The Peoples Plea for the Exercise of Prophecy, Part 11

The Peoples Plea for the Exercise of Prophecy · Part 11

p. 35The Confirmation of the Scriptures and reaſons brought in my book to proue publick propheſying out of office by an ordinary gift.

AND before wee come to examine M. Yates his Anſwers to the Scriptures by me produced, I deſire the Reader to obſerue with mee theſe two p. 36things. Firſt, that I do not affirme in my book, that all the there alleadged Scriptures are meant of ordinary propheſy; but that the ſame is proved by them. Neither will he (I preſume) deny, but that many things are ſufficiently proved from a ſcripture by neceſſary conſequence, and iuſt proportion, beſides the particular properly intended in it. 2. That M. Yates ſo puts the queſtion, as that it is hard to ſay, whether he do mee, or himſelfe the more iniury: namely, whether the places prove an ordinary gift of propheſy out of office. For, as I do not ſay, that they proue the gift, but the uſe, and exerciſe of the gift beſtowed by God whether ordinary, or extraordinary, ſo neither would he hauehave denied (had he not leaped, before hee had lookt) but that others beſides miniſters, hauehave an ordinary gift of propheſie. Where the Apoſtle requires of him that deſires the office of a Biſhop, that he be apt to teach, 1. Tim. 3.1.2. and able to exhort with ſound doctrine Tit. 1.9. doth he not therein moſt evidently teach, that the gift and ability to teach, preach, and propheſy, not onelyonly may, but muſt, both be and appeare to be in the perſon to be called to the office of miniſtery? He that is not a prophet, or hath not the gift of propheſying or preaching, (for by his gift he is a Prophet, & by the uſe of it he occupies the place of a Prophet) before he be appointed a Paſtor, is an Idol ſheepheard ſet up in the temple of p. 37God: neither doth the office either giuegive, of ſo much indeed as encreaſe the gift, but onelyonly giues ſolemne commiſſion, & charge to uſe it.

The firſt Scripture by mee brought, is Numb. 11.29. where Moſes the man of God wiſheth that the whole people of the Lord were Prophets, the Lord putting his ſpirit upon them.

This place, ſaith M. Yates in his Anſ. ſpeaks of the powring out of the Spirit in an extraordinary manner, as may apear by the occaſion of the ſpeech v. 24. &c. Where alſo in a tedious manner (as his manner is) hee proveth the gift of propheſying given to the 70. Elders to hauehave been extraordinary: which as I deny not, ſo neither needed he to hauehave proved. But this I affirm, that hence is proved the lawfulneſſe of ordinary propheſying out of office by men enabled thereunto. And firſt, as Moyſes wiſheth that all the Lords people were Prophets, the Lord giving his ſpirit unto them; ſo the miniſter may and ought to wiſh that the Lord would ſo bleſſe the ordinary endeavours of his people now, by his ſpirit, as that they all might bee Prophets, that is, able for gifts to ſpeak to edification. The miniſter which deſireth not this, envieth for his own, and the Clergies ſake, which Moſes would not that Ioſhua ſhould do for his. Secondly Moſes makes it all one to be a Prophet, and to hauehave the Lord putting his Spirit upon a p. 38man. Now if the Lords ſo giving his ſpirit unto a man, as that he be thereby inabled extraordinarily to propheſy, make him an exrraordinary prophet, why ſhould not by due proportion, ſuch a gift of the Spirit given by the Lord to a man, as by which hee is enabled to propheſy ordinarily, ſerue alſo to make him an ordinary Prophet? and ſo by conſequence, if there be amongſt us any though out of office ſo enabled to propheſy, or preach, what hindreth them from being Prophets even of the Lords own making by his ſpirits gift, and work upon their ſtudy, & endevours? And if they be Prophets then may they Propheſie; which Moſes alſo in that place inſinuates: for in wiſhing that they were all Prophets, he wiſheth as wel the uſe, as the poſſeſſion of the gift. M. Yates may ſee a very leraned man Io. Wolphius in his Com. upon 2. King. 23. ſhewing by this place the liberty of private Chriſtians that are able to ſpeak, and teach not onelyonly in ordinary congregations, but even in moſt ſolemne Councels.

The next place is 2. Chron. 17.7. where King Iehoſophat ſent his Princes to teach in the Cities of Iudah, and with them the Levites &c.

M Yates accounts it a monſtrous conceit that the princes ſhould be publique teachers, which ſaith he were onelyonly by theyr preſence and authority to back the Levites: adding that the tranſlation is mended by Iunius and p. 39Tremelius &c. but if the Iewes heard him (profeſſing the knowledge of Moſes & the Prophets) ſo ſpeak, they would marvayle at his ignorance of a thing ſo frequent and euident in theyr writings: with whom it is and ever hath been a receiued truth, that any of theyr (foreign) wiſe men; as they after the ſcriptures, math. 23.34. 1 cor. 1.20. Ier. 18.18. call them, may and ought to teach in theyr ſynagogues without reſpect had to office: neither doth the tranſlation of Iunius and Tremelius by any neceſſity make for him: neyther can it be ſet agaynſt me without violence to the originall: from the ſimplicity where of they do (with due reuerence vntounto them be it ſpoken) ſeeme vntounto me ſomething to turne aſide in the 8 vers. Pagnine, the 70 Interpreters, Ierom, and all our Engliſh Bibles carry it directly to our ſenſe. And if the conceite be monſtrous that theſe princes preached publickly, it is not bred onelyonly in my brain: the very ſame Scripture having been alledged very lately by the publick Profeſſor in the Vniverſitie of Leyden in a ſolemne aſſembly, as expreſly proving it lawful for others then miniſters to teach publickly. And becauſe much weight lieth upon this ground, which yet hee thinketh very ſandy and light, I will make it cleare to all indifferent mens iudgments, that theſe Princes, & ſo others in Iſrael, and Iudah (though no Levites, nor Church officers) might lawfully teach p. 40and preach publickly in the Temple, Synagogues, and Cities.

Firſt then, all Princes, Magiſtrates, Iudges, and Governours were bound to open expound, and apply the Lawes by which they governed, according to the ſeverall occaſions offered; otherwiſe they ruled by tiranny, and appetite: which lawes for all the adminiſtrations even of the commonwealth were onelyonly the written word of God: wherupon I cōclude, that if to open, expound, & apply the word of God, be to preach, and teach, they then had not onelyonly power, but charge ſo to doe.

