A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 3

A Vindication of the Preacher Sent · Chapter 3

p. 28CHAP. III.

Containing a briefe anſwer to the exceptions againſt our arguments for gifted perſons preaching, from a promiſe, and the examples of Apollo and the ſcattered Saints, and the prophecy mentioned, 1 Corin. 14.

WE urge other arguments for the preaching of of men without ordination.

Arg. 3 From a Goſpel promiſe; Mat. 25. 29. For p. 29unto every one that hath ſhall be given, &c. Preacher Sent. pag. 62.

Ob. Dr. Collings would infer that then men not commiſſionated for the Magiſtracy, nor ordained to the Miniſtry (having a talent or ability) may execute Juſtice and adminiſter Sacraments, Vind. Revind. p. 57.

Anſw. 1. Talents or gifts may be conſidered as accidentia abſoluta or relativa. Abſolute accidents alter not the ſtate of the ſubject; relative make a ſuperiour and inferior.

Aptitude to govern is an abſolute accident, and maketh not a Migiſtrate.

2. Talents or gifts which are abſolute accidents are to be improved according to the nature of ſuch talents or gifts; he that is apt to governe may helpe in government by council and advice, without pretence of power over thoſe whom he doth direct. A skilfull ſea-man may direct the Pilate, not ſtepping into his place; we muſt diſtinguiſh, Miniſterium circa Eccleſiam quae jam in corpus collecta est & manet, a miniſterio circa illos qui colligendi caritativa admonitione ſivelint, as Voctius tells Janſenius, Deſp. Cauſ. Pap. l. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 10.

3. A particular exception is enough to limit any general rule; Some Lawes of England run in general termes, yet by ſome particular proviſo; the Univerſities or ſome Corporations are exempted from obedience to them; all others (not excepted) will be liable to the penalty, if they tranſgreſſe the Law. So if a King promiſeth a reward to every ſubject that ſhall do ſome notable ſervice, except thoſe of ſome particular Corporation, it is plain that all (not excepted) have allowance to do the work, and thereupon may expect the reward. Now the promiſe, Mat. 25. 29. running in general termes, hence every man (not excepted) is to uſe his talents. If by a particular exception the p. 30adminiſtration of ſacraments be limited unto office yet this doth not deny a liberty to uſe other talents, and to expect the benefit of this promiſe in the uſe of them, ſeeing it is ſaid, [unto every one that hath, ſhall be given.] He granteth that men may preach divers times as probationers, when they are no officers, but may not do the worke of a Magiſtrate, or adminiſter Sacraments without thoſe offices. Ergo, the exerciſe of preaching gifts is more ſeparable from office then the other.

We fully anſwered this objection, Preacher Sent. pag. 39. 40. 162. and therefore let not the Reader expect any further anſwer from us, though Dr. Collings often calleth this in to help him.

Arg. 4. Our fourth argument is taken from Goſpel preſidents or examples, Act. 13. 25. &c. Apollo preached publickly, yet was not ordained, and the ſcattered Saints, Act. 8. Dr. Collings may ſee (Preacher Sent. p. 66.) that we intend not Goſpel preſidents by an extraordinary call; and therefore what …he ſaith (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 57. 58.) about Apoſtleſhip, the holy Kiſſe, &c. is but to raiſe a miſt before the Eyes of the Reader.

Ob. In theſe inſtances there is not a parity.

1. In the ſpecies of their gifts, there might be office or extraordinary gifts; Apollo is ranked with Paul and Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. called a Miniſter, 1 Cor. 3. 5. and was mighty in the Scriptures; It is plain he preached onelyonly in order to office, p. 59. The ſcattered Chriſtians were of the 8000. who were filled with extraordinary gifts. Acts 4. 31. pag. 60.

2. In the Acts nothing found to evidence that they, Acts 8. did preach in publike aſſemblies, p. 6.

3. In the ſtate of the Church, it was an infant ſtate, and a perſecuted ſtate, they might be under a neceſſity o… precept, thoſe extraordinary gifts might be attended p. 31with a praeceptive impreſſion, Acts 4. 31. there was neceſſitas medij, there was no other ordinary meanes of Salvation for theſe people, Ʋind. Revind. p. 61. 62.

Anſ. 1. Apollo's gifts were not of an other ſpecies; Adam and Abel, not two ſpecies of men, though Adam by creation, Abel by generation: nor the habits in Adam a divers ſpecies from them in Abel, becauſe they infuſed theſe acquired. If Apollo's gifts had been infuſed (which yet is not granted) this would not prove them of a divers ſpecies; but his being mighty in the Scriptures, maketh it probable that he received them in an ordinary way, as now a dayes, viz. by the Scriptures and not otherwayes, as the Doctor argueth.

He wrongeth himſelfe and us, in affirming (pag. 59.) that we ſay nothing to this; but let thoſe who ſay it prove it, the contrary may be ſeen: Preacher Sent. p. 71. 72. 73. yet it being an endleſſe work to anſwer the groundleſſe …urmiſes of men, we had reaſon to deſire proof.

