ANIMADVERSIONS By way of Reply, to a Book, entituled, The Peoples priviledge and duty guarded, By WILLIAM SHEPHARD, Eſq.
CHAP. I. Wherein the Authors method in his Anſwer is laid down.
AS this ſober Gentleman hath in his firſt Chapter ſet down his method: ſo I ſhall doe mine, that the Reader may not be tyred with an indiſtinct diſcourſe.
1. I ſhall examine his ſecond Chapter; and ſhew how far we have, or have not granted; and how we have granted what he there mentions.
2. I ſhall examine his third Chapter (in ſeverall Chapters, becauſe it is very long:) there I ſhall examine whether he hath ſufficiently proved his ten Propoſitions he layes as a foundation, or the eleventh; which is his main work. I ſhall examine the laſt more ſtrictly; and reply to his ſeverall (pretended) arguments, for the preaching of ſuch as are not in office.
483. I ſhall examine his fourth Chapter, where he anſwers our arguments: and try whether he hath done it ſufficiently; and reply upon his pretended anſwers.
4. Poſſibly I may adde ſome ſhort notes to his laſt Chapter, which is not argumentative, but onely practicall, and therefore I ſhall not ſpeak much to it.
CHAP. II. In which part of the Authors Second chapter is examined: and the Preachers grants are opened, how far, and in what ſenſe they have granted the things mentioned.
THe Author is pleaſed in the firſt Chapter to tell us, that he grants theſe things:
1. That that there are or ought to be in all the Churches of Chriſt regularly conſtituted, certain Officers call'd Preachers, Paſtors, Teachers, or Elders, &c.Eph. 4.11, 12. 1 Cor. 12.29, &c.
So that he grants the Goſpel rule for Goſpel Preachers to be that thoſe that take the Office upon them ſhould be ſolemnly ſet a part by faſting and prayer, and impoſition of hands.
3. That theſe officers are to be heard, acknowledged, ſubmitted to, honoured, maintained, countenanced, and furthered in their office by the people.1 Theſ. 5 12. Eph. 5.21, &c.
In the cloſe of that Chapter he ſaies:
(Sir,) Although we believe that Gods word doth oblige you to believe and grant this, and all this: yet we have cauſe to thank you, that in this erronious and backſliding age (wherein ſo many have loſt their firſt love) you will thus far bear witneſſe to the truth of God. This is much more then thoſe that uſually handle your ſubject will grant: and I ſuppoſe enough (if well improved) to bring you to cloſe with that other piece of truth, againſt which you contend, viz. That Publique preaching the Goſpel amongſt profeſſors is a proper and diſtinct act of theſe Officers.
In this ſecond Chapter you come to tell us, what we have granted you, and there you confeſſe we grant you twelve things.
"1. That ſuch as have not been brought up in the Ʋniverſity, or want School-learning, may (being duely called) become publique preachers.
This indeed I have granted, in my Vindiciae, p. 14. but in theſe terms onely: that School-learning is not abſolutely neceſſary. So that doubtleſſe in caſes of neceſſity, when the Church of God cannot be ſupplied enough with men of learning, this may be done (and I conceive this is our caſe and part now) for truly, I judge a godly gifted man, duely ordained and ſet a part to the work (though unlearned in part) farre fitter for the Miniſtry then a prophane50 wretch (though the greateſt Scholler in Chriſtendom.Quoniam non omnibus forte etiam nullis ea donorum ubertas obtingit a ſpiritu, quae Apoſtolis. Nulla fuerit impietas quod donis illius diminutum eſt ſupplere diſciplinarum adminiculis Eraſmus. in Eccleſiaſt. edit. Froben. An. 1554. Hodie quum pluſquam neceſſaria fit linguarum cognitio, & Deus hoc tempore mirabile beneficio eas ex tenebris in lucem eruerit ſunt nunc magni theologi qui fuoioſè adverſas eas declamitent quum certum ſit ſpiritum ſanctum eterno elogio hic ornaſſe linguas, colligere promptum eſt quonum ſpiritu agantur iſti cenſores. Calu. in c. 4. 1. ep. ad Corin. ) Thus far now this is granted. Yet withall I cannot think that God would have ſupplied miraculouſly the firſt preachers of the Goſpel with an extraordinary gift of tongues; and an infallible ſpirit in expounding Scripture: if he had not in his wiſdome thought that it was moſt fitting for one that were learned in the Originall Tongues to interpret Scripture publiquely.
A ſecond thing you ſay we grant is,That the Ceremony of impoſition of hands is not neceſſary to the making of a Miniſter.
But who hath granted this I know not. I have not, for p. 76. I ſay, that I cannot think it can be omitted without ſin in an ordinary orderly ordination: and I give reaſons for it. Nor can I finde any place where my reverend brother, Mr. Hall, hath been ſo free in granting away Scripture precepts. Nor is it much conſiderable who hath granted it; for who ever they are, they have granted away a truth was not theirs to diſpoſe of. The word of God hath not granted it; and we cannot grant you away any piece of that, unleſſe you can bring us a ticket under Chriſts hand. Nay, you your ſelfe will not grant it, for p. 2. you ſay, they muſt be ſet apart,Non eſt minimum iota legis à quo non màgni montes pendent. according to the Goſpel rule. Now what that is, you tell us, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands ſuddenly on no man. And Acts 13.3. To the Law, and to the Teſtimony, (Sir,) Iſ. 8.20. Except we could finde ſome ordinations there, without this we cannot make ſo ſlight a buſineſſe of it, eſpecially when the holy Ghoſt layeth ſo much weight upon it as to expreſſe the whole ordinance of ordination by it.
3. A third thing you ſay was granted is,51That ſuch as intend the miniſtry, and are to be ſet apart for it, may as probationers preach publikely, and that Batchelours of Art may common-place in a Chappell, to the end that their Abilities may be tried and judged.
