A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Wherein our third, fourth and fifth Argument for gifted mens preaching are vindicated from Mr. Pools exceptions laid againſt them.
Argu. 3. OUr third Argument is taken from a Goſpel promiſe, Mat. 25 29. Maſter Pool replyeth, every one is to exerciſe his gifts, according to his capacity and place, and upon a Call, &c. and theſe things we have anſwered under the foregoing Argument, and nothing is needful to be added.
Arg. 4. Our fourth Argument is taken from Goſpel preſidents or examples, we inſtance in Apollo, Act. 18, 24. and the ſcattered Saints, Act. 8. &c. Mr. Pool waveth our Argument as urged, Preacher Sent. pag. 68. 69. 70. from the inſtance of Apollo, which alone is enough to prove the warrantableneſs of gifted mens preaching, and that publikely without Ordination. But he is forced to flee for refuge to, and ſeek ſhelter under the wing of a few groundleſs objections.
Obj. 1. That Apollo had extraordinary gifts, is very probable, 1 Cor. 1. 12. being ranked with perſons ſo qualified. pag. 61.
Anſw. 1. Paul is ranked with perſons but ordinarily gifted, Act. 13. 1. and ranketh himſelf with the leaſt of Saints; and what more common then to mention ordinary and extraordinary gifts together, Rom. 12. 1 Corin. 12. 28. 29. Epheſ. 4. ver. 11. 12. Yet were it a probable Argument, that Paſtors or Teachers had extraordinary gifts, becauſe ranked with Apoſtles who had ſuch gifts, ſurely no. And that Apollo had ſuch gifts, there is in 1 Cor. 1. 12. ne foreign quidem.
2. Aquila and Priſcilla excelled him in knowledge, Ergo, It is improbable that he had extraordinary gifts.
Object. Thoſe Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were to hear and learn of others. The Apoſtles had extraordinary gifts when Chriſt lived, yet were ignorant of his death, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 62.
Anſ. We deny not that Apollo was ſuch an ordinary Prophet as thoſe, 1 Corin. 14. or that he was to learn of others, but that he was extraordinarily gifted: the Apoſtles were unacquainted with ſome particular truths before the clear Revelation of them; yet neither they, nor any others who were extraordinarily gifted are ſaid to be ſo defective in knowledge of the way of the Lord, after a clear Revelation of it, and to be our-ſtripped by private perſons, as Apollo was.
3. The people at Epheſus where he preached, after his departure, were ignorant of thoſe extraordinary gifts, Act. 18. 24. and 19. 1. 2.
Object. He might have them, and yet neither they nor Apollo might diſtinctly know them, pag. 62.
Anſw. That one may be converted and not know it, we grant, but that one may be extraordinarily gifted, and yet not diſtinctly know what ſuch gifts are, or that neither he, nor thoſe among whom he exerciſeth them, ſhould know he hath them, is a thing, as without proof, ſo without any probability of truth.
4. Apollo knew only the Baptiſm of John, Act. 18. 25. Ergo, had not thoſe extraordinary gifts which appertained to the Baptiſm of Chriſt.
Object. 2. Apollo might have Commiſſion from John.
Anſw. 1. This is anſwered in our former Book, to which we refer the Reader.
2. It is denyed that John gave Commiſſion to any to Preach; and therefore we had reaſon to deſire proof of it, that we might not have the endleſs work of anſwering groundleſs conjectures, yet withall, we gave grounds againſt it.
Obj. 3. There is a far greater neceſſity of gifted mens preaching where Ministers are not, then in a Church where they are. We do not find Apollo's Preaching in a Chriſtian Church, but diſputing in a Jewiſh Aſsembly, a liberty which we as readily allowed to gifted men, as to write in defence of the truth, Mr. Pool pag. 63.
Anſw. 1. It was the warrantableneſs of it, not the neceſſity that we ſpake of: but if neceſſity will warrant gifted mens Preaching where no Miniſters or Churches are, their ordinary preaching muſt be allowed.