But Apollo knew onelyonly the baptiſm of Iohn, Acts 18. 25. Ergo, Apollo neither had extraordinary gifts, nor did preach in order to office or ordination; for without knowing more then the baptiſme of Iohn, he could not know theſe which belong to the baptiſm of Chriſt, Mat. 3. 11. He (i. e. Jeſus Chriſt) ſhall baptize you with the holy Ghoſt. And that he ſhould preach as a Probationer to a woman, Priſcilla, and that at Epheſus, in order to Office at Corinth, how unlikely is it? As to the Scattered Chriſtians; If all mentioned, Acts. 4. 31. had extraordinary preaching gifts, and were 8000. in number, (which yet we do not grant) then the Goſpel knoweth occaſional preachers; for, ſo many could not have opportunity for conſtant preaching in that Church, neither can it be proved that they p. 32did it elſe-where before the ſcattering. Alſo then he muſt ſay that here was a whole Church of Preachers, which is more ſtrange then that, in theſe dayes there ſhould be in Churches ſome gifted men, (beſides Officers) who may Preach.

Some think that the ſpeaking the word with boldneſſe, mentioned, v. 31. hath reference to the Apoſtles as an anſwer of that prayer for them, v. 29. 30. but we ſay it cannot be proved that they were the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt that they are there ſaid to be filled with, and ſo the objection vaniſheth.

2 As for parity of Acts, Apollo preached publikely in the Synogogue, and Chriſtians heard him, Acts 18. 26. and this he did not with the allowance of the Jewiſh Church onelyonly, but of Chriſt. And if afterward he were an officer (which we know not but he might, though upon his proofs we do not conclude it) yet now he was none.

The ſcattered Chriſtians went every where preaching, Acts 8. 4. and therefore they acted publickly, as well as privately.

He muſt aſſert an order of private preachers, who may goe every where, preaching in private houſes, but may not do it in publick, or elſe this exception (Vind. Revind. p. 61.) is vain.

3. As to the ſtate of the Church, as it was an infant ſtate, ſo Chriſt provided extraordinary Officers, as Apoſtles, and gave extraordinary gifts, for the nurſing of it up in infancy; but (as we have proved) Apollo had no ſuch gifts, and the Dr. ſaith (p. 59.) its plain that he preached onelyonly [in order to Office] by which he plainly granteth, that for the preſent he was no Officer at all of a Goſpel Church. And let it be proved that any others had an allowance in that infant ſtate, to act in Goſpel-adminiſtrations (which p. 33were at other times peculiar to office) as Apollo had; if preaching were ſo, all preſidents or examples recorded in the New Teſtament refer to that infant ſtate of the Church; and therefore no argument; for Goſpel preſidents could be vailed, if the infancy of the Church could hinder it, becauſe that may be alleadged againſt all, & that ſome preſidents have the force of a rule, himſelfe granteth, Ʋind. Revind. pag. 58. and others Jus Dinin. Min. pag. 160. 161. as for thoſe Acts 8. there being in a perſecuted ſtate will not make ſuch a caſe of neceſſity as he ſpeaketh of; for it doth not appear that all theſe ſcattered Saints which preached had ſuch extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt; & however ſuch extraordinary preaching gifts are to be uſed in the moſt tranquil & ſetled ſtate of the Church, though many Miniſters ordained be preſent, and therefore perſecution (about which we are now ſpeaking) could not put them under any ſuch preceptive impreſſion as might render their preaching lawful now, which in a ſetled ſtate of the Church would be unlawfull.

And upon this ſuppoſition that it was the will of God his Goſpel ſhould at that time be made known to thoſe people, no ſuch neceſſity as he talketh of will be evinced from it.

If Churches had loſt their Officers by perſecution, there were a greater colour for ſuch a plea, but here the caſe was otherwaies, for the Apoſtles (who were Officers) were not ſcattered, neither was it the perſecuted Church that was preached to, but others. How mens being perſecuted from their habitations can render their preaching Lawful, which otherwiſe were not, or lay them under either a natural or moral neceſſity to preach in their travels, beyond what they ſhould have, if their occaſions did lead them to the ſame places without perſecution, we underſtand not.

And the Apoſtles (who were by Chriſts appointment p. 34to preach, not onelyonly in the Regions of Judea and Samaria (where this ſcattering was, Acts 8. 1.) but in all Nations, Mat. 28. 19.) were neither ſcattered, nor neceſſitated (that it appeareth) to ſtay where they were, by the perſecution; and therefore there was other means of ſalvation for thoſe people, though theſe ſcattered Saints had not preached, when the Lord had Officers of his own near, viz. Apoſtles, yet he would honour gifted perſons in the work of preaching, and this ſheweth that neither his neceſſitas praecepti, nor neceſſitas medii can weaken the force of this argument.

We are at as great a loſſe to find any ordination of an ordinary officer without a precedent Election by a particular Church, as he is to find it before the ordination of Paul, Barnabas and Timothy, who were extraordinarily or immediately called to Office, and ſo needed not ſuch Election.