This indeed is granted you by Mr. Hall,Pulpit guarded p. 4. Vindiciae miniſt. 17. V. Mr. Rutherford, Due Right p. 281. 305. and by my ſelfe, upon that ground of Scripture, 1 Tim. 5.22. yet not without due limitation. 1. As Probationers. 2. Before the Elders, or the Church in which he is conſtantly to preach. So Mr. Hall limits it.) I have added, 3. Not without the approbation of the Presbytery that is to ordain him. 4. Not to make a work of it, but to doe it ſome few times. And (Sir) theſe are Scripture bounds. For the text onely ſayes,A minori ad majus affirmandi. Lay hands ſuddenly on none, and Let him be firſt proved (which is ſpoken of Deacons, but holds a fortiori, to preachers. So that all his preaching muſt be in order to a proof, and a ſecuring of Timothy from laying on hands ſuddenly. Now (Sir) the means muſt be proportionate to the end; Reaſon tels you with theſe limitations, it is granted, ſir.
4. You ſay we grant, that ordaining is not the onely thing neceſſary. We grant it indeed, for there muſt be before this miniſteriall gifts, 1 Tim. 2.2. and an inclination to the work, 1 Tim. 3.1.
Si itaque hic factum eſt in us qui immediate ſunt vocati, &c. V Chemnit. l. com. p. 3. p. 137. Edit. fol. Ʋ. Calv. Inſtit. l. 4. ſect. 14. Neceſſitas non habet legem.That ſame word ſuch like comes in unhandſomely after your large enumeration of all the neceſſary caſes, I know or ever heard of. Yea, you reckon one too many. For ſuppoſe a Church be to be planted amongst Infidels, I thinke Gods way is the beſt way to doe it in. So it was Acts 13.3, 4, 5: he did not ſend meerly gifted perſons to doe it, but calls from Heaven to his Church to ſet a part Paul and Barnabas, before they went; which they did by faſting and prayer, and laying on of hands: yet both of them were extraordinarily gifted. Indeed if ſuch ordination cannot be had) we grant it.
6. You ſay we grant, That every private man may in his "own family read and apply to his own family ſomething from the letter of Scripture.
Expounding is not a proper terme for their ablities. Otherwiſe we grant it.
7. You ſay truely we grant,That any private Chriſtian may privately and occaſionally, exhort, teach, admoniſh, reprove or comfort his brother.
8. You ſay we grant, That any private Chriſtian may write "upon any Scripture, and teach another by pen.
No (Sir) we onely ſay, able orthodox private Chriſtians may.
9. We freely yield, That private Chriſtians occaſionally "meeting together, may repeat Sermons, relate experiences, and confer one with another.
10. We grant that private perſons may make an open confeſſion "of their faith, if called to it, or forced to it.
11. "That Magiſtrates may give publique charges, and make ſpeeches and exhortations to the people; we yield it.
12. That any man may make a publique apologie or defence to cleare himſelfe from unjuſt accuſations we grant, if he be called to it in ſeaſonable time, and convenient place he may doe it; but not to juſtle out an Ordinance of God.
You ſay, "We will make further uſe of this afterwards. We will wait upon you for that (Sir) In the mean time let me make a little.
53And now (conſcientious Reader!) if thou beeſt of an humble learning ſpirit, judge betwixt us the miniſters of the Goſpell, and Mr. Sheppard. Is there not room enough in theſe grants for a Chriſtian in his own private family, or in a private meeting (if he be of an humble and ſober ſpirit) to exerciſe all the gifts he hath? but the Pulpit muſt needs be made big enough for him to ſit in, even with the Ambaſſadors of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt? and to preach in their place? Judge, I pray thee Reader, whether the Preachers of the Goſpell of Chriſt in England be ſo guilty of ſmothering the brethrens gifts, as Mr. Sheppard would make them to be p. 12, p. 74, 75. of his book, and ſee how thoſe pages and theſe agree.
CHAP. III. Animadverſions and an Anſwer to the fourth and fifth page of the booke, ſtating the buſineſſe in difference; together with an account of the ten propoſitions he brings in order to the guard.
THis Gentleman comes now to his third Chapter, and in that, having already ſhewed wherein we agree both, he comes to ſtate the buſineſſe in difference.
And in his firſt lines, he ſayes right that the Preachers doe affirm (yea, and muſt ſtand to that affirmation too) till better arguments be brought us, then this book will afford us)That private perſons (though gifted and called,Queſtion ſtat. i. e. d•ſidered by the people) may not ordinarily open and apply Scriptures in the publick aſſemblies of a conſtituted Church, without a ſolemn ſetting apart to that office.
My brother Hall puts in a Call. I balk't that word purpoſely, becauſe I knew what our brethren call a Call, and I meant ſomething more.
54This point (ſaith this Gentleman) The people deny and oppoſe. (That's no great matter, if they cannot diſprove it. But in order to the mannaging of their oppoſition, he brings us ten poſitions (which he calls truths) which well proved, he thinks will guard this priviledge.
I hope he intends them not for a Life-guard to the pretended truth; if they were they ſhould ſtand neerer to it. For, for the firſt foure, I will undertake for him, that ſhall oppoſe the intended truth, which chiefely lies in the fifth, ſixth, and ſeventh. He ſhall cut the throat of them, if he will, and neither a one of the firſt foure ſhall check him. So the Van-guard ſtands for little, but to make a ſhew. Yet it will not be amiſſe to examine theſe (for fear they ſhould have a dagger more then any one ſees) and be more in the Authors meaning, then they are in common view and apprehenſion.
The Vanguard then conſiſts of theſe foure notions. 1. "That the Scripture doe as well belong to the people, as the Preachers. Quid inde? what then? or who denies it.
2. That the people, as well as the Preachers, are to read and ſtudy the Scriptures.God forbid but they ſhould read and ſtudy them; but what of that?
3. "That the Expoſition of the Scriptures, as to the right uſe and underſtanding of them, is neceſſary to the people, as well as the preachers. I obſerve a ſcurvy term, As well as, in every propoſition. If there be not a ſnake in that word, I ſee nothing of falſhood in this.
4. "That the people, as well as Preachers, are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures. [As wel as] again? Surely the cheat lies in that terme; we will ſearch it anon. But admit it rightly underſtood.