2. It may appeare what theſe Princes of Ichoſaphat (partaking of his power) were to do in this caſe, by that which he himſelfe, and other godly Kings hauehave done. The ſumme of his moſt pithy ſermon wee hauehave recorded. 2. Chron. 19. unto the Iudges. v. 6.7. and unto the Levites v. 9.10.11. as alſo his divine prayer unto God in the publick Congregation. c. 20.5.6. &c. Likewiſe the excellent ſermon of King Hezekiah unto the Prieſts, and Levites, in the very temple, 2. Chron. 29.4.5 &c. alſo of Nehemiah with others, teaching the people the Law of the Lord. Neh. 8.10: the Kings, and Princes being as ſhepheards to feed the people, as by government, ſo by inſtruction in the Law of their God. Deſcend wee down lower to the time of Chriſt, and we ſhall ſee this matter put out of all queſtion. Doe wee not read every where how that the Scribes, Phariſees, p. 41and Lawyers did teach publickly amongſt the Iewes; of whom yet many were no Levits or Church officers, but indifferently of any tribe, Phil. 3.5. And if it were not the received order in Iſraell of old, for men out of office to ſpeake, and teach in publick, how was Ieſus the ſonne of Mary admitted to diſpute in the Temple with the Doctors? Luk. 2.46. and to teach, and preach in the Synagogues ſo commonly as he did? Mat. 9.35. Luk. 4.16.17. & how were Paul, and Barnabas, ſitting down in the Synagogue, ſent unto, after the lecture of the Law by the ruler, that if they had any word of exhortation unto the people, they ſhould ſay on? Act. 13.14.15.

But if any manſhall anſwer, that theſe were extraordinary perſons, & ſo taught by an extraordinary gift, he ſpeaks the truth, but to no purpoſe. For what was that to the order received in the Temple, and Synagogues, and to the Rulers thereof, who did not beleeue in Chriſt, nor acknowledge either his, or his Apoſtles authority; but onelyonly admitted them unto the uſe of their gift, as they would hauehave done, and did ordinarily, any other men able to teach: as alſo the rulers of the Synagogues of the Iewes do at this day.

The third place is miſtaken by the Printer, in omitting only one prick, which was corrected in many Coppies, & might, eaſily hauehave been obſerved by the Reader, For Ier. 50.45. it ſhould be Ier, 50.4.5. p. 42M. Yates therefore upon that Scripture refutes his own gueſſe, and not my proofe.

The fourth place is Math. 10.1.5.6. where Chriſt calling unto him his twelue Diſciples ſends them to preach the Kingdom of heauen to the loſt ſheep of Iſrael.

His anſwer is, that the twelue Apoſtles were called into office, and had their calling from the firſt election of Chriſt, but had a further confirmation after, and greater meaſure of Gods Spirit to lead them into al truth, as a Iuſtice of peace may bee put in office and yet receiue a further Confirmation, yea and greater means to performe his place. I affirme on the other ſide, (and ſhall evidently proue it God aſsiſting mee) that theſe twelue were not actually poſſeſſed of their Apoſtleſhip, till after Chriſts Reſurrection but were onelyonly Apoſtles elect, as you call him the Major elect, who hath not the office of Major committēd to him of a good ſpace after. Neither am I herein of the minde with the Papiſts (to put M. Yates out of feare) that Peter was not in office until Chriſt gaue him charge to feed his ſheep. Ioh. 21. (which yet I am perſwaded never Papiſt held of his Apoſtleſhip, but of his primacy, and univerſall headſhip, or Biſhoprick) but of the ſame mind, wherof himſelf is in his firſt argument, to wit, that his cōmiſſion Apoſtolick was actually conferred upon him ioyntly with the reſt.Iohn, 20.22.23.

1. Now if the Commiſſion Apoſtolike p. 43were but then given, they were but then, and not before actually Apoſtles, except he will ſay they were Apoſtles, before they had commiſſion, that is calling frō Chriſt ſo to bee. I would now ſee how hee can ſalue the wound, which he hath giuen himſelfe.

2. After that the Lord Ieſus had Mat. 11.11. preferred Iohn Baptiſt aboue all the Prophets which were before him, he yet ads in the ſame place, that the leaſt in the Kingdom of heauen is greater then hee. The leaſt. i. the leaſt Miniſter; In the kingdom of heauen. i. in the Church of the new teſtament properly called, which began not till after the death of Chriſt who liued and dyed a member of the Iewiſh Church. The Apoſtles then being officers of the Church of the new teſtament, and Kingdome of heauen, and not of the old or Iewiſh Church, it cannot bee that they were Apoſtles in act, before Chriſts death; except an adiunct can be before the ſubiect, and an officer before the corporation in and of which he is an officer.

3. Conſidering the ignorance of theſe diſciples at that time in the main miſteries of Chriſt: of the nature of his kingdom, his death and reſurrection, Math, 20.21. Luke. 24.20.21. &c. Iohn. 20.9. Mark. 16.14. as alſo, how vtterly vnfurniſhed they were of gifts befitting Apoſtolicall teaching (for which (as being an extraordinary diſpenſation, & that in the higheſt p. 44degree) extraordinary, and infallible reuelation and direction of the ſpirit was requiſite, wherewith they were but firſt, (as it ſeemeth) ſprinckled Iohn. 20.22. and afterwards more plentifully filled at the day of Pentecoſt) they were as fit for an Apoſtleſhip as Dauid was for Sauls armour which he could not weild nor go with.

4. Beſides, if they had the office of Apoſtleſhip committed to them Math. 10. how was it that they continued not their miniſtration in that office; but returneing after a few dayes to their maſter Chriſt, continued with him as his diſciples till his death. Chriſt Ieſus did not keepe a company of non-reſidents about him for his Chaplins, as M. Yates inſinuates againſt him.

Laſtly, we are expreſly taught, Eph. 4.8 11. When Chriſt aſcended on high, hee gaue gifts unto men, Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. The Apoſtles then were firſt given actually at the Lords aſcenſion, and vvere before onelyonly deſigned to become Apoſtles, or Apoſtles elect, but not ordained, nor poſſeſſed of any office: and therefore preached, and that vvith warrant from Chriſt, without office.

The next Scripture is, Luk. 8.39. by M. Yates thus opened: Chriſt having delivered the man poſſeſſed, bids him go, and ſhew what great things God had done for him: and it is ſayd he went and preached (that is, if it be to their purpoſe) by ordinary pains and ſtudy, he p. 45preached the Goſpel. And with pitty upon us poore ſoules that cannot diſtinguiſh the publiſhing of a miracle, and the gift (hee ſhould ſay the worke, if hee diſtinguiſhed as he ought) of preaching; he addeth, that if Chriſt had minded to hauehave made him a publike preacher, hee would firſt hauehave taken him with him, and inſtructed him, and then hauehave ſent him abroad.