Ob. And whereas he ſaith, that in ſuch caſes of neceſſity they may be ſaid to preach by extraordinary authority, which the word of the Lord hath given them, which may be called a Miſſion, and they may be officers as to that time and ſtate, yet it will not follow, but in another ſtate of the Church, Ordination is eſsential to an ordinary Miniſter, Vind. Revind. pag. 63. 64.

Anſw. Here he hath found out a Miſſion by the word which is not by the Church commanded, Electing or Ordaining; and ſo either his objection, or elſe his Argument (pag. 112.) or both, muſt needs be naught, and he be guilty of ſelfe▪ contradiction; let his words be compared.

He aſſerteth pag. 63 a miſſion by the word, and denyeth (pag. 112.) that any ſuch miſſion can be proved. His officer in caſe of neceſſity hath no miſſion either mediately …or immediately by any of the waies he mentioneth, Ergo, not at all; thus might we urge his argument againſt himſelfe.

2. He hath given no proof for his extraordinary Office, making miſſion in ſuch caſes of neceſſity; and where nothing is proved, nothing need be anſwered.

3. If there were ſuch extraordinary Officers by neceſſity; then

1. They muſt be greater then ordained ones; for extraordinary Officers are greater then ordinary.

2. They are not to be ordained afterward, though the Church cometh into an other ſtate; or elſe Ordination is not the conſtituting office-making act; for (ſaith he) they were officers before.

3. They muſt be either Apoſtles, Evangeliſts or Prophets, and theſe he concludeth to be ceaſed; Or elſe they are Paſtors and Teachers; for the Goſpel owneth no other preaching Officers but thoſe aforementioned. And that ordinary officers (Paſtors and Teachers) ſhould be made by an extraordinary call, will hardly be proved.

Or that ſuch ordinary offices can be convved without Ordination; if that in ordinary caſes be eſſential to ſuch Offices, we ſuppoſe can never be proved; for, it is as much as to ſay, ſuch offices have a being, without that which giveth being to them.

A thing may have a being without ſome neceſſary accidents, but that there can be any caſe ſo extraordinary p. 36as a thing ſhould have a being without that which is eſſencial to it, we find not.

Arg. 5. Our fifth Argument is taken from Goſpel Rules about Prophecying.

All that are Prophets way ordinarily and publikely preach, 1 Corin. 14. v. 23. 24. 29. 31. Dr. Collings ſaith (Ʋind. Revind. pag. 64.) no ſuch gifted men as now live are prophets.

To prove our minor, that ſome men, (i. e. now living) who are not ordained Officers, are Prophets, we lay downe three propoſitions.

1. That Propheſie is a gift, not an office.

2. That Propheſying is a gift ſtill continuing.

3. That ſome men who are not ordained officers, have that gift of Propheſie, Preacher Sent. pag. 90. Dr. Collings (pag. 65.) repeateth three of our arguments, and telleth the Reader, that we bring them to prove, that Propheſie is a gift, not an office, and cryeth out of a pittiful non ſequitur, &c. whereas we uſe thoſe arguments to prove the laſt poſition, which is about the un-neceſſarineſſe of Ordination for prophets; Thus are we miſ-preſented, as if we brought arguments to prove one Propoſition, which we uſe to prove an other, and whether great wrong and injury be not offered to us and the Reader, by ſuch dealing, let any wiſe man judge? We neither argue in this place againſt their being extraordinary, or ordinary officers, nor againſt their being furniſhed with extraordinary gifts, other mediums we uſe elſe-where that way, and therefore his pittifull non ſequitur is of his own making: but the main queſtion was about preaching without ordination, and ſo we proved (Preacher Sent. pag. 90.) that ordination was not neceſſary for Prophets, which here he graneth.

We knew not which part of our argument would be denyed, and therefore left no part unproved.

p. 37Whereas he enquireth (Vind. p. 65.) who ever ſaid theſe Prophets were ordinary Officers? we anſwer Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt. declareth it to be his judgement; that this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets.

But neither of the Arguments which he is replying to, ſpeak one word about their being ordinary officers, and therefore we wonder how that queſtion ſhould be ſtarted here.

Prop. 1. The propheſying ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 14. is a gift, not an Office. 1. Becauſe all who have the gift of propheſie are Prophets, and they muſt have the gift before they can be made Prophets by Office. 2. Becauſe this propheſying ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth, and ſo of any other Church, whereas Office might not be ſo coveted by every man who was a member of a Church. 1. It is not promiſed. 2 Not poſſible to be obtained, &c. Preach. Sent. p. 91. 92.

Obj. Dr. Collings (pag. 66. 67. &c.) ſaith. 1. That God in the ſame moment clothed them with an extraordinary authority, and furniſhed them with an extraordinary gift, ſo he did Jeremy, Amos, &c. 2. That the ſame argument will prove it was no gift, except a promiſe can be ſhewn thereof. 3. Things not neceſſary to ſalvation ſhould be prayed for with ſubmiſſion to Gods will &c. 4. They cannot be Officers to that Church, but may be in time Officers to other Churches, there is no impoſſibility in this at all, yea (he ſaith) they ought to labour after ſuch a perfection. Beſides Ʋniverſal holineſs may and ought to be laboured for, yet it is not promiſed, nor can be attained, &c. 5. All doth not include every individual alwayes, &c.