After theſe, comes in the Tripartite notion, called, the priviledge that ſhould be guarded.
55 "2. That the people may as well uſe the gift of expounding Scripture, as the Preachers.
"3. That it is the duty of all people of God, as well as of the Preachers to expound Scriptures.
In the laſt place comes in the Rear-guard, conſiſting of three other poſitions: which are innocent truths, if they have no daggers under their ſhirts, more then a common Reader will ſee (God willing) we will ſearch them anon.
"1. That all Gods people may and ought to expound Scriptures to themſelves, and one to another.
Query. What the Author means by expounding. 2 By one to another? If by expounding he means ſpeaking of the Scriptures, or telling their thoughts; or what they have heard, or read, or obſerved of the ſence of the Scriptures; and by One another, he means privately. It is granted.
This is true enough: onely adding, that they keep the limits by which Gods Word, and their calling bounds them.
This I feare will prove anon to be barely proved; yet we dare not limit the holy one of Iſrael; nor ſay, but that they may have ſometimes been ſo bleſſed: although I believe you might have left out the word frequently, I feare you will want Scripture proofe anon for that word.
Theſe are his ten Propoſitions.
Now, Sir, although I could grant you, and eaſily doe grant you ſeverall of theſe poſitions to be true (if rightly underſtood) yet I ſhall examine what you have ſaid to all them. Partly, becauſe I have a ſuſpicion upon ſome words in them not to have ſo honeſt a meaning, as they have a looke. And partly, that I might ſee whether you have been guided by the Spirit in your applications of your many Scriptures56 to prove the points for which they are brought. I will begin with the firſt of your Van-guard.
CHAP. IV. Wherein the fifth, and part of the ſixth page is examined: and the firſt propoſition is ſcann'd, and opened, viz. That the Scriptures doe as well belong to the people, as the Preachers.
THe firſt propoſition is, That that the Scriptures doe as wel "belong to the people, as to the Preachers.
This point the Gentleman, firſt proves. Secondly, cleares from objections.
1. He proves it (he ſhould have done well to have opened it firſt.) Thoſe two terms, 1. Belong. 2. As well as, are not cleare. We may ſay, the government of the City belongs to the people of it; but how? quoad exercitium actus? as to the exerciſe of the acts of government. Are the keys of government theirs? no ſure. Then farewell Magiſtracy, and welcome Levelling. But it belongs to them as it is for their good, and peace, and order, as that under which, and according to the rule of which they are to live.
If this Gentleman means by belonging, what the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Tim. 3.16. That the Scriptures are profitable for all, for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſſe. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furniſhed unto all good workes. God forbid but we ſhould grant it; and this belonging is proved by Deut. 29.29. and Ioh. 5.39. and Iude 3. and many other places.
But if this Genleman means, that they ſhould belong to them as the keyes to the Steward, to open and apply them to the people, he both contradicts himſelfe, for he tels us in other places of this book, That they cannot expound57 and apply Scriptures authoritatively; and he contradicts the Apoſtle too, 1 Cor. 4.2. Myſterium diſtribuimus in verbum Dei & Sacramenta. P. Martyr ad loc. Let a man ſo account of us, as of the Miniſters of Ieſus Chriſt, and Stewards of the myſteries of God. Of which myſteries the Goſpell is one, Col. 1.16. And if he doth not meane, that the Scriptures thus belong to the people
1. He ſayes nothing to the purpoſe.
2: His ſecond objection is little worth (of which more by and by) for ſuppoſe we argue thus:If the Scriptures be for the peoples uſe, and belong to them for reproofe, correction, doctrine, inſtruction in righteouſneſſe, then the people may expound and preach them publiquely.
He ſayes:They are committed to Preachers, and yet not ſo as excluding the people, — But The Preachers are eſpecially,Natura enim omnes jubet mutuò eſſe cuſtodes ac defenſores ſalutis noſtrae & alienae, maxime veri fratres. Pareus. Immo quod tibi frater eſt & proximus, ideo es illius cuſtos & tibi illius ſalus eſt a deo commendata. P. Martyr. and by publique office, and the duty of their place to take care of them; but this hinders not, but that every Chriſtian is by duty bound in generall to take care of the ſoules of his fellow Chriſtians, and ſo of the truth.
We eaſily grant that private Chriſtians are in the generall bound by the Law of God and nature to take a private care of their brethrens ſoules and bodies; and of the truth, ſo farre as to keep it in their own hearts, and propagate it in their own families; yea and to admoniſh, reprove, and exhort one another: to watch over them, if ſtanding: if any brother be fallen through infirmity, to endeavour to reſtore him in the ſpirit of meekneſſe. But (Sir) they are not to take a publique care of, nor are they put in a publique truſt concerning their brethrene ſoules. Neither are the Scriptures committed to them to teach others. Quicquid enim ingenio humano ex cogitatum aſſuitur Scripturae ut pro divinitus revelato habeatur mendacium eſt. Pareus in Apoc. c. 22. 1 Tim. 2.2.
What the word of God doth not ſay in reference to the Ordinances and worſhip of God, that we muſt not ſay. For if we doe we ſhall adde to the Scriptures. God muſt order every pin in the Tabernacle.
But the word of God no where ſaies, that the people58 have the glorious Goſpel of God committed to their truſt, to teach others out of it, as 1 Tim. 1.11. 1 Tim. 6.20. 2 Tim. 2.2. and therefore we muſt not ſay, the people have it committed to them. The Scripture warrants no ſuch ſpeech, it is not the language of Canaan. And ſo (Sir) in point of publique truſt they are excluded, as much as a Commiſſion to his Excellency to be Lord Deputy of Ireland, excludes others from being ſo, though it be not ſaid ſo (in the letter) in the Commiſſion. In point of uſe indeed the people are every where included, but they are no where called Stewards, &c.
And (Sir) for your diſtinction between committed, and ſo committed, it is Apocryphall. The Scripture no where ſayes, they are at all committed to them. You muſt remember (Sir) your own marginall note which you give, as p. 29. Ʋbi lex non diſtinguit, non eſt diſtinguendum.
