The Peoples Plea for the Exercise of Prophecy, Part 8 – Part 10
M. Yates. ARG. 8.
FROM preſent Revelation v. 30. In the verſe going before is laid down in what order they ſhall propheſie, even as it was before for ſtrange tongues: yet here is a further injunction and that is of ſilence, if any thing of more weight ſhal be revealed unto another: why ſhould the other keep ſilence if it were known before, that this man ſhould ſpeake after him? if it were ordinary propheſying, and ſuch as our pains, and ſtudy brought us unto, then were it fit that we ſhould hauehave our liberty to goe on and not be interrupted by an other: but the Apoſtle upon the Revelation to another even ſitting by enioyns ſilence to the preſent ſpeaker, which if his Revelation had been ſtudied before could not bee any motiue, or perſwaſion why hee ſhould yeeld to the other, that is now upon the ſudden to take his place: this were for one Prophet to diſgrace another: but the cleare ſence is to any man that will not wrangle, that becauſe it pleaſeth the ſpirit to inſpire one ſitting by with ſome more excellent matter, either in regard of the ſame ſubiect or ſome other, the Apoſtle enioyns ſilence.
I. Rob. ANSVV.
TO his queſtion why the former ſpeaker ſhould keep ſilence if it were knowne before that a 2d. ſhould ſpeak after him it is eaſily anſwered: that euen therefore he was to keep ſilence; that is, to take vp himſelfe in due time, as being to think in modeſty, that the conduits of the ſpirit of God did not run into his veſſell alone, but that others alſo might receaue of the fulnes of the ſame ſpirit to ſpeake ſomething further to the edification of the Church; eſpecially ſitting down in ſom appoynted place which it ſhould ſeeme verſ 30. and Act. 13.14. he that purpoſed to propheſie vſed to take: and which order I thinke the Iewes yet obſerue in their Synagogues. And where he ads, that if it were ordinary propheſie and ſuch as our ſtudy brought vsus vntounto, then were it fit we ſhould hauehave our liberty to go on and not to be interrupted by another, which he alſo accounts a diſgracing of the former; I would know of him whether it vvere not as fit, and much more, that the extraordinary Prophets immediatly inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt, and who could not erre, ſhould hauehave their liberty to go on uninterrupted? Is not this vvithout all compaſſe of reaſon, that the extraordinary Prophet immediatly inſpired, ſhould not hauehave as much liberty to goe on without being interrupted, as the ordinary, vvho might vvorthily deſerue to be interrupted for ſpeaking untruly or impertinently? although I do not thinke that the Apoſtle requires any interrupting of the former by the later (vvhichwhich were rude) if not vvorſe) but onelyonly a convenient ceſſion, or place-giving to a ſecond by the firſt ſpeaker, as hath been ſaid. Now the Exception of diſgrace to the former, by the latters ſpeaking, is well to be minded, that it may appeare how evill cuſtomes do infect the mindes of godly men, ſo as they think it a diſgrace that one ſhould giuegive place to another to ſpeake after him further, or otherwiſe then he hath done. But it vvas not ſo from the beginning: but ſince they, vvho under Chriſt ſhould bee ſervants of the Church, hauehave been her maſters, and hauehave exerciſed this magiſteriall teaching now in uſe, vvhere ordinarily one alone in a Church (divers others in divers places better able then he, ſitting at his feet continually to learne) muſt be heard all his life long; thinking it a diſgrace to hauehave another ſpeake any thing further then he hath done: vvhichwhich vvas the very diſeaſe in the Church of Corinth: wherein he that ſpake firſt vvould take up all the time himſelfe; vvhereas he ſhould in modeſty hauehave conceived, that a ſecond or third (eſpecially ſeeming provided to ſpeake, by ſeating themſelues in the ſame place vvith him) might hauehave ſomething revealed further, or othervviſe then hee had.
VVhichWhich Revelation the Apoſtle doth not oppoſe to fore-going ſtudy (as M. Yates thinketh) but unto emulation and ſtudy of contradiction: teaching that the ſpirit alone muſt be heard in the Church, ſpeaking by whoſe mouth ſoever. And, that there is in the Church an ordinary ſpirit of revelation; beſides comfortable experience, theſe places amongſt many other, do clearly proue, Math. 11.28. & 16.17. Eph. 1.17. Phil. 3.17.
Mr. Yates. ARG. 9.
FRom vocation, v. 29, 32.37. theſe ſpiritual men are called Prophets, and to imagine a Prophet without a calling, is that which the Scripture will not endure: therefore all theſe Prophets either had immediate calling from God, or mediate from men; or elſe they tooke it up themſelues: the two first we grant lawfull callings, but this intollerable. Numb. 11.28. The ſervant of Moſes ſayes, Forbid Eldad and Medad to propheſie: his reaſon was, becauſe he thought they had no calling: which had been true, if they had taken it up without immediate inſpiration: But Moſes knowing that it was from God, wiſhed that the like gift might be upon all Gods people: ſo that thoſe were true Prophets for the inſtant by an immediate call from God: and the text ſayes, They added no further, ſhewing that as the gift ceaſed, ſo did they.
I. Rob. ANSWER.
IT is true, that Spirituall men are called Prophets, or rather, Prophets Spirituall men: what is it then that makes a ſpirituall man, but a gift of the ſpirit? and what a prophet ordinary or extraordinary, but the gift of propheſie ordinary or extraordinary? vvhereupon it followeth undeniably, that ſo many vvith us, or elſevvhere, as hauehave the ordinary gift or ability to propheſie, are prophets, though out of office. In this Argument he hath made a ſnare vvherewith himſelfe is taken unavoydably. Secondly, vve affirme, that our prophets hauehave a calling, which I hauehave declared formerly, not to make them prophets by condition or eſtate, for that they are by their gift, but for the uſe or exerciſe of the ſame gift before beſtowed uppon them by the Lord, through their labour and induſtry. Of Eldads and Medads propheſying we ſhall ſpeake hereafter: onelyonly note vve in the meane vvhile, how M. Yates, and rightly, apportioneth their propheſying to their gift, as wee doe alſo ours: according to that of the Apoſtle, Having then gifts differing, according to the grace that is given to us, whether propheſie, let us propheſie according to the proportion of faith: or a miniſtery, let us wayt on the miniſtery, Rom. 12.6.7. They then that hauehave a gift, muſt propheſie according to their proportion.
M. Yates. ARG. 10.
FRom diſtinction, v. 37. the Apoſtle from the whole Church turnes himſelfe to their Prophets, and ſpirituall men, ſhewing plainly, that theſe had ſome particular place aboue the reſt: and he giues them ſpeciall charge to obſerue the things he writes to the Church: therefore thoſe were in ſome calling aboue others: and to imagine the contrary, is to run wide of the current of the whole Scripture: to ſet men in publike place without calling, is the ſame with confuſion and diſorder.
I. Rob. ANSVV.
THIS Argument is founded upon the groundleſſe preſumption with the former: viz. that there is in the Church no lawful calling for men able to propheſy, but by officing them. And for Pauls turning his ſpeach to the Prophets. v. 37. it ſhewes indeed, that they were aboue the reſt, after a ſort: and ſo they are with us rightly preferred before others, which want that endowment of the ſpirit, by which they are enabled to ſpeake to the edification of the Church.