Firſt, let it be obſerued, that the word uſed by Mark for his preaching, foreign.is the ſame word which is commonly uſed for the moſt ſolemne preaching, that is, by the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts. Secondly, Chriſt bids him, Mark. 5.19. Goe home and declare how great things the Lord had done for him, and had had compaſſion on him, and v. 20. he is ſaid to hauehave publiſhed in Decapolis (Luke hath it, throughout the whole Citty) how great things Ieſus had done for him. VVhichWhich he doing, what elſe did hee, but preach, publiſh, and declare the great louelove and mercy of God, in and by Ieſus Chriſt towards miſerable ſinners for the curing of their bodily and ſpiritual maladies? Thirdly, where he makes the publiſhing of this miracle and the preaching of the Goſpell divers things, and pitties us poore ſoules that we cannot diſtinguiſh between them: as Chriſt bad the women of Ieruſalem, not to weep for him, but for themſelues; ſo ſurely had he need to pitty not us herein, but himſelfe in his ſo great miſtaking. Are not the miracles of Chriſt p. 46ſtoried in the Scriptures a maine part of the Goſpell? and the publiſhing of them a part of the preaching of the Goſpell? And when M. Yates opens and publiſhes a miracle of Chriſts (as this man did) doth he not as well and as truely preach the Goſpell as at any other time? Let the wiſe iudge, who is to be pittied. To ſhut up this poynt, it is ſayd Ioh. 20.30. that Ieſus did many other ſignes, &c. and v. 31. But theſe are written that yee might beleeue that Ieſus is the Chriſt, the Sonne of God, and that beleeving, yee might hauehave life through his name. The publiſhing then of the ſignes and miracles which Chriſt did, is the preaching of faith in his name, to ſalvation: which this man therefore did, eſpecially amongſt them which were not ignorant of the Law of Moſes, and promiſe of the Meſſiah to come: which, by his glorious miracles done by his own power, and in his owne name, he both declared and proved himſelfe to be. Ioh. 5.36. & 10.37.38. And where he ads, that Chriſt gaue this man commiſſion to doe that which he did, but he admires who gaue ours any ſuch authority, I anſwer, even the ſame Chriſt, as then immediatly, ſo now mediatly by thoſe unto whom he hath given authority under himſelfe, for the ordering of the gifts of his ſpirit in his Church. And ſufficient it is for the queſtion between him and me, if it appeare (as in this perſon) that Chriſt hath given commiſsion p. 47to men out of office by an ordinary gift, to publiſh, and preach in publick the the Goſpel of ſalvation.

I doe quote next in my booke, Luk. 10.1.—9. which for that W.E. omitteth, and leaues out, M. Yates thanketh God; but in truth hee hath more cauſe to thanke him, for ſparing him in a place which ſo pregnantly proveth the preaching of the kingdom of God by men out of office: except hee can aſſigne ſome new found office, and the ſame but of two or three dayes laſting, as v. 17. to thoſe 70 there ſent.

VVe are in the next place to come unto Ioh. 4.28.29.39. which hee openeth and anſwereth with admiration, as the former place, withpitty and compaſsion, on this manner, O ſimplicity, with contradiction to his own writing. Simplicity that cannot ſee bttween preaching of the Goſpell, and carrying tydings of a man that told her (to wit, the woman of Samaria) of al things that ever ſhe did, is not this (ſayth ſhe) the Chriſt? But beſides ſimplicity, here is contradiction: for ſayes M. Robinſon, and that truely, a woman is not ſuffered to exerciſe an ordinary gift of propheſie in the Church; and ſhall the woman of Samaria ſerue your turne that it is lawfull for men to exerciſe ſuch a gift?

It is indeed my ſimplicitte to think that the Goſpell (as the word importeth) is nothing elſe but glad tydings: and that to p. 48preach the Goſpell is nothing elſe but to carry or bring glad tydings of Chriſt before promiſed, then come into the world. It is alſo my ſimplicity to think, ſince by the tydings which this woman brought, many of the Samaritans beleeved on Chriſt in a meaſure, v. 39. and that without preaching of the word of God, none can beleeue, Rom. 10 14.17, that therfore ſhe preached unto the Samaritans the ſame word of God in a meaſure alſo, and that as truly and effectually as ever M. Yates did to his pariſhioners, though ſhe went not up into a pulpit as he doth. And that he may iudge aright of this matter, let him call to minde, that thoſe Samaritans received the bookes of Moſes, as did the Iewes: and as they, looked for the Meſſias, or Chriſt promiſed to, and of Abraham: bearing themſelues for the children of the Patriarks, and true worſhippers of God, as they had been, v. 20.28. and being ſo prepared, were eaſily made as regions, or corne fields white unto the Harvest, v. 35. And ſo this woman, by declaring unto them that, by which this Ieſus, the ſonne of Mary, proved himſelfe to be the Chriſt, or Meſſias promiſed, preached faith unto them moſt properly and effectually, even that main poynt of faith then in controverſie both in Iudaea and Samaria, and Galilee, and the Countries thereunto adioyning; which was, that Ieſus was the Chriſt. I ſuppoſe M. Yates hath not ſufficiently thought of p. 49theſe things, and do hope, that in godly modeſty he will ſuffer himſelfe to be better informed.

And for contradiction, between theſe two propoſitions: A woman may not teach in the Church, and A woman may teach out of the Church, or where no Church is (as it was in Samaria) it muſt be by other Logicke, then I hauehave learnt: But hee will then demand as he doth, how this Womans preaching can ſerue my turn? I anſwer, very well, by good conſequence of Reaſon, thus: If a woman may lawfully teach out of the Church to the begetting of faith, as this woman did, but not in the Church, becauſe ſhe is a woman by ſex: then a man, againſt whom that reaſon of reſtraint of Sex lieth not, may lawfully teach both without and within the Church. Of which conſequence more hereafter.

Another Scripture is, Act. 8.1.4. with chap. 11.19.20.21. where it is recorded, how all the Church at Ieruſalem was ſcattered abroad, except the Apoſtles, and that they which were ſcattered abroad, went every where preaching the word, &c.

M. Yates anſwereth, that beſides the Apoſtles which were in office, there were ſeventy diſciples, which Chriſt before his death had made labourers in his harvest: and therefore theſe might preach, or any other that had an extraordinary giſt of propheſie: the one by vertue of his office and gift together, the other p. 50by commiſſion from the Holy Ghoſt to exerciſe that gift which they had received in the day of Pentecoſt, or any other. But ſayes your Authour, compare this place with Acts 11.19.20.21. and the truth will fully appeare. I anſwer, it will fully appeare againſt you: for Chriſt charged both his Apoſtles, and likewiſe the 70. Diſciples, that they ſhould preach to none but the Iewes: and therefore it is ſufficient that they had ſo many preachers in office already by the commiſſion of Chriſt, to goe through all thoſe places: neither will I deny, that there might bee others whom the Holy Ghoſt immediatly raiſed up to manifeſt the excellent gifts that were to be powred down upon the Church in the primitiue times.