2. Let it be obſerved, that they allow unto gifted men the exerciſe of other gifts in publick Aſſemblies; they will allow them to diſpute publickly in a Jewiſh Aſſembly; and therefore it ſavoureth of a being wedded to an opinion, to deny them liberty in this particular caſe, to uſe a preaching gift in publick Aſſemblies. We ask him, whether they will allow women and ungifted men thus to diſpute publickly, if not, this might ſatisfie him (if he were candid) that there is reaſon againſt womens and ungifted mens preaching publickly, which will not forbid gifted mens doing of it, and ſo might ſilence this trifling objection, which is a diſh we have been ſerved with uſ que ad nauſeam.
3. Apollo was not onelyonly diſputing, but preaching, and that publikely, Act. 18. ver. 25. he ſpake and taught diligently, ver. 26. in the Synagogues, ſo ver. 28. And this being in a Jewiſh Synagogue, its a full proof that gifted men may warrantably preach in publick Aſſemblies of unbelievers; as our Argument from the propheſie, 1 Cor. 14. doth prove that they may preach in a Chriſtian Church.
Our ſecond inſtance is in the ſcattered Saints, Act. 8. who went every where preaching. ver. 4. with Divine allowance, Act. 11. ver. 19. 20. 21.
Many batteries the provincial Aſſembly raiſed againſt this, but we ſhewed that it remained like a brazen wall, unſhaken. Mr. Poole waveth their defence in many objections, which we fully anſwered, yet ſaith (p. 63.) they might eaſily be vindicated from our exceptions, we might anſwer all his book in as few words.
Obj. 1. He ſaith, the true ſtate of the argument is here, becauſe the ſcattered Diſciples in a perſecuted ſtate of the Church, in a time when all Church order was broke, Preached and taught Jeſus Christ to heathens and unbelieving Jewes occaſionally, therefore now unordained perſons may preach publikely and ſolemnly to a Chriſtian Church ſetled and conſtituted, &c. Mr. Pool. pag 64.
Anſ. 1. This objection is anſwered in our reply to Dr. Collings, in chap. 74. of our Book, to which we refer the Reader.
2. Way doth he ſay they taught [occaſionally] if there be not ſome that preach ſeldom; yet ſuch occaſional preachers he could not find, pag. 47.
3. That its being a time wherein Church order was broken, or their being in a perſecuted ſtate was that which made their preaching warrantable, which otherwiſe would have been unlawful, is a meer conjecture, without the leaſt Scripture evidence: ſurely he will not ſay, that nothing may lawfully be done in a ſetled ſtate of the Church which theſe Chriſtians did in a perſecuted, ſeattered ſtate. Doubtleſs they performed many private duties then, they did not omit prayer, meditation, ſelf-examination, mortification of corruption, &c. yet theſe duties are to be come up unto in the moſt proſperous ſtate of the Church; and as well may the other, unleſs it can be proved not onelyonly that it was in a time of perſecution, but that the perſecution was it that made the Preaching lawful; and if Mr. Pool will aſſert this, he muſt contradict the provincial Aſſembly, whoſe caſe he pleadeth; for, they (though groundleſsly and contrary to the very Grammatical conſtruction of the words, as we ſhewed. Preach. Sent. p. 75.) reſtrain the ſcattering unto officers, & ſurely officers might have preached lawfully, though they had not bin perſecuted; ſo that Mr. Pool muſt either claſh with them, or elſe grant that their perſecuted ſtate did not warrant their preaching, & then his objecton vaniſheth.
We as much wonder that he can reſt in his anſwers, as he doth that we can be ſanctisfied in ours.
We ſay, perſecution laid no neceſſity upon them to preach.
Object. Yes, it laid a neceſſity upon them i. e. in order to Gods glory, and the ſalvation of ſouls, which could not be had without preaching, Rom. 10. and preaching could not now be had in an ordinary way, Mr. Pool, pag. 64.
Anſw. 1. This neceſſity was in thoſe places before the perſecution; preaching had been as neceſſary in order to the glory of God and the ſalvation of ſouls, though the perſecution never had been; neither did that hinder their having preaching in an ordinary way in theſe places, they loſt no preachers by it; and therefore it was not the perſecution that laid them under a neceſſity of preaching.