Anſ. 1. No ordinary Officer can be orderly made, unleſs thoſe gifts which furniſh for the Office be firſt found in him, Act. 6. 3. 1 Tim. 3. And that not extraordinary, but ordinary Prophets are intended, 1 Cor. 14. p. 38we have largely proved, Preach. Sent. pag. 100. 101. 102. and ſo our Argument is valid, though extraordinary Officers, as Jeremy and Amos, ſhould have the gift and Office together; yet there, the gift in order of nature at leaſt doth precede the Office, which authorize to ſuch an exerciſe of the gift.

2. There is a promiſe of the very gift of propheſie, which is of far larger extent then office. Joel 2. 28 I will pour out my ſpirit upon all fleſh, & your ſons and your daughters ſhall propheſie, &c. This [all fl…ſh] cannot be limited unto Officers. This promiſe began to be fulfilled, Act. 2. but its full accompliſhment is not yet, as appears, Joel 3. ver. 1. The captivity of Judah and Jeruſalem is not yet recovered, the Jews not yet converted, and this ſhall be [in thoſe dayes] i. e. wherein the pouring out of the ſpirit ſhall be, for thoſe were the daves before mentioned.

Both ſons and daughters ſtill have a gift of Scripture-interpretation, which is a gift of propheſie. And this promiſe of the gift of propheſie being ſo general, hence our Argument will not prove that it was no gift, as he ſaith.

3. Prayers for the gift of propheſie, or any other mercies which are to be begged with ſubmiſſion to the will of God, cannot be in duty or faith, without they be limited and bounded by ſome Divine word or promiſe: for it is a humane faith which hath not a Divine word to bottom upon, and if it were otherwiſe, any man might pray that he might be made a King, an Emperour, or to have an eſtate of many thouſand pounds per annum, or to live many thouſand years on earth, or what he pleaſed, and this might warrant him therein, that he prayed for them with ſubmiſſion to the will of God.

If a Divine word be the boundary of ſuch ſupplications, then a particular mans recovery out of ſickneſs p. 39may be owned as a fruit of Promiſe, and then there muſt be ſome Divine word for every mans becoming an officer who was a member of the Church at Corinth, elſe they could not in duty or in faith covet it; and it cannot be imagined that ſuch a word ſhould be limited to Corinth, and therefore it muſt extend to the Church of Epheſus, Smyrna, and any other Goſpel Church; and ſo it muſt amount to thus much, That all the men who were members of any Goſpel Church were bound in duty and might in faith covet to be Church officers, and how likely it is that this ſhould be a truth, and how well it agreeth with our brethrens Principles who deny the Preaching of gifted men, let the Reader judge. And if he liketh not our Argument from a promiſe, he may take it from a precept, and then he muſt ſay, That every man who was a member of the Church at Corinth, and ſo of any other Goſpel Church, was commanded to covet to be an Officer, if propheſying were an office; for every man was commanded to covet to propheſie, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 1. 5. 39.

4. We apprehend there is an impoſſibility (in reſpect of the revealed will of God) of many mens becoming Officers, who are Church-members, hinted in that place, 1 Cor. 12. 7. which we have (according to his wiſh) thought upon, but although it ſeemeth to deny that all members of the Church can attain unto the ſame Office, gifts, or meaſure of them, yet it doth not deny that there may be a joynt concurrence of all in matters of common concernment, nor the uſefulneſs of the ſuffrage of the meaneſt members.

And by ſeveral paſſages in his book (pag. 2.) we are apt to think, that he doth not encourage the members of his Church to covet to be Officers either there or in other Churches, though (pag. 68.) he ſaith (if we miſtake him not) this is ſuch a perfection as they ought to labour after. The London Miniſters are of another p. 40mind; for Jus Div. Min. pag. 85. they deny it to be a common duty to ſtudy Divinity, in order to Preaching, Univerſal holineſs is promiſed, Ezek. 36. ver. 26. A new heart will I give you, ver. 29. I will ſave you from all your uncleanneſſes. If he meaneth Univerſal holineſs in reſpect of degrees, it is promiſed to, and ſhall be injoyed in another life, and ſo the attainment of it there is to be ſought for here.

We are to labor for the higheſt pitch of holines which is attainable in this life, and this is promiſed. But that which is impoſſible to be attained, is not to be coveted. And it is conſiderable that no Church is exhorted to covet to be Apoſtles or Evangeliſts, or Paſtors, or Teachers, but a Church is exhorted to covet the gift of propheſie, and therefore that gift may more generally be coveted, then the loweſt of thoſe Offices.

5. The term all doth include the generality of thoſe ſpoken to, and that is enough to our purpoſe. He granteth (pag. 69.) that priority of order is no infallible Argument where there is any other Scripture, or any found reaſon to evince it, no intention of the holy pen-men; and that both are found in this caſe, our Arguments for their being ordinary Prophets do ſufficiently prove.