His anſwer is very dark & ambiguous, but in which are contained ſundry errors evident enough. Firſt, he makes thoſe of the diſperſiō w^ch went about preaching the word, to be of the 70 diſciples. Luk. 10. and others the like furniſhed with an extraordinary gift of propheſie: but ſeems to allow them for no officers, in the beginning of his anſwer, when he thus ſpeaketh, Beſides the Apoſtles which were in office, there were 70. Diſciples &c. yet afterwards in theſe words, and therefore it is ſufficient, that they had ſo many preachers in office already by the commiſſion of Chriſt to goe thorough all theſe places, &c, he beſtowes ſome office or other, upon them. Secondly, hee miſſeth in two Scriptures which in his anſwere, hee pointeth at: the former is Act. 2.4 p. 51where he gathereth, that others beſides, the twelue, received the gift of propheſie extraordinary at the day of Pentecoſt: the ſecond (if I miſtake not) is Math. 10.5.6. where he racks the edict or prohibition of Chriſt layed upon the Apoſtles, and (as he ſaith) upon the 70. Diſciples, of preaching to any but Iewes, far aboue the reach therof; even unto this time of the diſperſiō, wheras it reached onelyonly to the death of Chriſt, when the wall of partition between Iewes and Gentiles was broken downe: after which they were by the expreſſe words of their Commiſſion to preach to all people, beginning indeed at Ieruſalem and tarrying there, till they were indued with power from on high, and ſo proceeding unto all nations. Luk. 24.47.49. as it is alſo recorded Act. 11.20. that ſome of this diſperſion preached the L. Ieſus to the Grecians in Antioch. Thirdly, it is plain by that which I hauehave formerly ſaid, that neither theſe 70 diſciples (no nor the 12.) were by Chriſt poſſeſſed of any office before his death; no nor yet furniſhed with any extraordinary gifts of propheſie: the Evangeliſt (who knew well, and is worthy to be beleeved) bearing alſo witneſſe with mee, that the Holy Ghoſt was not yet given, becauſe that Ieſus was not yet glorified, Iohn. 7.39.

Laſtly it is altogether unreaſonable to imagine that they who were ſcattered, & preached abroad, being the body of the Church at Ieruſalem (excepting the Apoſtles) p. 52were all officers: and little more reaſonable to think that they were all extraordinarily indued with the ſpirit of Propheſie. For firſt, there is no circumſtance in the text leading that way: and to imagine extraordinary, and miraculous things without good evidence, is extraordinary licentiouſneſſe, and preſumption. 2. the onelyonly titles giuen unto them are; all the Church which was at Ieruſalem, they that were ſcattered abroad: and againe c. 11. they which were ſcattered abroad, ſome of thē were mē of Cyprus, & Cyrene, &c. nothing inſinuating any office of miniſtry. 3. Their preaching here & there is onelyonly noted to be by reaſon of their ſcattering hither & thither through perſecution, and not of any extraordinary gift, and diſpenſation committed unto them. Fourthly, if they had been extraordinary Prophets immediately, and extraordinarily inſpired, there had been no need of ſo ſpeedy ſending of Barnabas from Ieruſalem to Antioch with ſupply, though hee were a man full of the Holy Ghoſt, for ſo were ſuch Prophets as well as he Eph. 2.20. & 3.5. I conclude therefore as before that theſe mens preaching was by a gift, and liberty, common unto them and us.

The next Scripture is 1. Pet. 4.10, 11. As every man hath receiud the gift ſo miniſter the ſame one to another as good ſtewards of the manifold grace of God; If any man ſpeak, let him ſpeak as the oracles of God. If any p. 53man miniſter let him do it, as of the abilitie which God giveth, that God in all things may bee glorified, &c.

This (ſaith M. Yates) is little to he purpoſe, onelyonly thus much: would the Apoſtle perſwade, that wee ought to be harberous one of another, and that without grudging, becauſe all that we hauehave is given us of God, who hath left us not as ingroſſers of his benefits, but as good diſpoſers to his glory and our brothers good.

He that but veiweth the place without preiudice, cannot but ſee, that the Apoſtle would perſwade more then ſo much: and that M. Yates doth iniuriouſly encloſe the Apoſtles words, v. 10. to verſe 9. which though they ly in common to both, yet belong much more to the verſe following. Verſe 9. Hee exhorteth to hoſpitality, and verſe 10. riſeth from that particular to the more generall uſe of all gifts, or graces, and ſo verſe. 11. bringeth, for example, two ſpecialties: 1. the gift of propheſie in ſpeaking: 2. the miniſtering of the ability which God giveth bodily or otherwiſe in the Church. Neither can the Apoſtles meaning without extreame violence bee reſtrained to v. 9. which ſpeaks onelyonly of hoſpitality: which is but the uſe or miniſtering of that one gift or grace of liberality. Hee ſaith in the tenth verſ. As every man hath received the gift; that is as one hath received this gift, another that, and every one ſome: p. 54ſo miniſter the ſame one to another: that is, ſo let every ſuch perſon mutually in the bond of louelove, as verſe 8. communicate his gift: as good diſpoſers of the manifold grace of God: that is, knowing that every one what gift ſoever he hath received, is but as the Lords Steward therein. Is Liberality alone a manifold grace? and Hoſpitality alone the miniſtring of a manifold grace of God? To the miniſtring of a manifold grace, the Apoſtle perſwades, and therefore not onelyonly that we ought to be harborous one to another, which is but the miniſtring of one grace.

Two other Scriptures from the Revelation follow. The former is chap. 11. v. 3. I will giuegive to my two witneſſes, and they ſhall propheſie a thouſand two hundred ſixty dayes, cloathed in ſackcloath.

This is meant (ſayth M. Yates) of the two Teſtaments, and the inſtruments that God ſhould raiſe up to uſe as faithfull witneſſes againſt Antichriſt: but what is this for an ordinary gift of propheſie? Surely in this there is ſome extraordinary thing, becauſe it is ſayd God will giuegive power, that is, giuegive them life againe: for Antichriſt did kill theſe witneſſes when he ſtopped the current of the holy word of God, and ſhut the mouthes of the Miniſters, &c.

His expoſition I will not deny (nor need to feare) ſaue as with great partiality on the clergies part, he makes the miniſters of the word of God, that is, men in p. 55office, the onelyonly faithfull witneſſes againſt Antichrist. VVhereas the contrary is moſt true; and that in Antichriſts reigne no Church-officer, as an officer, witneſſed againſt him, but all for him: as both having their authority by him, and binding themſelues to ſubmit their doctrine to his cenſure. The perſons indeed, that were alſo officers, even Maſſe-prieſts, Monkes and Friers, witneſſed ſome of them againſt him, but ſo did not their offices, or they in reſpect of them, (which is all one) but rather with him, as advantaging his ſtate and Hierarchy. Something extraordinary I do vvith him acknowledge to hauehave been in them, in reſpect of the order then prevailing, and of the bondage ſpirituall under which all both things and perſons were: as alſo of the degree of their ordinary both gifts and graces to put them forth in ſervice of the truth: but that theſe witneſſes againſt Antichriſt had any extraordinary, or miraculous gift of propheſie (which he inſinuateth, and muſt affirme, if … he will draw them from our part) is meerely imagined both againſt experience and their owne plea. But for the opening of this place, I referre the reader to our learned Countrey-man M. Brightman, where he ſhall finde affirmed, and proved, that theſe two prophets were the holy Scriptures, and Aſſemblies of the faithfull.

The other ſcripture is Reu. 14.6. p. 56where the Angell flieth in the midſt of heaven having the euerlaſting goſpell to preach vntounto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.

By heauen (ſaith M. Yates) is to be vnderſtood the viſible Church, and by the Angell the learned men that God hath euer raiſed vp in the midſt of popery to carry the bleſſed word of God in the midſt of heauen, that is, raiſed from the earthly corruption of Antichriſt, but not as yet at the height of purity, &c.