Neceſſity can be no plea in this caſe, for the utmoſt that the perſecution did towards their preaching in theſe places was, to put them upon travelling thither, and this onelyonly gave them opportunity, but did not put any neceſſity upon them of preaching. If travels, where they are without preaching, can make ſuch a neceſſity, gifted men ſhall not need want work.
2. Preaching might now have been had in an ordinary way, viz. by the Apoſtles, and doubtleſs would, rather then poſitive precepts ſhould be broken; ſee more of this in our anſwer to Dr. Collings, who uſeth a like objection.
And by this it may appear, that Mr. Pools inſtance of the ſhew-bread (pag. 65.) can lend him no help, becauſe here is no caſe of neceſſity to make the preaching of the ſcattered Saints lawfull, which otherwiſe had been unlawful, as there was for the eating of the ſhewbread, to make that lawful.
If preaching be an act of natural worſhip, gifted men cannot be denyed liberty to preach. I… it be amongſt thoſe things that are required by poſitive precepts, then Ordination being (according to Mr. Pool) eſſential to the conſtituting of a preacher, we ask, how it can be proved, that there can be any ſuch caſe of neceſſity of a mans preaching, when he cannot have that which is Eſſential thereunto? when two poſitive precepts are ſo coupled together, as one is Eſſential to the other, we ſuppoſe if one that is Eſſential cannot be had, a man is not under a neceſſity to come up to the other.
If a man could not have what was Eſſential to the inveſting him with the Prieſtly Office, then he was not neceſſitated to do the work of that Office; and therefore his caſe of neceſſity muſt be underſtood with reſtrictions and limitations, even when it is about ſuch as are onelyonly mala quia prohibita.
And though the ſhew-bread in a caſe of neceſſity might be eaten out of Gods way, and when Election or ordination cannot be had in every circumſtance in Gods way, they muſt be had as they may; yet when they cannot be had in Gods way in that which is Eſſential, they are not to be taken up at all: and Ordination being but an Adjunct to Office, having dependence upon a precedent-Election (as we have proved) hence it cannot be had without it. He ſaith (p. 65.) if neither Election nor Ordination can be had in Gods way, there is no neceſſity of their Preaching in a Church conſtituted.
But he doth not tell us when there is ſuch a caſe of neceſſity as will warrant their preaching; or what neceſſity he ſpeaketh of; It was a natural neceſſity that made the eating of the ſhew-bread, and the violation, Mat. 12. of the ſabbath reſt lawful, and unleſs his inſtances ſpeak of one kind of neceſſity, and his application of another, he muſt intend that; and ſuch a natural neceſſity indeed they are not under, to Preach in a Church conſtituted; but a moral neceſſity they are under, both of precept and means, in order to Gods glory, and the promoting of the ſalvation of ſouls.
We put them upon it to determine whether theſe that preach in ſuch extraordinary caſes be Officers or no Officers; and we ſhewed what miſerable inconveniences will attend the determining either way (Preacher Sent. pag. 87.) but Mr. Pool ſaw it to be his beſt way to wave that queſtion.
Object. He would make uſe of our Argument againſt us. They who were ſcattered abroad, they preached: but many ungifted perſons were ſcattered abroad; Therefore ſuch preached, Mr. Pool. pag. 66.
Anſw. His Argument carryeth with it a reaſon againſt the truth of it, viz. their being ungifted; for the work of preaching is ſuch as it cannot be performed (with Divine allowance, as here it was, or to edification) but by perſons gifted. Thoſe that had not ability, could not do it; ſo that his Argument hath enough in it for the confutation of it ſelf.
But the Argument, as urged by us, hath nothing in the bowels of it that doth deny, but much that doth evidence the truth of i….
For, it was the Church that was ſcattered abroad, Act. 8. ver. 1. and the ſcattering abroad is the very Character which the holy Ghoſt doth ſet out theſe preachers by, v. 4. Therefore they [that were ſcattered abroad] went every where preaching the word; which plainly argueth that very many, or the generality of thoſe that were ſcattered, did preach.