We do not conclude that thoſe Texts, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. 12. are meant of extraordinary Prophets, but upon this ſuppoſition that they [muſt be Officers] we think it will not follow, that thoſe. 1 Cor. 14. muſt be ſo alſo. As if he lay upon the catch, he cryeth out, we take them at their word, &c.

But ſeeing its not impoſſible that the one place ſhould ſpeak of one fort of Prophets, and the other place of another, we might uſe an [it may be] about it, for that often denoteth but a poſſibility, and leaveth the matter dubious, Ezek. 2. 3. Jerem. 36. 3. 7. Luke 20. 13.

p. 41Prop. 2. That ſome have the gift of propheſie, or that propheſying is a gift ſtill continuing,

This we prove. 1. Becauſe there is no Goſpel rule for the ceaſing of it. 2. Becauſe it was ordinary.

Ob. So ſay the Prelates for Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, where is there any now that Vind. Revind. pag. 70. 71.can without ſtudy & meditation infallibly give the ſence of Scripture from Revelation, or can foretell things to come? we have experience that thoſe pleaded for, cannot do the firſt, and the year 1657. being come and gone, and the Jews not converted, proves that John Tillinghaſt—-cannot do the latter. St. Pauls charging Timothy to ſtudy and meditate, &c. was a certain proof, that this prophecying is ceaſed. The gift of tongues and bealing in thoſe dayes were ordinary, yet none of them is continuing.

Anſw. 1. It is not proved that the prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. was a gift of infallible Revelation, or of foretelling things to come, and therefore the ceaſing of ſuch gifts, and the charging Timothy to ſtudy and meditate are far from proving that this prophecying is ceaſed.

Mr. John Tillinghaſt neither pretended to ſuch an extradinary gift of foretelling things to come, or infallible Revelation as he ſpeaketh of, and therefore is very impertinently alleadged here. The firſt ſtirring of the Jews he thought in probability and greateſt likelihood (from Scriptures numbers) would be in the year 1656. vid. Generat. work. p. 50. Key to Myſt. N. pag. 248. Knowledge of the times. pag. 97. he doth not ſpeak of it as certainly and infallibly to come to paſſe, that yet we find; and if he had, many worthy men have been miſtaken in the myſtical numbers; and therefore it is an unworthy act to ſeek thus to blemiſh his name after his death. That which he ſpeaketh of Prelates, is but to caſt odium, for neither Arch-Biſhops nor Biſhops p. 42can ſhew any inſtitution of Chriſt for their office: they have not an immediate vocation, or infallible direction, or power for miraculous operation, and therefore they cannot rationally pretend to ſuch a general Commiſſion as Apoſtles and Evangeliſts had.

2. If by ordinary he intendeth Common, in that ſence the gift of Tongues and healing in thoſe dayes were ordinary, though the way and manner of conveying thoſe gifts, and the end of them was extraordinary, Act. 2. ver. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 22. Tongues are for a ſign.

But that was ordinary which had not a temporary reaſon for its uſe, or which did not require an extraordinary Call, to enable to, and warrant in coming up to it, or which men are commonly in after ages gifted for, even unto this day, and whoſe nature, acts and ends were not extraordinary; And whether our Arguments do not prove prophecying in theſe reſpects to be ordinary, and ſo ſtill continuing, let the Reader judge. Mr. Rutherford ſaith, that theſe Prophets and our Paſtors differ not in ſpecies and nature, and that to him, this is a pattern of a Colledge of ordinary Prophets. &c. which ſtill rendreth us perſwaded that Mr. Rutherford thought the gift of Propheſie was ordinary; for ſurely he knew that an extraordinary gift did make one differ in ſpecies & nature from ordinary Officers; Only he judged that the way and manner of conferring that gift was extraordinary, ordinarily it is acquired by ſtudy and induſtry, then (he ſuppoſed) it was infuſed, But as it was an ordinary viſive faculty (as other mens) which was conferred upon the man born blind, and wine of an ordinary ſpecies which was made, John 2 though the manner of production was extraordinary; ſo the gift of propheſie was ordinary in his account, though by a maze of words. Dr. Collings would perſwade the Reader p. 43otherwiſe. We proved this prophecying to be an ordinary gift, and ſo ſtill continuing, becauſe, 1. The Rules to regulate the work are ordinary. 2. The deſcription of it ordinary, 1 Cor. 14. 3. 3. One great end of extraordinary prophecying (viz. to be a ſign) is denied to this, 1 Corinthians 14. 22. 4. Women are forbidden this publike prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet extraordinary publike prophecying is allowed to them, Luke 2. 36. 38.

Obj. 1. The act may be ordinary, and yet the gift not ſo. Extraordinary Officers, and gifts were to come under general rules of order. 2. So far as it is a deſcription, it is a deſcription of the act, not of the gift,—-onelyonly ſuch ends of prophecying are expreſſed as were common to that with other Ordinances and duties. 3. This Text onelyonly proves that propheſie was no ſign to them that believed not.