As I doe not conceiue of any ſuch miſtery in theſe words, (flying in the midſt of heauen) but onelyonly that theſe Angels ſhould roundly and clearly (ſpecially in reſpect of former times) publiſh the goſpell far, and neere, as is the flying of a bird in the airy heauen, or firmament, ſpeedy and euident; ſo (that ſignified) I aſſent to his expoſition, as being alſo no way preiudiciall, but much aduantageable to my purpoſe. For if thoſe learned, and Angel-like men were to publiſh the goſpel in the midſt of popery; and that neither by any extraordinary, or miraculous gift, nor by vertue of their office, then is publick propheſying out of office by an ordinary gift approuable. The firſt part I hope he will eaſily grant; if not, let him name the man miraculouſly inſpired in the midſt of popery. For the latter, the office it ſelf or function was no miniſtery of Chriſts appoyntment, as being the office p. 57of a Frier, Monk, or Maſſe-prieſt, ſo their power to adminiſter it was from or by the pope, as vniverſall Biſhop: that is, as Antichriſt. In reſpect then of the Goſpell which they preached, and of their gifts and graces perſonall, by which they were both enabled and prouoked thereunto, they were Angels of God; but in regard of their office, and power Eccleſiaſticall, and Hierarchicall, Angels of Antichriſt. Beſides that when they gaue their cleareſt teſtimony againſt Antichriſt, they were, for the moſt part, all excommunicated out of the Church of Rome: and ſo being no members, could not be officers of any Church. Whereupon I conclude, that the witneſſe which they gaue to the truth, was but perſonall, and not miniſteriall, ſo far forth as it was of God, or by him approued. And thus it appeareth how in the quoting of thoſe ſcriptures, we hauehave not offered abuſe to Gods word (as he abuſeth vsus) but hauehave with good conſcience, as in the ſight of God, noted them as ſeruing to proue lawfull, publique propheſie by an ordinary gift out of office.

Laſtly, 1. Cor. 14. comes into handleing, with the proofes thence taken: which what weight they hauehave, ſhall appeare after rehearſall of ſome more generall conſiderations premiſed in my book, in the ſame place, for the better vnderſtanding of the poynt. as. 1. that the Church of p. 58Corinth aboue all other Churches, did abound with ſpirituall gifts both ordinary, and extraordinary. 2. that they abuſed theſe giftes too much vntounto faction and ambition. 3. that therevppon the Apoſtle takes occaſion in the beginning of the 12. Chap. and ſo forward, to draw them to the right vſe of theſe gifts of God, which was the imployment of thē to the edifiing of the body in louelove. 4. and laſtly, that hauing layd down ch. 13. a full deſcription & large cōmendation of that grace of louelove, ch. 14 & the beginning of it, he exhorts to propheſying, and to the ſtudy and vſe of that gift; which though it were not ſo ſtrange a thing as was the ſudden gift of tongues, nor which drew with it ſuch wonder and admiration, yet was it more profitable for the Church: and though a matter of leſſe note, yet of greater charity, which muſt beare ſway in all our actions. VVhereupon I lay downe the firſt reaſon for brethrens (though no officers) liberty in theſe words: Becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeakes of the manifeſtation of a gift, or grace common to all perſons, as well brethren as miniſters, ordinary as extraordinary, and that at all times, which is louelove: as alſo of ſuch fruits and effects of that grace, as are no leſſe common to all, then the grace it ſelfe, nor of leſſe continuuance in the Churches of Chriſt, to wit, of edification, exhortion, and comfort, v. 3. compared with 1. Theſſ. 5.11.14.

In anſwering the former part of the Reaſon hee is very large but more negligent, as appears in his denying, that the Apoſtle p. 59ſpeaks of a gift common to all perſons) and in more then denying, (for his rude terme I will conceale for his credits ſake) that it was common to all perſons at all times admiring how I dare affirme any ſuch thing: adding: that louelove was enioyned to all but this gift onelyonly of ſuch, as did excell amongſt them: whereas the very gift, which I ſpeak of in that place, or grace rather, as I there call it, was none other, but the grace of louelove; as any that will may ſee in the reaſon: which generall grace ought to manifeſt, and expreſſe it ſelfe in the edifying uſe of all the ſpecial gifts of the ſpirit: which by it are ſet a work & moued, as the leſſer wheels of a clock by the greater: & from which grace the Apoſtle provoketh the Church to the ſtirring up of the gift of propheſy, unto edification, as well now as then. And whereas, to my ground, (as he puts it, & as after a ſort I intended, frō v. 3. compared with 1. Theſ. 5.11.14. viz. that ſince the end which is edification exhortation, & comfort continueth, therfore the gift of propheſy alſo continueth) he anſwereth; that there are many means to effect one end, & yet ſome of them may ceaſe yea all of them, & other come in their roomes, as, for extraordinary gifts, ordinary; and ſo for Apoſtles, ordinary miniſters: inſtancing further in tongues, which v. 26. are for edification; he neither ſpeaks ſo properly, as is meet, nor (all admitted which he ſaith) takes away the force of the Argument. p. 60Strange tongues, (to ſpeak properly, and preſſely, as in diſputing) are no means of edifying the Church; but the interpretation, and application of the matter of the tongues: neither doth the office of the miniſtery in it ſelfe edifie, but the uſe and exerciſe of it in teaching, and exhorting; no nor yet the gift of propheſying, but as it is uſed in ſpeaking, as v. 3. hee that propheſieth, that is uſeth the gift of propheſie, ſpeaketh unto men, to exhortation edification, and comfort. There being then no other means to edify, exhort, and comfort in the Church but propheſying, the Apoſtle (as appeareth by the two places ſet together) laying theſe dueties from the common grace of louelove as well upon brethren, as officers, ordinary as extraordinary, & at all times, in the Church, therein giues warrant to an ordinary exerciſe of propheſie in the Church by mē out of office (to wit having gifts & abilities anſwerable) to the end of the world.

The ſecond Argument is from v. 21. where the Apoſtle ſaith, ye may all propheſie one by one, that all may learne, & all may be comforted, he ſpeaks of alls propheſying as largely as of alls learning.

This (ſaith hee) is abſurd: are all the Church Prophets? if all may propheſie who ſhall learn? the H. Gh. ſayes all, but that is to be underſtood of ſuch as hauehave gifts; all ought to hauehave the gift of hearing, but the like is not of propheſying: & I ſay this gift was extraordinary, p. 61for how could all men ſtudy the Scriptures when they had them not in their natiue tongues?