As to what is added (pag. 67.) that officers might teach publikely, the reſt privately, the Officers conſtantly, the others occaſionally: We anſwer, ubi lex non distinguit non eſt diſtinguendum; There is not a ſylliblein the text of any ſuch difference in their preaching, But of all of them in general its ſaid, they went every where preaching the word, ver. 4. and they did it conſtantly, Acts 11. v. 19, 20, 21.
N…ither had the phraſe been proper, if onelyonly officers had preached, If it had been ſaid all Iſrael was ſcattered, and they that were ſcattered did ſuch or ſuch a thing, it would have been groſly improper as well as untrue, to ſay that onelyonly the officers of the congregation did it; and ſo here,
Arg. 5. Our fift argument is taken from Goſpel Rules about propheſying, 1. Corin. 14. Our firſt Syllogiſme hath the very queſtion for its concluſion, yet Mr. Pool ſaith (pag. 68.) it may be granted; let him take it in its true meaning, and according to our explications of it in our ſtating the queſtion, and the controverſie will quickly be at an end, if it be granted.
And let it be obſerved that neither our premiſes nor concluſions ſpeak of what was formerly, but of what is at preſent. Our minor (which he excepteh againſt) affirmes not onelyonly that there [were] but that there [are] i. e. in theſe dayes, ſome Prophets who are not ordained Officers; and therefore his exceptions from the Apoſtles, and the extraordinarineſſe of gifts; are vain; ſeeing himſelfe will not ſay, that there [are] Apoſtles, or perſons extraordinarily gifted in theſe daies, and our minor ſpeaketh not of what [were] but what [are.]
So that, it is he that ſtumbleth at the threſhold, rather then we. Our argument in the urging of it is full enough; for we prove,
1. That theſe Prophets were not ordained; Indeed there is not a ſyllable in the Goſpel about the ordination of Prophets, neither doth Mr. Pool affirm, that they were ordained, but rather concludeth them to be extraordinary officers which needed no ordination; and therefore we ſhall not waſt time in replying to his exceptions againſt what we ſaid about that, eſpecially they having ſo little weight in them.
2. That propheſie is a gift, not an office.
3. That it is a gift ſtill continuing.
Pro. 1. That Propheſie is a gift, not an Office,
Our firſt argument is, all who have the gift of propheſie are prophets, and if theſe prophets were ordalned perſon; he denyeth this, but he medleth not with our proofs of it, Preacher Sent. p. 89.
If they were extraordinary perſons, then he denyeth the other propoſition, becauſe ſuch a gift makes them extraordinary officers. For anſwer to this we refer him unto our reply to Dr. Collings, and to our proofs that it is an ordinary gift; and if he wil grant them to be ordinary perſons, either he muſt ſay it is a gift, not an office, and then the queſtion is granted; or that there is another order of ordinary Officers for the work of preaching beſides Paſtors and Teachers.
Our ſecond argument was, that which ought in duty and might in faith be covered by every man who was a member of the Church of Corinth, that was a gift only, not an office, &c.
Ob. He denyeth the major, 1. An Office might be covered as well as a gift, 1 Tim. 3. 1.
2. Shew where God promiſed to every member of the Church of Corinth theſe extraordinary gifts▪
3. If an extraordinary office might not be deſired, either it is becauſe it is an office, and that hinders not, or becauſe extraordinary, and then extraordinary gifts might not be deſired, but they might, 1. Corin. 14. 1.
4. It was impoſſible for all to be officers there in that Church, but not to be officers in other places, &c. Mr. Pool p. 71, 72.
An. 1. The ſecond and forth particulars are anſwered in our reply to Dr. Collings, whether we refer the Reader.
The firſt and third particulars reach not the buſineſs; for the queſtion here is not whether it was an office either ordinary or extraordinary; But whether [every man] who was a member of Corinth or other Churches might covet to be officers?
Every man in a Church may deſire to have gifts, that he may be the more uſefull in the body to fellowmembers, but every man may not deſire office, for that were to deſire to be over it; and if this deſire ſhould be granted, that all ſhould become officers, where would be the body, the Church for them to be over? in thoſe daies if all the members of a Church deſired extraordinary gifts, and had this deſire anſwered, they might all find uſe for thoſe gifts; but there could not be roome for all to be officers.