The onelyonly end of foretelling things to come was not to be a ſign. Their chief act (as be conceiveth) was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift, which indeed to them that believed not the Scripture would be of no uſe. 4. Women propheteſſes are not mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. 34. we do not find that Anna, Luke 2. 36. ſpake things to come; and this liberty was restrained, 1 Cor. 14. 37.

Anſ. 1. Extraordinary acts will follow extraordinary gifts; for operari ſequitur eſſe. That the work of prophecy is ordinary, is not a fallucious, but a firm Arument to prove the gift to be ordinary alſo, and ſtill continuing; none but ordinary rules are mentioned to regulate prophecyſing, nothing in the deſcription of the work but what is ordinary, and a large chapter is ſpent chiefly in directing about prophecying, and nothing extraordinary is predicated either of the gift or act in the whole chapter, and ſurely this will prove an ordinary gift or work of propheſie to be here intended, as ſtrongly as the enumerating onelyonly of Officers or perſons extraordinarily gifted, Eph. 4. 11. 12. p. 441 Cor. 12. 28. 29. (if granted) can prove extraordinary propheſie to be there intended, as he would have it, Vind. pag. 70. 77.

And extraordinary directions were given to regulate Apoſtles, and Evangeliſts in the exerciſe of extraordinary gifts, Mat. 10.

2. The act (and ſo the deſcription of it) muſt be ſutable to the gift. Exhortation is here aſſigned unto propheſie, and alſo, Act. 15. 32. Being Prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, where the act of propheſie is denoted by it, and that here onelyonly ſome common ends ſhould be expreſſed by it, how unconceivable is it? Is not exhortation an act? Edification and comfort are not ſo; and therefore what triflling is it to ſay the Text proves them to be the act as well as the other? or will not the words, as rendred by him out of the Greek, ſerve as well to our purpoſe, as the Uulgar tranſlation? and can the ſence be perfect without [to] or ſome ſuch word? we know not to what end his high words here ſerve, but to make a flouriſh.

3. That the extraordinary gift or act of fore-telling things to come cannot be the prophecying ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 14. we prove, becauſe one great end of prediction, viz. to be a ſign, is denyed unto this prophecying, and that denial is to be found, ver. 22.

Our Argument was not taken from a denial of the act (as he reporteth. pag 73.) but of one end, which indeed by conſequence denyeth that to be the gift or act. He faith this Texthat believed not that propheſie was no ſign to them that believed not. We anſwer, this (which he granteth it doth prove) enough to evidence, that fore-telling things to come is not the propheſie here intend, for that was a ſign to them that believed not, Mat. 16. ver. 3 4. The ſign of the Prophet Jonas was given to convince a wicked and p. 45Adulterous generation. Neither is there a word in the chapter to prove that the prophecying, 1 Cor. 14. was a ſign to ſuch as believed, or that the infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift was the act of thoſe Prophets, both which he ſuggeſteth.

4. If he intendeth onelyonly, that women Propheteſſes are not [expreſſely] mentioned, 1 Corin. 14. 34. we might anſwer all his arguments at once with this; for the Scripture doth not [expreſly] command all preachers to receive Ordination; If he will ſay they are no way mentioned or intended.

Then, 1. He contradicteth the London Miniſters who uſe theſe words, [by women here are not meant women ſimple, but women Propheteſſes in oppoſition to men Prophets formerly ſpoken of Jus. Divin. Min. pag. 100.] yea contradicteth himſelfe; for he faith [it is to be underſtood of women that had or pretended to have the gift of propheſie, Vind. Ʋindiciarum, pag. 119.]

And by this the Reader may ſee that it is a hard task for us to anſwer both the the London Miniſters and Dr. Collings, ſeeing they contradict one an other, and the Dr. will rather contradict himſelfe, then want a reply for us.

2. There is no appearance of truth in it: for, this Chapter ſpeaketh chiefly about the gift of propheſie, ſtiling it [ſpeaking] v. 29. yea, a ſpeaking publikely is forbidden to women, v. 34. 35. and that ſpeaking in way of propheſie ſhould be excluded (without cogent reaſon to infer it) who can imagin it?

And if the publick ſpeaking in way of Propheſie be intended (as doubtleſſe it is) then women propheteſſes are mentioned v. 34: and our argument ſtandeth firm; neither would the force of it be much abated, if it were granted (which yet it is not) that Anna (Luk. 2. 36.) was called a propheteſſe, or that an othery p. 46were called Prophets from an extraordinary faculty by Revelation to interpret Scripture; and ſo what he faieth is nothing to the preſent purpoſe, for we may argue thus,

That Propheſying which was an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelation was permitted unto women, Luke 2. 36.

But the propheſying, 1 Cor. 14. was not permitted unto woman, v. 34. Ergo, the propheſying. 2 Cor. 14. was not an interpreting of Scripture by an extraordinary faculty from Revelation, which Dr. Collings would have to be the Propheſying there intended, pag. 74.