It were abſurd indeed, if I thought, that every perſon in the Church were to propheſie: but why ſhould hee chalendge mee, or I purge my ſelfe of this abſurdity? whereas the contrary is moſt evident, both in the words of the queſtion, which are, that others having receiued a gif… thereunto, may and ought to ſtir up the ſame, and to uſe it in the Church; and every where in the handling of it. By all then I meane all that hauehave gifts: and ſo take all for propheſying as largely (yet in the ſubiect, according to the received rule of expounding the notes of univerſality,) as the other all for learning. His queſtion, if all may propheſie who ſhall learne? is eaſily anſwered. For they who propheſie at one time may learn at another: It is the diſeaſe of the exalted Clergy to skorn to learne any thing of others then themſelues, and almoſt one of another. Where he further ſaith, that all ought to hauehave the gift of hearing, but the like is not propheſying, it is true, and that every particular perſon in the Church is not bound to hauehave y^t gift; but if he ſpeak any thing to the purpoſe in hand, he muſt go further, and ſay that no ordinary brethren out of office ought to hauehave the gift of propheſie: which if it were true, then ought none to ſtriue for fitneſſe to become officers: neither were the reproofe iuſt p. 62which the Apoſtle layes, not onelyonly, nor ſo much, if at all, upon the officers, as upon the brethren, Heb. 5.12. that for the time they ought to be teachers. Of his unworthy miſtaking about the Scriptures not being in the Corinths natiue tongue, which hee makes the onelyonly ground of his Anſwer, elſe where. To conclude this Argument. The Apoſtle writing to the Church of Corinth, ye may all propheſie one by one, cannot be underſtood of extraordinary Prophets, except we cōceiue that the body of that Church was or might be prophets extrarodinary, & miraculouſly inſpired: which, cōſidering the ſuperexcellency of that ſtate by me elſwhere laid down, is a preſumption aboue my reach, and leaſt of all agreeing with M. Yates his iudgment in his anſwer to the next Argument, which is, that extraordinary propheſie did then begin to ceaſe in the Church.

The third Argument is from v. 34. where the Apoſtle restrains womē frō propheſying, or other ſpeaking in the Church with authority, as alſo 1 Tim. 2.11.12. and in forbidding women, giues liberty to all men gifted accordingly, oppoſing women to men, ſex to ſex, and not women to officers: and againe, in reſtraining women ſhewes his meaning to be of ordinary not extraordinary propheſying: for women immediately, extraordinarily, and miraculouſly inſpired might ſpeake without reſtraint, Exod, 15.20. Iudg. 4.24. Luk. 2.36. Act. 2.17.19▪ & 21.9.

p. 63It is a pitteous thing to ſee how M. Yates intangles himſelfe about this Argument, ſtraining all the veyns of his wit, if not of a more tender part (his conſcience) to draw ſome face of anſwer upon it: That which hath any ſhew of anſwer either in that place, or any other throughout his tedious and perplexed diſcourſe, I will relate and refute: confirming the Argument cleerly, as I am perſwaded, to any indifferent iudgement.

His firſt Anſwer, or Exception is, that it is moſt abſurd to imagine that the Corinthian women, did follow their ſtudy, and took orcinary pains to make ſermons. Secondly that extraordinary propheſie did ceaſe, and that not all at once, but firſt in womē, & that the Apoſtle therefore eſpecially aims at them, as though (to wit in their own iudgement the ſame meaſure were ſtill upon them, as well as in former times; when Chriſt that ſaues both man and woman, would extraordinarily manifeſt himſelfe in both, yet firſt after a ſufficient manifeſtation of his grace and goodneſſe, he withdrew thoſe extraordinary gifts from that ſex then afterward from the other. His third anſwer, upon which he doth moſt inſiſt, is, that the Apoſtle forbids two generall faults in the women; the one that they would pray, and propheſie uncovered. 1. Cor. 11.5. imitating the Pythoniſſes and Sibilles of the Gentiles in laying aſide their vaile, and ſpreading their haire againſt decency, and comelineſſe: the ſecond p. 64is that in their huſbands preſence, they would be as ready to ſpeak as they: and therefore the Apoſtle finding the women to abuſe this gift, prohibits the uſe of it, whether ſimply or no, he cannot iudge. Fourthly, hee admires by what Logick this will follow; women are forbidden to propheſie, therefore men hauehave liberty: which (ſayes he) is an ill conſeqnence.

In his firſt Anſwer or rather exception, he miſtakes both the ſtate of the queſtion, and alſo the nature of the ordinance. The queſtion is not of the ſtudy, or ability of theſe women (which yet I think was greater then hee maketh account of) but of their forewardneſſe to teach…, which was certainely too great. And what conſequence is this? The Corinthian women were not ſufficiently furniſhed to teach by an ordinary gift, therefore they needed not to bee reltrained from teaching. Nay, therefore they needed much more ſuch bridle of reſtraint to be caſt upon them; eſpecially confidering their manniſh bouldneſſe, and immodeſty, inſinuated againſt them here by the Apoſtle, in part, but much more c. 11.

Neither (for the ſecond point) are they that ſpeak in the exerciſe of propheſie, to make a ſermon by an houre glaſſe, as M. Yates gathers; that were to abuſe the time, and wrong the gifts of others (but briefly to ſpeak a word of exhortation, as God enableth, and that, after the miniſteriall p. 65teaching bee ended, as Act. 13. queſtions alſo about things delivered, & with them even diſputations, as there is occaſion, being part or apurtenances of that exerciſe, 1. Cor. 14.35. Act. 17.2. and 18.4.

For the Prophets gifts & abilities then, as under the Law a bullock or lambe, that had any thing ſaperfluous, or lacking in his parts might yet bee offered for a freewill offering: but for a vow it was not to be accepted. Leu. 22.23, ſo in this exerciſe of propheſie, as in a freewill offering, according to the gift of God, that which is leſſe perfit, and exact, may far better be excepted, then if the ſame were preſented in the Paſtors vowed ſervice, and miniſtration.

For his ſecond Anſwer: As it is true, that extraordinary propheſie did ceaſe by degrees, ſo is it not certain, but a meere preſumption, that it ceaſed firſt in women: but moſt untrue it is, that the Apoſtle there aims at all at the ceaſing of that gift in women. Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories worthy of credit in this kind, doe teſtifie, that the ſtreame of the ſpirit was ſo far from being neare dry at this time, as that it ran a ſtrong current wel-nigh a hundred years after, for all the extraordinary gifts thereof, as for the caſting out of divels, foreſeing and foretelling of things to come, healing the ſick, and raiſing of the dead, of whō diuers ſo rayſed liued many yeares after; witneſſe amongſt others Iraeneus adv. Her. lib. 2. c. …7. whom alſo for the ſame purpoſe Euſ-Hiſt. p. 66Eccl. l. 5. c. 7. alledgeth: And ever for women. Evident it is by the Scriptures that extraordinary Propheſie in a very plenteous manner by them, and that in the preſence of men continued in the Church many years after Pauls writing of this Epiſtle. Phillip the Evangelist had foure daughters virgins which did propheſie, Act. 21.9.Acts 21:9& that in the preſence of the Apoſtle. Lo, foure extraordinary propheteſſes in one houſe, and the daughters of one man: ſo that hitherto the conduit of the ſpirit of Propheſie kept his courſe as well upon their daughters as ſonnes. Ioel. 2. Act. …. So Revel. 2.20. we read how the woman Ieſabell (calling her ſelfe a propheteſſe) taught and by teaching, ſeduced the Lords ſervants in the Church of Thyatyra. In which place, as the errors and evils of the perſon is condemned, ſo is the formall order of the Church manifeſted to be, that vvomen (propheteſſes extraordinary) might teach. Laſtly, the prohibition of vvomen by the Apoſtle is perpetuall, and not vvith reſpect to this, or that time, as appeares by the reaſons thereof, both in this place, and in the Epiſtle to Timothy, and ſuch as equally belong to former times, and lattter: and no more to the latter end then to the beginning, or middle time of the manifeſtation of the grace and goodneſſe of Ghriſt.