But to juſtifie what you ſay, you tell us that it is committed to the people; for,In 1 Tim. 3.15. the Apoſtle ſaies, That the whole Church, not the Preachers onely, is the pillar and ground of truth.
Any one may ſee a Non ſequitur (without ſpectacles) in the Argument. And the Gentlemans proofes will none of them prove this, nor any thing like unto it.
In the next place he comes to cleare his point from two Objections. He frames one from Revel. 2. Where the Epiſtles are directed to the Angels. To this he anſwers: 1. The Angels are taken collectively for the whole Churches, as Exod. 4.2. Iſrael my ſonne. 2. He ſayes, It is clearly expreſſed, Revel. 2.7. He that hath an eare to beare let him beare what the Spirit ſayes to the Churches.To which I anſwer.
Though I ſhould never have made this objection, but think there is very little ſtrength in it, and the Gentleman onely brought it forth to try his skill about it, yet I conceive his anſwer is too ſhort in it: and ſeeing the argument is weake, it is charity for diſputation ſake to take its part.
591. It will hardly be proved, that Angel is taken any where collectively; that Iſrael is, is plain enough from more places then one. The term Angel, I take it, is ſcarce found but to ſignifie an Angel by nature, or by office. Now it is abſurd to ſay, that all the people in a Church are ſent, and in office: which is the appellative ſignification of the term.
To his ſecond anſwer.
2. The Spirit ſpake to the Churches. Although the Epiſtles were not directed immediately to all the members, doubtleſſe they were directed to their Officers for their uſe. And thus the holy Ghoſt ſpeaks to us in ſpeaking to the Jews of old: and to the Jews, and Chriſtians in the new Teſtament. Elſe neither the Scriptures of the Old, nor the New Teſtament belong to us.
He frames a ſecond Objection, p. 5.
Ob.The Scriptures are committed to the truſt and care of Preachers in Office.1 Tim. 1.11. 6 20. 2 Tim. 2.14.3.14. Tit. 1.3.
The bringing of this objection makes me think, he underſtood by [as well) that the Scriptures did equally belong to people as Preachers, and are alike committed to them. For if this objection oppoſeth the doctrine, he muſt mean by belonging, a belonging to them as the Lords Truſtees and Commiſſioners in the Goſpel. And then his poſition is falſe, and theſe Scriptures which he here quotes unanſwerably prove it ſo. Yet he pretends to anſwer.
Sir, As to that text, 1 Tim. 3.15. it is a very diſputable text, who the Apoſtle calls there, the pillar and ground of truth, is not ſo well agreed, as you preſume. Some refer it to Timothy. Mr. Calvin ſaith,V. Deodate ad loc. Ʋ. Leigh ad loc. Calv. ad loc. Ʋ. Leigh ib. Engl. Annot. Elogium hoc ad miniſterium verbi pertinet. That it is to be applied to the miniſtry of the Word. Others underſtand it of the living God, who is indeed the pillar and ground of truth. So Cameron, and others.) To bar either of theſe interpretations, you have nothing but the poor credit of a comma or two;60 and thoſe that knew any thing, know that the Originall copies generally are both without ſtops and diſtinction of verſes. For my own part, I ſhould underſtand it of the living God, and ſupply〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [who is] and then your proofe failes.
But admit it be the Church, it is gratis dictum, and not proved, that by Church he mean all the individuall members. The Papiſts generally contend, that the Church is there called the pillar and ground of truth; and thence Bellarmine and Eſtius,V. Eſtium ad loc. V. Calv ad loc. Beza ad loc. and others conclude it cannot erre. It is alſo diſputed, whether it be meant of the Church Ʋniverſall or particular. Proteſtants maintain it of the Church Ʋniverſall. And doubtleſſe if it be to be underſtood of the Church at all, it muſt be of the Church Ʋniverſall, and not of every individuall member of that. And then it is to be conſidered in what ſence the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; and it is concluded, that the Church is the pillar of truth, becauſe in that truth is to be found. As Proclamations hang upon pillars, ſo the Church is the Pillar of truth; but (Sir) you prove nothing, if you doe not prove that the Individuall members of the Church are ſpeaking pillars, which will be an hard task for you. Indeed they ſhould be pillars of truth, to beare the Law of the Lord upon their hearts and converſations. And they are, as you ſay, from Iude 3. to contend for the faith. But the queſtion is, whether God hath committed the doctrine of faith to them to preach? No ſuch thing is proved from that text in Timothy, nor that in Iude neither. And in earneſt (Sir) if every gifted brother be to be a pillar of truth, truth hath loſt its uniformity. Many of them have been pillars upon which the divell hath hung all the errors and blaſphemies of former times; not one of many a pillar of truth.
In ſhort, I ſhall diſpatch your firſt propoſition granting you, that the Scriptures belong to all, to be exerciſed in them, to ſearch and examine them, and their own hearts61 by them; to read in them, and meditate in them day and night. But they doe not belong to all to preach them publikely.
CHAP. V. Wherein the ſixth and ſeventh pages are examined, and the Authours third propoſition is ſcanned, and his proofe of it enquired into, &c.
FOr your ſecond propoſition, viz. That the people as well as the preachers are to read and ſtudy the Scriptures. I grant it you to be a t•uth, and wiſh it may be practiſed. But it concludes nothing to the buſineſſe in hand, unleſſe you will conclude thus:They that are to read and ſtudy the Scriptures, are alſo to expound and preach them. — That is denied.
Your third propoſition is p. 6.
That the expoſition of Scripture (lying in the opening of the true ſenſe of the words and ſayings thereof: and the applying of them in that ſenſe to them that heare it, and read it, as to the right uſe and underſtanding thereof, is of neceſſity to preachers and people.This you prove p. 6 & 7. by ſeven particulars.
But Sir, before you had proved your doctrine, you ſhould again have opened it, for the meaning is not clear.
1. Whether you mean that it is neceſſary they ſhould have the Scriptures opened. Or
2. That they ſhould open the Scriptures themſelves. Whether you mean neceſſary as to ſalvation, or to the bene eſſe, and further edification of a Chriſtian.