There is not one ſylable of proof, that foretelling things to come is the propheſying intended, 1 Cor. 14.

We have proved (Preacher Sent. Pag. 103.) that this liberty is not reſtrained by the Apoſtle; the Dr. aſſerteth that it is reſtrained, 1 Corin. 14. 37. yet hath given nothing but his bare word for the proof of it.

And this is enough to ſhew the weakneſſe of his anſwers to our arguments; we ſhall onelyonly hint a few things in anſwer to what followeth in this Chapter.

1. Propheſying is as much diſtinguiſhed from Revealation as from doctrine, 1 Cor. 14. 6. except I ſhall ſpeak to you cithes by Revelation or by propheſying or by doctrine: And therefore as eaſily we may conclude thence, that Propheſying is not Revelation, as he may (pag. 76.) that it is not ſpeaking by doctrine. If he wil grant that it is not Revelation, then he contradicteth himſelfe (pag. 66. 74.) and alſo the London Miniſters, (Jus Div. Mini. pag. 98.) and conſeſſeth the validity of our anſwer to the preſent objection. If he faith it is Revelation, we may ſay, the Prophets ſpeak not by Revelation, that was another thing, and we have as good proof of it, v. 6. as he hath there, that they p. 47ſpake not by doctrine, and therefore he can get nothing by this arguing.

The London Miniſters (pag. 98.) would prove from v. 26. 30. that theſe were extraordinary Prophets, having extraordinary Revelations: And what is it to the purpoſe, if they did not ſpeak by doctrine? or if Chriſtians ordinarily had not ſuch Revelations as they might publikely and ordinarily communicate them in Church Aſſemblies, might not many unordained men have ſuch Revelations? or how is this to the buſineſſe in hand? If prophecy ſhould be expreſſed by Revelation, v. 26 (which is not proved) yet ſeeing (as he conſeſſeth) there is ordinary Revelation, it may be underſtood of that: and the joyning of it in the ſame verſe with doctrine which is ordinary, would as firmely prove the prophet to be ordinary, as the joyning of it with ſome thing extraordinary, would prove it to be extraordinary.

2. His granting (pag. 77.) that the note of ſingularity will not prove the gift was extraordinary, is enough to juſtifie our anſwer, and to ſhew that it cannot prove what he produced it for, Ʋind. Min. pag. 50. nor doth it prove either that the Prophets were Officers, or the gifts extraordinary, but onelyonly a not common gift wherein they are diſtinguiſhed from other members who have not that gift.

3. Whether Prophets in all the old and New Teſtament ſignifie ſome in office, let the Reader judge upon a weighting, Mat. 13. 57. Luke 4. 24. Mat. 10. 41. Acts 15. 32. foreign doth not neceſſarily denote Office, its uſed, Acts 14. 12. foreign we read of another Judas, then the Apoſtle whoſe houſe was at Damaſcus, Acts 9. v. 11. The Apoſtles at that time abiding at Jeruſalem, Acts 8. 1. yet the Dr. would deny that there was any Judas (pag. 79.) beſides the a traitor and the Apoſtle; and how doth it appear, that p. 48Judas and Silas were of the 120. and not of the thouſands that were afterward converted?

And ſeeing exhorting often is preaching, and is the worke of Prophets, 1 Corin. 14. 3. that it ſhould be ſaid Acts. 15. 32. [being Prohets, they exhorted the brethren—] and it ſhould not prove that this act was performed by them as Prophets, who can imagin it? If it were ſaid Steven being a Deacon, diſtributed, would it not be concluded that he diſtributed as a Deacon, diſtribution being a work of a Deacon, as exhortation is of a Prophet; and what addition then is it to Scripture to ſay, their exhorting was becauſe they, were Prophets, though foreign doth not ſignifie becauſe? How 2 Peter 1. 19. 20. fights againſt us we know not; if he thinketh that it denyeth the interpretation of Scripture to belong to private men, as ſome have conjectured, let him read Dr. Ames and others on the place, and he may be informed otherwiſe, if officers rightly ordained do give a humane expoſition of Scripture, or ſuch as is not according to the mind of the Holy Ghoſt, that is a private interpretation, which may anſwer his allegations, pag. 78. 80.

3. It is not proved that prophecy is preferred before the gift of Tongues, in caſe he that ſpeaketh with Tongues did interpret, 1 Cor. 14. 15: greater is he that Proheſieth, then he that ſpeaketh with Tongues [except the interpreter]—he doth not ſay he is greater when he doth interpret; and therefore when that reaſon, viz. edification failed, its without proof, that another muſt be found. If the Prophet were leſs in another reſpect (as he ſaid p. …1.) how this helpeth to prove the extraordinarineſſe or rarity of the gift of Prophecy, we ſee not.

4. That the [ordinary gifts] of paſtors and Teachers are uſeful to the edifying, Comforting, Convincing, and Converting of Souls, is enough to ſhew that Propheſie cannot be proved to be [an extraordinary gift p. 49or office] by its uſefulneſſe to ſuch ends, and this was it he would have proved by it, Vind. Min. p. 51. and his reply (Vind. Revind. p. 81.) doth not hinder its proving as much as we produce it for.