And there is not the leaſt intimation in any verſe of the Chapter that the intendment of the Apoſtle in puting every man in the Church of Corinth upon coveting to propheſie, was that they might remove their ſtation and become officrs in other places, but that they might be the more uſeful to one another in that Church 1. Corin. 14. ver. 22, 23, 24. 26. &c. He ſaith they were to deſire other extraordinary gifts, ver. 1. and if thoſe were onelyonly to render them more ſervicable in that Church, with what ſhadow of reaſon can Propheſie be ſingled out, and be concluded to be coveted in order to Office in other Churches? Or doth Mr. Pool think in his heart, that this was it the Apoſtle did drive at? And how could all the men in that Church become officers in other places, without a diſſolution of the Church in this place, which certainly was far from the Apoſtles deſigne.
As for their being enumerated amongſt officers, and before Evangeliſts, we have anſwered it in our reply to Dr. Collings, and alſo in our former book, p. 93.
In that Judas and Silas as Prophets did exhort, Acts 15. 32. as himſelfe confeſſeth (pag. 74.) and yet there were others, whoſe work as Prophets was to foretel future events, Acts 11. ver. 27, 28. hence it is not ſo improbable as he would ſeem to make it, that there ſhould be two ſorts of New Teſtament Prophets; eſpecially our reaſons from 1 Corin. 14. being conſidered; but that anſwer was added ex abundanti, the objection being ſufficiently anſwered before, and ſo was no ſubterfuge; he may ſay if he pleaſe, that one ſort were Prophets by an extraordinary gift of prediction, the other were Prophets by an ordinary gift of Scripture-interpretation.
As for the ſelfe-contradiction which (pag. 75, 76.) he telleth us we boldly charge them with. Indeed, there being like titles given to both the books, Jus Divin. the habitations of the Authors of both being in and about London, and the Authors of Jus Divin. Regim. p. 123. promiſing a book upon the very ſubject of the other, we were induced to think that they had the ſame Authors, but leaſt they ſhould have different Authors we onelyonly laid it down by way of ſuppoſition, not by way of charge; our words are, and here we cannot but obſerve how the the Lord hath left them to a ſelf-contradiction (If the ſundry Miniſters of London, publiſhing the firſt book be of the Province of London, which publiſhed the ſecond, &c. Preacher Sent. page 97.
By which any man may ſee, that if the publiſhers of the firſt book be not of the province of London, there is no charge for ſelf-contradiction. And though they be not of the Provincial Aſſembly, yet it is very remarkable, that they ſhould contradict one an other about ſuch a weighty matter; For if the Prophets be ordinary perſons (as the Authors of the firſt book affirme) that is ſufficient ſaith Mr. Pool, pag. 75. and what he addeth, (pag. 76.) is far from proving it no contradiction, viz. That theſe Prophets were extraordinary officers in reſpect of their gift, and yet the ordinary paſtors of Corinth in regard of their office and relation.
It is a new contradiction to ſay that the ſame perſons at the ſametime ſhould be ordinary, & yet extraordinary Officers; as much as to ſay they are ordinary and yet not ordinary Officers. And office being a relation, hence if they be extraordinary officers at all, it muſt be in reſpect of their relation, and therefore what he ſaith is very improper, as if they could be extraordinary Officers not in reſpect of their relation.
And becauſe they well knew there might be many extraordinary Officers in a Church, yet that would not prove that there were more congregations then one in it, therefore ſurely they intended to deny them to be extraordinary officers, and their complying with Mr. Rutherford ſpeaketh as much; ſee more of this in our anſwer to Dr. Collings.
Prop. 2. That propheſying is ſtill continuing.
His reply to our firſt argument about therepeal of it (pag. 75.) is alſo anſwered to Dr. Collings.