If you mean that it is neceſſary to ſalvation that one have the Scriptures opened to him, I cannot grant it, nor have you proved it. If you mean in the other ſenſe neceſſary, I grant it; though I think another word would have better expreſſed it, eſpecially if Varro's notion for62 the Etymology of neceſſe,Neceſſe eſt quod nec eſſe aliter poteſt. Varro. Haec à me perſtricta ſunt ut intellige es te in Scripturis ſacris fine previo & monſtraente ſemitam non poſſe ingredi. D. Hier. ep. 103. c. 6. or neceſſarium (from whence our Engliſh word comes) be true. Neceſſe quod neceſſe aliter poteſt. But I eaſily grant you, that the expoſition of Scripture is an ordinance of God, and of ſingular advantage, though ſuch things as are neceſſary to ſalvation may be underſtood without an expoſitor, the wiſdome of God having ſo compounded the Scriptures, that there is milk for babes, and meat for ſtrong ones.
But I am afraid you mean ſomething elſe: that it is of neceſſity to the people, that they themſelves be able to expound Scriptures. This you muſt mean, or you have ſpoke little to your purpoſe; and then I deny it: for every Chriſtian (according to your own principles) hath not the guift: and God hath denied no neceſſary guift to any of his Saints. But you goe on to prove it neceſſary, in what ſence I know not.
1. You ſay God doth command it, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures. I eaſily grant (though that ſpeech be directed to the Phariſees) that it concernes every Chriſtian to doe what in him lies to finde out the meaning of the Scriptures, and ſo indeed it is neceſſary neceſſitate praecepti. But I am not of the mind that your ſecond place, 1 Cor. 14.1.39. Covet to prophecy, proves it. They are to ſearch the Scriptures for their own uſe. But prophecying is an extraordinary guift which they were to covet in thoſe times; and that precept is a ſpeciall precept relating to them, prophecying being now out of date; of which more hereafter. And although, as you ſay right, I believe the neglect of the ſtudy of the Scriptures is a ſin: yet I doe not think it is contrary to that Negative precept, 1 Theſſ. 5.20. Nor doe I think it the prophecying there meant, we will argue that hereafter. In the mean time let me tell you, that thoſe places you quote here to prove it, 1 Cor. 14.3, 24. prove it not at all. V. 4. He that prophecyeth edifieth the Church. V. 24. If all prophecie, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, be is convinced of all, be is judged of all.
63Let us now argue from hence, it muſt be thus:In ſecunda figurā exduabus affi•mantibus non conciuditur.
He that prophecieth (ſaith the Apoſtle) edifieth the Chu•ch.
He that ordinarily expoundeth Scripture edifieth the Church.
E go, Prophecying and edifying the Church are the ſame.
By as good Logick (Sir) you may prove the Moon is made of green Cheeſe, as we ſay.
- Green Cheeſe is a creature.
- The Moon is a creature.
- Ergo The Moon and Green Cheeſe are the ſame
If I ſhould argue ſo (Sir) you would tell me there were more creatures then one; and ſo I muſt tell you,He that adminiſtreth the Lords Supper edifieth the Church, doth it therefore follow that it is all one to expound Scripture and adminiſter the Lords Supper? there are more waies by which the Church may be edified then one. The Church was edified by prophecying, and by the guift of tongues: it doth not therefore follow, that both theſe are continuing guifts to the Church of Chriſt; or that our opening and expounding Scripture is the ſame with the prophecying ſo often mentioned in the New Teſtament. The thing you ſay is a truth, That Chriſtians are to ſearch the Scriptures, and to covet the beſt guifts; To deſire to be able to underſtand the meaning of Scripture. But you have not proved it by your ſecond reaſon, nor doe you prove your third reaſon well by 1 Cor. 14.3 I grant you your fourth, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles made much uſe of this way of expounding Scriptures, and doubtleſſe his Miniſters ought to doe ſo ſtill. Your fifth I grant, that there are many hard things in Scripture,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that had need of explication. And that place in Peter which you quote, 2 Pet. 3.16. proves the unlearned very unfit to open them; and your other place, Acts 8.30, 31. ſhewes whom God hath appointed to that work. The Lord did not ſend one of the guifted brethren to doe it, but Philip, one ordained, Act. 6.5. and ſo in office a Preacher, Act. 8.6. and that had extraordinary gifts given to him; one that64 had power to baptize, and give the Holy Ghoſt, Act. 8. For that place you quote, Iob 33.22. I will not diſpute the meaning of that place with you, whether it doth prove there are many things hard in Scripture to be underſto•d. The Interpreter there ſpoken of ſeems to me to be one rather that ſhould interpret viſions or revelations, or Gods providences, read V. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. and ſee what they ſpeak of the Scriptures being hard to be underſtood. But (Sir) admit it, that the Interpreter there ſpoken of be meant One that ſhould interpret hard places of Scripture,Buxtorfius, ad verbum. marke what a one he muſt be. 1. He muſt be〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a Meſſenger, an Angel. Qui ſic dicitur a functione quam deus ipſi imponit, called ſo from his office (ſaith Buxtorfius) The Prophet Malachy hath his name from this word, and he muſt be one of a thouſand. Nec enim ego•anctior ſum hoc Eunucho nec ſtudioſior, qui de Aethicpiâ, id eſt, de extremis mundi finibus venit ad templum, reliquit aulam regiam: & tantus amator legis divinaeque ſapientiae fuit ut etiam in vehiculo ſacras literas legeret, & tamen cum librum teneret & verba domini cogitatione conceperat, lingua volverat labiis perſonaret ignorabet eum quem in libro reſciens venerabatur. Hieron. ep 103. c. 5. So that, Sir, although it is true, that thoſe places 2 Pet. 3.16. and Act 8.30, 31. prove there are ſome things in Scripture hard to be underſtood; Yet I deſire you to take notice by the way, that he that opens them muſt not be one unlearned, for (ſaith the Apoſtle) he will wreſt them; but he muſt be a Philip, an Angel, (ſaith Job) and one of a thouſand. What elſe you ſay, p. 7. concerning the profitableneſſe of the expoſition and application of Scripture in generall, I grant you: onely I think Heb. 3.12. proves not that you bring it for: the words are theſe, Take heed brethren leſt there be in any of you an unbelieving heart to depart from the living God. I ſuppoſe you intended v. 13. But exhort one another daily. But although you did, yet you cannot from thence (except your Logick be better then mine) conclude this truth, that The opening of Scripture is like the breaking and bruiſing of Spices. And yet you adde, ſee for this Matth. 23.16, &c. Heb 3.12. I have done with your third poſition, and my Marginall notes upon it; onely I wonder you ſpeak ſo much of the excellency of Application, and make ſo little uſe of it; but I ſuppoſe we ſhall have the uſes anon. In the mean while having helped you in the expoſition of your65 doctrine I have granted you it in the ſame ſenſe wherein the Scriptures you quote prove it, though I ſuppoſe not in the ſame you would have it.