Neither doth what he ſaith (p. 82.) about a word of wiſdom and knowledge prove that Propheſic was an extraordinary gift or office, nor anſwer our reaſons, and ſo its nothing to the purpoſe.

We cannot but wonder at what he ſaith, pag. 84. 85. in one page he calleth in any indifferent Reader, and then any Reader to judge, and addeth that the letter of Scripture is expreſſe againſt us, 1 Cor. 14. 22. and rehearſeth the Words: one would think ſuch a heap of high words ſhould not be uſed with ſuch confidence, unleſſe it were to uſher in a diſcovery of ſome groſſe Error or miſtake, which he had found in thoſe which he writeth againſt.

But upon peruſing thoſe pages again and again, we cannot find any ſuch Error on our part; nay, we think that he hath ruſhed himſelfe into divers groſſe ſelf-contradictions.

Let any indifferent Reader ſearch our former book, (Preacher Sent. p. 115.) and find out, if he can, how v. 22. is againſt us, and that expreſly in the letter. Have we either denyed Tongues to be for a ſign to them that believe not, or affirmed them to be for a ſigne to them that believe? have we aſſerted propheſying to ſerve for them that believe not, otherwiſe then the Apoſtle doth? v. 24, 25. or denyed that Prophecying ſerveth for them which believe? If not, what ſhadow of truth is there in what he faith?

He telleth us we would make them believe, that the ſenſe is onelyonly, that Propheſie was not for a ſigne to them that believed not, but for their converſion it might be. This he would have the Reader weigh a little, p. 50and then judge betwixt us; we deſire it may be weighed.

Reader, which part wilt thou deny? Wilt thou ſay,

That Propheſie was for a ſign to them that believed not? This Dr. Collings himſelf (pag. 73.) denyeth, uſing theſe words [This Text (viz. v. 22.) onelyonly proves, that propheſie was no ſign to them that believed not.]

Wilt thou ſay that Propheſie might not be for the converſion of them that believe not?

Doth not the Apoſtle prove it might, v. 24. 25? and doth not Dr. Collings conſeſſe it, when the unbeliever goeth into the Church Aſſembly? pag. 85. If he ſuppoſeth that we grant Propheſie to be a ſign, but not for their converſion, he is much miſtaken, he may ſee it denyed, Preacher Sent. p. 102. neither is there a ſyllable that way, pag. 115. to which he is now replying.

We may conclude from his words, and v. 22. that it is not a ſign at all; for that verſe plainly denyeth it to be a ſigne to unbelievers; and he ſaith (pag. 84.) if it were a ſigne at all, it muſt be for them who believed not, and this confirmeth our argument, pag. 102.

And let the Reader judge whether Dr. Collings hath not run into a ſelf-contradiction in the following expreſſions of the ſame book.

We hope Dr. Collings underſtands by Prophecy, ſuch Prophecy as the Apoſtle ſpeaks of in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, otherwiſe we may tell him as he doth us (pag. 65.) he deceives his Reader with an equivocal word. Yea our preſent queſtion is onelyonly about the Prophecy ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 14. and we deny that this Prophecying was for any ſign either to believers or unbelievers. As ordinary preaching is now for the converſion of unbelievers, yet is not a ſign for it, ſo was that Propheſying for their converſion, yet not a ſigne for it.

Whereas he ſaith (pag, 85.) Prophecy is uſeful for the converſion of unbelievers, but it is when the unbeliever comes into the Church Aſſembly, not when the Prophet goes out to them, v. 23. 24. and addeth, mark, the Prophet is tyed up to the Aſſembly of the Church in one place, and then blameth ſome for travelling up and down the countrey, and ſo pag. 73. 109.

We conſeſſe we wonder that Dr. Collings ſhould profeſſe himſelfe to be of this mind. Is not this charged to be Independentiſm in the height of it, to tie p. 52up ſome Goſpel-adminiſtrations to the Aſſembly of the Church in one place? Is there not as much, ver. 23. 24. to tie up from going out to any other Church Aſſemblies, as from going out to unbelievers? yea, is there not as much, 1 Cor. 11 17. 18. 20. 33. to tie up the Lords Supper to the Aſſembly of the Church in one place, as there is, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 23. 24. to confine propheſie to it? yet would he not blame us if we ſhould ſay, a Paſtor may adminiſter the Lords Supper to believers of other Churches when they come into the Church Aſſemblies, but muſt not go out to them?

The Aſſembly ſpeaking of adminiſtering the Sacrament to members of another Church, tell us, ſurely he (i. e. an Elder) may as well do it when he goes to them, as when they come to him for it: Anſw. of the Aſſem. pag. 7. and may not we ſay, that the Prophets may go to unbelievers, as well as they come to them? If the prophecying, Act. 19. 6. were an extraordinary gift, or conferred in an extraordinary way, this proveth not either that all prophecying, or that mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. was ſo.