrew, and it is explained in the following words, & had cauſed to hear my words; which plainly intimateth, that their not declaring his words, but lies, as v. 25. their broaching falſe doctrine not their want of a true call is that they are blamed for.
Thoſe who (by Gods own Teſtimony) might have had ſucceſſe and a divine bleſſing in preaching Gods word, they might lawfully preach his word; for let any prove that God hath entayled his bleſſing upon the labours of ſuch as (in reſpect of their call) are falſe Prophets.
2. But the Prophets Jerem. 23. (by Gods own Teſtimony) might have had ſucceſſe and a divine bleſſing in preaching Gods word, for its ſaid, ver. 22. If they had cauſed my people to hear my words, then they ſhould have turned them from their evil way.
Ergo, The Prophets, Jerem. 23. might lawfully preach Gods word.
Argu. 7. To what he ſaith for vindicating their ſeventh Argument, we anſwer,
1. He conſoundeth miſſion and a Call, which are things diſtinct.
2. The queſtion even in their own ſtating of it, is about a particular Call; for, they aſſert Ordination to be a Call, and their propoſition, which all theſe Arguments are brought to prove, is this, That none may do the work of the Miniſtry without Ordination.
So that if their Arguments prove the neceſſity of a Call, yet if they prove not the neceſſity of Ordination unto all ordinary Preaching (which the preſent Argument doth not) they do not conclude their queſtion; and it is anſwer ſufficient to ſay, Gifted men have a Call to Preach, though they be without Ordination; we do not ſay, that they have no other Call but their gifts, (as he reporteth, pag. 112.) it is by the Law of nature and the written word that gifted men are called.
3. Pauls immediate Call was a neceſſary, though not the onelyonly medium to prove the Divineneſs of his Doctrine; ordinary Officers then and now have other mediums to prove it by.
4. Gifted men now have enough to prove their Call by; and theſe things anſwer that he ſaith, pag. 112, 113. other objections we fully anſwered, but he waveth them; whether our replies or their reaſons be trivial, let the Reader judge.
Argu. 8. Their eighth Argument we anſwered, but he waveth our replies to that alſo.
Object. All gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, therefore they are no Scripture Preachers, Mr. Pool, pag. 114.
Anſ. 1. We grant wages indeed due to the work to an Officer, not for his office, but for his work.
2. Gifted men may in ſome caſes require maintenance, and do juſtly receive it; yet not as they are gifted men, but as they are imployed in the work, and maintenance is due for the works ſake, as himſelf ſaith, (pag. 115.) and is clear, Luke 10. 7.
3. Duties of a general calling are ſo to be diſpatched and done, as a particular calling be not prejudiced thereby: he will grant that every man is to follow after knowledge, hear Sermons, &c. Yet a man may ſin in doing ſo, if he neglecteth his buſineſs, charge or family; rich men therefore are under further engagements unto this, then poor men, ſingle perſons, then marryed, 1 Cor. 7. 34.
Gifted men may Preach as often as (with due preparation) they can, without neglecting their particular callings, and when gifted mens preaching is onelyonly occaſional, and ſo as a particular calling (which affordeth them a livelihood) is not prejudiced thereby, then there is not that reaſon for their challenging maintenance, as when ſuch a calling is laid aſide in order thereto, and the work becometh conſtant work; for preaching, when it is onelyonly occaſionally, is a work of their general calling, and neither the Law of nature, nor the written word (which make it ſo) do require their doing that work any oftner then is conſiſtent with that particular calling which the outward ſupport of themſelves and families hath dependance upon. Thus much ſhall ſuffice to ſhew the weakneſs of their Arguments againſt gifted mens preaching without Ordination.
He rehearſeth our Arguments, leaving out a great part of their ſtrength, and putting in his own exceptions againſt them, and then mentioneth the heads of their Arguments without our exceptions againſt them, and yet pretendeth (pag. 116.) not to take at advantage, but to ſet the beſt gloſſe upon our cauſe, in which ſurely no Reader will believe him.