CHAP. VI. In which Mr. Sheppards fourth poſition is examined, and his proofe of it ſcanned.
YOur next, and in order your fourth poſition is this,That the people as well as the preachers are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures. This you prove, 1. Becauſe it is commanded, Col. 3.16. 2 It is commended, Ro. 15.14. 3 It was prophecyed and promiſed it ſhould be ſo.
This doctrine ſhould have been expounded a little too before it had been proved: that term [as well as] upon which the whole ſtrength of your deſigne lies, is not proved by any one Scripture, nor can I well tell what you mean by it. For if you mean,
That not only the Preachers, but the people are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures, I grant it you, and that you have proved it, though to very little purpoſe, in order to the deſigne of your book.
But if you mean, that it lies upon the people in point of duty, to be as much buſied and verſed in the Scriptures, as the Preacher is bound to be, I cannot yield you that: For that God hath no where ſaid to them as to Timothy,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theophylact. ad loc. 1 Tim. 4.15. Meditate upon theſe things, give thy ſelf wholly to them. I ſuppoſe you believe a Preacher ſhall not ſin againſt God, if he ſpend his whole time in order to his abounding in the knowledge of the Scriptures; but, I ſuppoſe thoſe who are not in that Function ſhould. But I eaſily grant you, that every Chriſtian ought to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures; and that becauſe, as you ſay, God hath both commanded and commended it. I66 grant you alſo, that a fuller meaſure of knowledge is promiſed and prophecied,Joel 2.18. Dan. 12.4. Iſ. 11.9 Iſ. 33 6 and poſſibly that place in Ioel may be a proofe in ſome part for you, viz that under the Goſpell God would poure out his Spirit in a larger meaſure then before. Here you frame an Objection that ſome make, viz.
1. This reſtrained ſenſe is againſt the coherence of the Text.
2. The words themſelves import a further matter and time.
3. The guift hath been given to ſome in all times under the Goſpell.
4. The ſame and like words are uſed in other places in the larger ſenſe, Lu. 4.17, 18, 19, 20. Matth. 8.21.
5. Some ſound and learned interpreters take it in this larger ſence, &c.
6. There are other paralell Scriptures ſpeak the ſame thing.
Concerning this text, I have already noted to you in my Ʋindiciae, p. 49. that if this text proves, that perſons not ordained may preach,All fleſh. it proves 1. That all have the guift, and may doe it. 2. That women may doe it, v. 28. 3. That they may preach by dreams and viſions too. That according to this place there need no election or probation: or any ſuch thing.
For the reſtraining of it to the daies of Pentecoſt, the Apoſtle hath warranted it, Act. 2.16. This is that which was ſpoken, &c.
Whereas you ſay, it is againſt the coherence of the words, you ſhall doe well to ſhew it us, and then we ſhall reply to it.
Whereas you ſay, the words doe import ſomething further, I cannot finde it out in reſpect of time, there is no term but afterwards; what you can make of that I cannot tell. Whereas you ſay, that the guift hath been given to ſome in all times, it is but petitio principii, a begging of the queſtion. 67Fourthly, you ſay the ſame and like words are uſed, Luke 4 17, 18, 19, 20. I have ſearched that place, and finde it a prophecy fu•filled in Chriſt, and applyed by himſelfe to himſelfe; neither are there any ſuch words there, as I will poure out my Spirit upon all fleſh. And your ſons and your daughters ſhall prophecy. Your other place is, Matth. 8.17. the words are theſe, That it might be fulfilled which was ſpoken by Iſaias the Prophet; Himſelfe tooke our infirmities, and bare our ſickneſſes. Now, where are the ſame or like words in the text? I thinke there is not one word the ſame in the text, nor any like. Indeed the two places in the margent are ſomething neerer, Iſ. 43 3. Zach. 12.10. Both thoſe ſpeak of a powring out of the Spirit, but neither of them ſpeake of the Spirit of prophecy, nor of ſons and daughters prophecying. The latter ſpeaks of the Spirit of grace and ſupplication. But what is that to the ſpirit of prophecy? But in the fifth place you tell us, Some ſound and learned Interpreters ſo underſtand it, but who thoſe are you ſpare mentioning I anſwer firſt, who ever they be St. Peter is to be preferred before them, and how it is to be underſtood he hath told us, Act. 2.16. Let us heare a little what Expoſiters ſay: Oecolampadius upon the place hath theſe words.
Et nunc in ſequenti verſu eximium illud donum quod eſt conceſſum diſcipulis in Pentecoſtes die praedicit,Oecolamp. ad loc. & Actorum ſe cundo Petrus ipſe teſtatur haec per prophetam Joelem eſſe dicta, unde nemo verba iſta in alienum ſenſum rapere conetu•quam ab Apoſtolo adducta ſunt & interpretata. — Spiritum promittit omni carni ſed non propterea prophetiam omni carni — Hoc omnibus fidelibus concedit ut pio corde ferantur in Deum non quod propterea promittit omnibus ſcientiam omnem & Scripturae ſenſum.