The propheſying was ordinary as we prove by diverſe arguments, to which he replyeth pag. 77, 78. we anſwer,
If the Rules agree to extraordinary Officers, and the work be ſuch as they performed, yet ſeeing the Chapter is ſpent chiefly in the regulating of prophſying, and nothing extraordinary is predicated thereof, who can rationally conclude them to be extraordinary Prophets? Neither do thoſe Rules agree to extraordinary officers, as ſuch, nor is it their worke as ſuch, and therefore it is nothing to the purpoſe. If he could find a whole Chapter ſpent in the regulating Apoſtles or ſuch extraordinary officers in the exerciſe of their Office, and yet nothing ſhould be mentioned that agreeth to them as Apoſtles, or as extraordinary officers, this would run Paralel; but no ſuch inſtance is found.
Arg. 3. We ſay one great end of extraordinary Propheſying is denyed to this, viz. to be a ſigne.
Ob. 1. They had an other extraordinary gift, to wit, a gift of infallable teaching by immediate revelation. Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of prediction, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 77.
Anſw. There is not a word in this Chapter or elſewhere to evidence that theſe Prophets had any ſuch extraordinary gift of infallible teaching by immediate Revelation; there is as great a ſilence about this, as the other, That divers of the Apoſtles had not the gift of prediction, proveth that they were not extraordinary Prophets; but how this is againſt us we know not; for they had an extraordinary office upon them, viz. their Apoſtle-ſhip, though they were not Prophets.
Ob. 2. I am prone to conceive that the prediction of future events, was rather a priviledge indulged to ſome new Teſtament prophets, then common to all prophets, &c. pag. 77.
An. 1. We have no leaſure to diſprove his groundleſſe conceits.
2. That it was not common to all Prophets, we aſſert thoſe 1 Cor. 14. were without it, but that there were many new Teſtament, extraordinary Prophets, without a gift of prediction of future events, let him prove.
Our Argument is from the denial of this gift to them, v. 22. not barely from its not being mentioned.
Though the gift of prediction was chiefly for the ſake of unbelievers, yet alſo for the ſake of believers, Acts 11. v. 27. 28, 29. and this anſwereth his third particular p. 78.
Ob. 3. It is not ſaid that theſe prophets were given not for a ſigne to them that believe not, but that that act of their Office there ſpoken of was not for a ſigne, Mr. Pool pag: 78.
Anſw. 1. The Antitheſis plainly ſheweth his denying propheſying to be a for ſigne, 1 Corin. 14. 22. elſe it had been enough to ſay, Tongues are not to them that believe; but the Apoſtle ſaith, Tongues are for a ſigne, &c. and in oppoſition to this, he addeth but propheſying, &c. and therefore propheſying was not for a ſigne.
2. He ſpeaketh of propheſying, not of one act only of prophets, ver. 22. but propheſying ſerveth not, &c: Surely propheſying includeth all acts that are proper to them as prophets, yea foretelling things to come is propheſying (though the Apoſtle denieth that to be here intended, by denying it to be for a ſigne) Therefore his denying propheſying to be for a ſign, is as much as if he had expreſly ſaid, that theſe prophets were given not for a ſign.
Whereas he ſaith (pag. 78.) they had divers other extraordinary gifts, as that of Tongues, and the interpretation of them &c. We anſwer, That theſe Prophets, 1 Corin. 14. had ſuch gifts, is not proved; and however theſe did not betid-them as Prophets, but (if they had them) were a priviledge indulged to them, as they were to many others in thoſe dayes, who were no Officers at all, Act. 10. 44. 46.
Our fourth Argument is from its not being allowed to women, 1 Cor. 14▪ 34. which extraordinary propheſie was, Luke 2. 36. 38. Mr. Pool thinketh that Anna did it not in a publick Aſſembly, pag. 79.
We anſwer, Its ſaid expreſſely, Luke 2. ver. 37. ſhe was a widow which departed not from the Temple; and v. 38. And ſhe coming in——ſpake of him to [all] them that looked for redemption in Jeruſalem. That ſhe ſhould be ſaid to be in a publick place, [the Temple] and to ſpeak to [all] &c. and yet ſhould ſpeak onelyonly in a private way, or ſeverally to them, is irrational to imagine, and a meer ſhift.
As to what he ſaith (pag. 80. 81.) it hath very little weight in it, for he granteth, 1. That Doctrine is ordinary, and giveth no probable grounds that here it muſt be extraordinary; as for the office being extraordinary, it is confuted already. 2. That there is ordinary Revelation; and his reaſons to prove extraordinary Revelations to be here intended, are very weak.