VVhat can be more abſurd then to ſay that theſe reaſons, The woman muſt be under obedience, 1. Cor. 14.34. and not uſurpe authority over the man, but be in ſilence, becauſe p. 67Adam was firſt formed, then Eue. And Adam was not ſeduced, but the woman, &c. 1. Tim. 2.12.13.14. were not morall and perpetuall? VVere not thoſe reaſons and grounds for vvomens ſilence in the Church (vvithout extraordinary diſpenſation by miraculous inſpiration) of as great force ſeven yeares before, as vvhen Paul wrote this Epiſtle? It is therfore moſt cleare, that the Apoſtle aimes not at all, at any ceaſing of the gift of extraordinary propheſie now growing on, but at the univerſall, and abſolute reſtraint and prohibition of vvomens propheſying, not extraordinary, but ordinary.

In his third anſwer he dealeth vvorſe then in any of the other, in labouring to ſmother one truth under another. For albeit the women of Corinth were become ſo manniſh, as that they would propheſie uncovered, and without their veile, (the enſigne of their ſubjection) yet doth not the Apoſtle meddle at all with that malady in this place, but in the 11. chapter of the Epiſtle, as himſelfe noteth. Here and in Tim. he ſimply forbids the thing: there the manner of doing it. Likewiſe, for their being as forward to ſpeake, as their husbands, and in their preſence, it may be true in part, and in ſome. But what then? Doth the Apoſtle in theſe places onelyonly forbid their ſpeaking uncovered, and permit them to teach ſo it be veiled? or forbids he onelyonly their being as p. 68forward as their husbands, but giues them leaue to ſpeake in the Church, ſo it bee with good maners, and after them, which his anſwer inſinuates? Or is it not evident to all that will not ſhut their eyes, that he ſimply, and that ſeverely, inhibits them all ſpeaking whatſoever in this exerciſe? Are not the words plain enough? Let the women keep ſilence in the Church, for it is not permitted to them to ſpeak, but to be under obedience, as the Law ſayth. And againe, It is a ſhame for them to ſpeake in the Church. And in 1. Tim. Let the women learne in ſilence with all ſubiection. And, I ſuffer not a woman to teach, nor to uſurpe authority ouer the man, but to be in ſubjection. For Adam was firſt formed, &c. Do not all and every one of the Reaſons binde women to all peace and deepe ſilence in the Church, yea to ſuch and ſo abſolute, as that they may not ſo much as aske a queſtion for learning any thing themſelues, verſ. 35. much leſſe teach others any thing? I therefore conclude this as a moſt certain and undeniable truth, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks here of ſuch a gift and exerciſe as women are ſimply forbidden to uſe in the Church; and therefore not of an extraordinary gift or exerciſe, which they might uſe lawfully, and did both before, and a long time after the writing of this Epiſtle.

His laſt anſwer now comes in conſideration, which is, that the conſequence is ill, women are forbidden, and therefore men are p. 69permitted to propheſie in the Church by an ordinary gift.

If the conſequence ſeem not good, why doth he ſo ſtrugle as before otherwiſe to make an eſcape from the Argument? let us cōſider of the force of it, which appeareth to me irreſiſtable in theſe 3. things. Firſt, the Apoſtle in, and for this work oppoſeth the men to the women, ſex to ſex, & ſo in prohibiting women, he permits men. VVhen the H. Ghoſt oppoſing faith and workes in the caſe of iuſtification, denies that we are iuſtified by works, is not the conſequence good, that therfore we are iuſtified by faith. VVhere hee oppoſeth belevers & vnbeleevers in the caſe of Salvation, and teacheth that beleevers ſhall be ſaued, doth he not teach conſequently, that vnbeleevers ſhall periſh? If theſe conſequences be not good I muſt confeſſe my ſelfe farre to ſeeke both in logick and Divinity.

Secondly, the reaſons of the prohibition of women prove the conſequēce, which are all ſuch as prefer the men before the women, & ſubiect the womē to the men in the Church, & in this very work of propheſy, of which he treateth. But now if in prohibiting women, he gaue not liberty vntounto men, where were the prerogatiue of men aboue women, which is the onelyonly ground, vponupon which he buildeth his prohibition?

Thirdly, where verſe 34.35. It is not permitted for women to ſpeak but if they will p. 70learn any thing to ask their huſbands at home, if their huſbands might not ſpeak neither, nor any more then they, what reaſon can be rendred of the Apoſtles ſo ſpeaking?

Laſtly M. Yates in denying this conſequence, ſheweth, that ſo he might deny ſomething, he tooke no great heed what it were. The Apoſtle in this whole Chap. takes order for ſome to propheſy? and debarring women therefrom, either admits men to the vſe of that liberty, or els wee muſt hauehave ſome third kinde of perſons thought of, which are neither male nor female.

My fourth Argument is from v. 29. and 32. Let the prophets ſpeak two or three, and let the reſt iudg: and the ſpirit of the prophets are ſubiect to the prophets. VVhence I affirm, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of extraordinary prophets, or propheſying, ſince they in their doctrines could not erre, and ſo were not ſubiect to any ſuch iudgment, or cenſure of others. He anſwereth roundly, though breifly in this place, that theſe prophets were not infallibly aſſiſted: and more largely in another place, that ſuch prophets as hauehave an infallible aſſiſtance are not ſubiect to this Rule: but others that had but, as the Apoſtle ſaid, Rom. 12.6. meaner gifts were to be examined according to the… portion of faith, ſo that extraordinary prophets might mix ſome of their own with the extraordinary gifts of Gods ſpirit, which was to be cenſured by ſuch as had a greater meaſure: p. 71for none are to think that all that had theſe extraordinary gifts were free from errour in their very doctrine. We ſee the ſtrange gift of tongues was abuſed, and ſo might the reſt be.