In the next place let us heare what learned Mercer ſaith. Nunc prophetia de Spiritu Sancto quam die Pentecoſtes fide dignus teſtis Petrus impletam dicit miſſo Spiritu Sancto,Mercerus ad loc. qui fecit ut Apoſtoli magna virtute teſtimonium darent reſurrectioni Chriſti, qui antea id docere immo ne in publicum quidem prodire audebant. De ſententiae ergo tempore, & modo impletae prophetiae conſtat.
But let us enquire a little further, (for I would faine know that man that would pretend to a better judgement in expounding Scripture then St. Peter had; or after he had ſaid, This is that was ſpoken of by Joel, would preſume to ſay, No, it is another thing.) Let us heare what Gualther upon the place ſaith.
Gualtherus. ad loc.Initio de Spiritus Sancti miſſione vaticinatur. — Poſt haec effectus Spiritus Sancti Joel commemorat, — Prophetiam nimirum; ſub qua donum linguarum quoque comprehendi ex Petri interpretatione patet. Prophetare antem dicuntur qui de arcana dei voluntate, & de rebus futuris differunt, Paulus verbi hujus ſignificationem latius extendens, eos quoque prophet•re dicit, qui vel Scripturas ipſi exponunt, vel aliorum interpretationes attenti audiunt. In praeſente tamen ac vaticinandi dono69 & penitiori myſteriorum Scripturae cognitione Ioel loquitur. Prophetabunt, inquit, filii veſtri & filia veſtrae, id eſt, ex illis paſſim orientur qui futura praevideant, quique Scripturae arcana eruendo illa commune omnium inſtitutioni & conſolationi accomodent. — At quae hic promittuntur mox poſt aſcenſionem Chriſti praeſtari caeperunt, quando Spiritus Sanctus ſuper Apoſtolos delapſus viſibili ſpecie illos & Scripturae ſacrae & linguarum cognitione ita illuſtravit, ut hoſtibus quoque admirationi eſſent qui illos homines idietas & illiteratos eſſe ſciebant. Eoſdem quoque viſiones vidiſſe, & in ſomniis de rebus gravibus & neceſsariis admonitos fuiſſe Petri & Pauli exempla ſatis teſtantur. Iidem quoque futura praedixerunt, quales nimirum noviſſimi ſaeculi mores futuri ſint, utque Antichriſti tyrannis Eccleſiam horribili modo ſit vaſtatura quo totus Apocalypſeos liber referri debeat, quid quod Philippo quatuor filias pr phetantes fuiſſe Lucas tradit? Nec Apoſtolorum modo tempore prophetandi donum floruit, verum etiam aliquot ſaeculis deinceps ſicuti hiſtoriae teſtantur & Theodoretus Epiſcopus ſuo tempore aliquos fuiſſe ſcribit qui ſingulari Spiritus dono inſtructi futura praedicerent. Quia vero donum hoc ſingulare fuit, & ea Scripturis abunde jam tradita ſunt quae nos ſcire neceſſe eſt donum hoc ut & alia pleraque ceſſavit.
Firſt (ſaith he) he prophecieth of the ſending of the Holy Ghoſt. — Then (ſaith he) he ſpeaketh of the effects of this Spirit, — to wit, prophecy; under which it is plain from St. Peters interpretation, that the guift of Tongues is comprehended. They are properly ſaid to prophecy, who diſcourſe concerning the ſecret will of God, and things to come. Paul doth extend the ſignification of this word further, and ſaies, that they prophecy that expound Scriptures, or attend diligently to others expoſitions. But here the Prophet Ioel ſpeaks concerning that guift of prophecy, in the more accurate knowledge of the myſteries of Scripture. — Thoſe things, which were here prophecied of, began to be fulfilled immediately upon the aſcenſion of Chriſt. When the Holy Ghoſt70 deſcended upon the Apoſtles in a viſible ſhape, and did enlighten them with the knowledge of Scripture and of the tongues, ſo that they were an admiration to their enemies, who knew them to be illiterate men, and ideots. The examples alſo of Peter and Paul witneſſe, that they ſaw viſions and were warned by God in dreams of things weighty and neceſſary to them. And they foretold things to come, as what ſhould be the manners of the laſt times; and how the tyranny of Antichriſt ſhould waſte the Church in a dreadfull manner —. And Philip had foure daughters propheteſſes. — Neither did this guift of prophecy only flouriſh in them very times, but ſome ages after, as Hiſtories witneſſe. V. Theodoret witneſſeth that there were ſome in his time who were furniſhed with this ſingular guift, and foretold things to come. But becauſe this guift was ſingular, and now thoſe things are delivered in Scripture which it is neceſſary for us to know, this guift as alſo many others is ceaſed.
Petrus ſecundo capite Actorum dicit hanc prophetiam amplectam fuiſſe quum miſſus eſt Spiritus. — Deinde hic prophetae non loquitur de publico munere docendi, &c. Calv. ad loc. Mr. Calvin upon the Text ſaies, that Peter witneſſes that this prophecy is fulfilled; and ſaies, that Joel doth not here ſpeak of the publique work of teaching, for he calls thoſe Prophets that were not call'd to that, but were enlightned with ſuch a degree of knowledge that they might be compared with Prophets.
St. Hierome reſts upon that interpretation, that St. Peter makes, and ſpends his time only in proving the coherence of the words before and after, to that ſence.
Deodate reſtraines it to certaine times, and certain perſons, Acts 2 17.