Object. 1. The word is of the preſent tenſe, foreign if it be revealed, not if it have been revealed, Mr. Pool, pag. 80.
Anſw. 1. Dr. Collings will tell him, the enallage of tenſes is very ordinary in Scripture, Vind. Revind. pag 107.
It is ſaid, Roman. 1. ver. 17. The righteouſnes of God foreign is revealed, yet this doth not deny either that it was revealed before, or that it ſhould be afterward. So if it were in the preſence Tenſe, if it be revealed, this would not deny the Revelation of the things to be before.
2 It is one of Mr. Pools groſſe miſtakes, that the word foreign is in the preſent Tenſe for … is the firſt Aoriſt, & it is generally rendred thus▪ ſi revelatum fuerits ſi patefactum fuerit; not if any thing be at preſent, but if any thing hath been revealed; ſo that quite contrary to what Mr. Pool ſaith, the very Tenſe doth intimate, that they had the Revelation before their ſitting by; and thus his Argument is built upon a meer miſtake.
Object. 2. The poſture in which it is revealed, when he ſitteth by, pag. 80.
Anſw. It onelyonly intimateth what poſture they were in, after the things were revealed (as is already proved) not what poſture they were in at the time of their Revelation, one that was ſitting by had the Revelation, but that he had it whils he was ſitting by, the words prove not in the leaſt.
Object. 3. This Revelation was not common to all the Prophets, but peculiar to one foreign ſome one that ſitteth by, and therefore ſurely it cannot be the Revelation by the word, which is common to all the Prophets, yea all the Church, pag. 80.
Anſw. 1. If this Revelation were not common to all the Prophets, then it will prove an Argument againſt him, if ſuch extraordinary Revelation be intended, for we may argue thus,
Thoſe to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common, were but ordinary Prophets; for they cannot be extraordinary Prophets, without ſuch extraordinary gifts.
But ſome of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were ſuch (ſaith, Mr. Pool) to whom extraordinary Revelations were not common, Ergo, Some of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. were but ordinary Prophets.
Surely therefore upon ſecond thoughts Mr. Pool will ſay, it was common to all theſe Prophets to have theſe Revelations at one time or another, though at this or that particular time it was peculiar to one or two to have them; and then we anſwer,
2. Its being peculiar to ſome one to have them, doth not prove his having them by immediate inſpiration, but onelyonly intimateth a poſſibility of others coming without preparation, becauſe all the Prophets might not come prepared by premeditation to propheſie, therefor: it might aptly be ſaid, if any thing be revealed to one that ſitteth by, &c. and ſo it may be meant of ordinary Revelation by the word, which is common to to all the Church, to have in ſome degree, though it be not common to all the Prophets to have at this or that time, in ſuch a degree as to be in readineſs to propheſie. As now a dayes its ordinary for many Miniſters to go to a Lecture and ſit by, and yet not go prepared to Preach.
Object. 4. The effect of the Revelation is to give aſtop to the others diſcourſe, pag. 80.
Anſw. It cannot be proved that a Revelation given to a ſecond, was that which cauſed the firſt to hold his peace; as if it made an interruption, or put him upon breaking of his diſcourſe ſooner then he would: but onelyonly it intimateth that two were not to ſpeak together, nor one ſpin out all the time (if others came prepared to ſpeak) and that this is the meaning is evident by the reaſon which the Apoſtle addeth, 1 Cor. 14. 31. For, ye may all propheſie one by one, &c.
Object. 5. As to what he addeth (pag. 8….) that it fell out beyond expectation, and therefore is brought in conditionally, If any thing be revealed, &c.
Anſw. This doth not prove the Revelation …o be beyond his expectation that had it, but onelyonly intimateth a poſſibility that diverſe might have Revelations, or might come with preparations to propheſie; as it is ſaid, Act. 13. ver. 15. [If] ye have any word of exhortation, ſay on. So that [It] is not needleſs, yet doth not deny the Revelation to be ordinary and common.