That one extraordinary Prophet had a greater meaſure, and proportion of gifts then another, I acknowledge; but that any one of them could erre in doctrine, or was not infallibly aſſiſted therein by the ſpirit, I deny, as a moſt pernicious errour, weakning the foundation of faith, and truth of the word of God: neither hath M. Yates ſo much as exterprized an Anſw. unto the Scriptures brought by me to prooue the contrary: which were Eph. 2.20. where the Epheſians as the houſhold, or Church of God are ſaid to bee built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, &c. &c. 3.5. where he ſpeaks of the miſtery of Chriſt, which in other ages was not made known unto the ſonnes of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apoſtles and Prophets by the ſpirit. VVhence it apeares, that the Church is as well built upō the foundatiō of the Prophets, to wit extraordinary, which then were (for of them he ſpeaketh) as upon the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and they as infalliby (even for the very foundation) inſpired by the H. Ghoſt, as the other. So that, if the Prophets could erre in doctrine, then the Apoſtles, & if in doctrine taught why not written? and if one alone, why not more, or all? and if they might erre, how p. 72know we that they did not erre? If he ſay the meaner in gifts might erre, but not the greater; firſt the ſame followeth alſo touching the Apoſtles, how much more touching the Prophets before Chriſt (not comparable to thoſe after him:) why then may there not be errors in the writings eſpecialy of thoſe of meaner gifts, as without doubt ſome were in compariſon of the reſt? what wether this wind will bring who ſeeth not? Moreouer, whereas vvee propound ſuch interpretations and doctrines, as we gather from the Scriptures, by diſcourſe of reaſon, and ſo may erre: they, on the contrary every one of them delivered doctrine by immediate inſpiration of the ſpirit, in which by reaſon of the divine impreſſion which it made in their hearts (differencing it from all both humane collection and Diabolicall ſuggeſtion) they could not erre, or be miſtaken, but knew infallibly when, and wherein they were moved by the H. Ghoſt. Befides there is not like reaſon of ſtrange tongues, and propheſie, for the conſideration in hand, ſince the Church is not built upon the foundation of ſtrange tongues, as upon the foundation of propheſie; neither was the matter of the ſpeech inſpired, but the language onelyonly, except the ſame perſons were Prophets alſo.

Laſtly, if there were the like reaſon of tongues, and propheſie, yet except men might erre in a tongue, and deem themſelues p. 73inſpired extraordinarily when they were not (which were abſurd to affirme) it could not evince any poſſibility of erring in doctrine, by extraordinary Prophets.

The laſt Argument in my booke I take from v. 37. 38. If any man think himſelf to be a prophet, or ſpirituall, let him acknowledg that the things that I write unto you are the commandements of the Lord: But if any be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

M. Yates taxeth mee for making a Prophet, and ſpirituall man all one, ſince by a ſpirituall man is meant ſuch as excelled in any ſpirituall gift, propheſie, or other. But without cauſe, ſince I neither mean more nor need more for my purpoſe, then that a Prophet bee included in the generall of a ſpirituall man. But wherefore doth he not anſwer the Argument or minde where the force thereof lieth? which is in the words following; let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the commandements of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. The extraordinary prophets, were guided as immediately & infallibly by the revelation of Gods ſpirit, as Paul himſelf, & might as wel hauehave required of him to acknowledg that the things which they ſpeak were the commandements of the Lord, a… hee of them: neither was it poſſible that they or any of them ſhould bee ignorant, that the things which hee ſpake were the commandements of the p. 74Lord. Which Argument is alſo much ſtrengthened, and made, in my iudgement, unanſwerable, by that which we finde v. 36. Came the word of God out from you, or came it unto you onelyonly? which words the Apoſtle doth not direct unto the women (as M. Yates miſconceaveth with great errour, and contrary both unto reaſon, and to the expreſſe Greek text which will not beare it) but to the Prophets; with whom hee dealeth, and that by way of compariſon with himſelf, frō whom, to wit, by immediate revelation, the word of God came after a ſort to the Corinthians. VVhichWhich plainly proues that they could not bee extraordinary Prophets, from whom the word of God came unto the Church as well as frō himſelfe: they being inſpired immediately by the Holy Ghoſt as well as he.

The Chriſtian Reader may finde, beſides theſe, other reaſons from this Scripture laid down by our worthy countryman M. Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemiſts, Sect. 5. for the iuſtification of this exerciſe as ordinary and continuall.

The other Arguments in the ſame place of my booke to the ſame purpoſe, though M. Yates could not but take knowledge of, yet hath he not thought good to meddle vvith, One of them only I will annex in this place word for word, as there I hauehave ſet it downe.

It is the commandement of the Lord by the Apoſtle, that a Biſhop muſt be apt to p. 75teach, and that ſuch Elders or Biſhops bee called as are able to exhort with ſound doctrine, and to conuince the gain-ſayers, 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.9. Now except men, before they bee in office may bee permitted to manifeſt their gifts in doctrine, and ſo in prayer, which are the two maine works requiring ſpeciall qualifications in the teaching Elders, Acts 6.4, how ſhall the Church (which is to chooſe them) take knowledge of their ſufficiency, that with faith and good conſcience they may call them, and ſubmit unto them for their guides? If it be ſayd, that upon ſuch occaſion, triall may be taken of mens gifts: he that ſo ſaith, grants the queſtion; but muſt know beſides, firſt that mens gifts and abilities ſhould be knowne in ſome meaſure, before they be once thought on for officers: and ſecondly, that there is none other uſe or triall of gifts (to wit in and by the Church) but in propheſying: for every thing in the Lords houſe is to bee performed in ſome ordinance, there is nothing thrown about the houſe, or out of order in it: and other ordinance in the Church ſaue this of propheſie is there none, wherein men out of office are to pray, and teach, &c. Laſtly, M. Yates in denying this liberty, beſides other evils, reproveth the practiſe of all reformed Churches, and of the Church of England with them. It is not onelyonly permitted as lawfull, but required as neceſſary where, p. 76liue, that ſuch as hauehave bent their thoughts towards the miniſtery, ſhould before hand uſe their gifts publickly in the Church: and intollerable bondage it would bee thought by them to hauehave paſtors ordained for them (as all there are unto the places in which they are to miniſter) of whoſe ability in teaching they had not taken former experience. And not onelyonly ſo, but it hath been further decreed in ſolemne Synod, that in all Churches whether ſpringing up, or grown to perfection, the order of propheſie ſhould be obſerved, according to Pauls inſtitution; and that into that fellowſhip (to wit of Prophets) ſhould be admitted not onelyonly the miniſters, but alſo the Teachers, and of the Elders and Deacons, and even of the very common people (exipſa plebe) if there were any which would confer their gifts received of the Lord to the common benefit of the Church, &c. Harmon. Synod. Belg. de prophetica. Ex Synodo Embdana, Can. 1.2. And for England it ſelfe; what will M. Yates ſay to the Common Places, as they are called; or Sermons, as indeed they are, in the Colledges, not onelyonly permitted unto, but impoſed upon divers, who never receved order of Prieſthood? VVhat to ſuch as Preach by the Biſhops licence, without any ſuch order? yea to all ſuch as are ordained and called miniſters, but hauehave not actuall charge, and ſo are like the Popiſh accidents in the Sacrament, without a ſubiect? Laſtly, p. 77it might be ſhewed, if need were, that greater liberty then he alloweth, is uſed by divers in the Romiſh Church, the Spirituall Egipt, and houſe of bondage for Gods people: ſo as the bondage of the very Hagar of Rome is not ſo great in this caſe, as he would bring upon Sarah her ſelfe.

The Lord giuegive unto his people courage to ſtand for this liberty amongſt the reſt, wherewith Chriſt hath made them free; and unto us who enioy it, grace to uſe the ſame unto his glory, in our mutuall edification. Amen,

FINIS.

End of the text · John Robinson, The Peoples Plea for the Exercise of Prophecy (1618)