Indeed I finde our own late Annotations, and one ſingle Pareus; the latter of which ſpeaketh it expreſly, the other in effect, That (they think) it is to be reſtrained to the day of Pentecoſt. But ſuppoſe thoſe two were two71 hundred, what were they to one Peter? who long ſince told us. This is that that was ſpoken of by the Prophet Joel For the former part of the verſe, I will poure out my Spirit, I will eaſily grant you a truth, that God under the Goſpel doth grant a larger meaſure of his Spirit, then he did under the Law, viz. his Spirit of grace, and ſupplication, and ſanctification: but for the prophecying ſpoken of, God hath fulfilled his word (ſaith Peter.) Whereas you ſay ſixthly, that other paralel Scriptures ſpeak the ſame in effect: you have quoted none that doth. You have indeed brought in many, but you have brought them in againſt their wils, ſo none of them ſpeake to prove what you would have them, viz. that it is any where prophecied, that the guift of prophecying and underſtanding the myſteries of Scripture, by an extraordinary inſpiration of the Spirit, ſhould abound under the Goſpel as a ſtanding guift to all the Saints. Indeed moſt of them prove an increaſe of ſaving knowledge, practicall experimentall knowledge of God, and of things neceſſary to ſalvation, and poſſibly of the knowledge we are ſpeaking of, to be acquired by ordinary means and waies; but none of them of ſuch an immediate inſpiration, to make them underſtand the Scriptures ſo as to be able to expound them where they are darke, and their ſenſe not obvious. Nor doth that place quoted by you Mat. 11.11. prove any thing at all, it being clearly to be underſtood of Chriſt, whom the Jews counted leaſt in the Kingdom of Heaven〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theophyl. in loc. V. Dickſon in Matthaeum..
You bring another reaſon p. 9. to prove that the people are to abound in the knowledge of the Scriptures as well as the Preachers. Becauſe they have many uſes to put it to, viz. to teach, reprove, exhort, &c.
But all this they may doe, though they have not ſo full a knowledge of the Scriptures as Preachers are and ought to have. I grant you they are to labour for a knowledge in the Scriptures, but not that they are tied by duty to ſeek for ſuch a meaſure of knowledge as the Preacher is bound by72 duty to ſeek after. But I haſten to your fift propoſition, p. 9
CHAP. VII. Wherein is examined Mr. Sheppards 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 pages, and his fifth propoſition, ſcann'd and examined.
YOur fifth propoſition is this:That the guift of Scripture expoſition and explication being a part of the prophecy which doth now remain in the Church, is a guift common to all the people of Chriſt out of Office, as well as the preachers of Chriſt in Office.
This now well proved were worth ſomething to your purpoſe. Here are two things to be proved:
1. That the guift of Scripture expoſition and explanation is a part of the prophecie which doth now remain in the Church.
2. That it is a common guift. I am miſtaken if I finde either of theſe well proved. You ſhould have proved the former firſt, but you begin with the latter; and I will follow your method. Now to prove that this is a common guift, you would prove,
1. That all Gods people have Gods Spirit, Jam. 4.5. 1 Theſ. 4.8. 1 John 4.13. Rom. 8.9.
2. That this Spirit is a Spirit of illumination, and Scripture interpretation, Zech. 12.10. Rom. 8.15, 26. Eph. 6.18.
3. That by this they are or may be enabled to ſee the ſenſe and meaning of Scripture, 1 Cor. 2 12. Eph. 1.17, 18. Jer. 31.33. Pſal. 40.7, 8. Jo. 3.27. Jo. 10.26. Jo 6.44, 45. Matth. 13.11, 12, 16.
This is the ſubſtance of your ninth and tenth pages.
For the firſt, I grant it, that all Gods people have the Spirit. But (Sir) ſurely you were not guided by this Spirit in the interpreting of Scripture, when to prove this you quote Jam. 4.5. The words are theſe. Doe you think that the Scripture ſpeaketh in vain, The ſpirit that dwelleth in us73 luſteth to envy. Is that meant of the holy Spirit of God, think you? But the thing is truth: that all Gods people have the Spirit now let us make it into an argument.
Whoſo hath the Spirit of God hath the guift of expounding Scripture. — But all Gods people have the Spirit of God.
Ergo, they all have the guift of expounding Scripture.
Nego majorem. Prove (Sir) your firſt propoſition: and to this purpoſe I ſuppoſe you bring your next medium, and tell us that this Spirit is a ſpirit of illumination and Scripture interpretation, in all that have it. Your Logick is this.
Nego minorem. The latter propoſition is falſe. I grant you that the Spirit is a Spirit of interpretation, that is, that the Spirit can teach a man the meaning of Scripture; for all Scripture is dictated by the Spirit, and ejuſdem eſt interpretari ac condere. Yet let me tell you, you are beholden to me for granting you this, for you have not proved it. You indeed bring in (againſt their wils) the Prophet Zachariah proving it, Zech. 12.10. where are theſe words, I will poure upon the houſe of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jeruſalem the ſpirit of grace, and of ſupplications, &c.
Here is no mention of the Spirit of Scripture interpretation. Your other place is Ro. 8.15, 26. v. 15. For you have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have rceeived the ſpirit of adoption whereby you cry Abba Father: v. 16. Likewiſe the Spirit alſo helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we ſhould pray for as we ought; but the Spirit maketh interceſſion for us, &c. Here is plain mention made of the ſpirit of bondage and adoption, and ſupplication, and interceſſion. But you are a better Logician then I, if you can from any of theſe Texts prove that the Spirit is a Spirit of Scripture interpretation;74 though the thing be a truth, (Sir) yet, I ſay, you are beholding to me to yield it you in arguing.
Nay, I will grant you a little further, that the Spirit of God in whomſoever it dwels doth ſo farre enlighten their minds in the knowledge of the Scriptures, that they may ſee all that is neceſſary for them to know in reference to their own ſalvation. But this the Spirit doth upon their reading and hearing, imprinting a perſwaſion of the truth of what they heare and read upon their hearts.
But though I yield you eaſily that the Spirit is a Spirit of Scripture interpretation; yet I deny that it is in all, ſo. Nay, I ſhall queſtion whether it be in any ſo as you would have it.
I grant you in theſe: 1. That the Spirit doth dwell in all. 2. That the Spirit can interpret Scriptures. 3. That it doth doe as I have ſaid. But I conceive that which you would have is this, That the Spirit by a ſecret immediate work doth enlighten men (without the uſe of ordinary means) ſuch as are the underſtanding the tongues, weighing conſequences, conſidering coherences, &c,) in the underſtanding of the Scriptures. That a Saint quà a Saint, by vertue of the Spirit dwelling in him, is able to interpret any Scriptures, ſo as to expound them to others. This is a falſe and dangerous opinion; I ſhall therefore ſpend a few words to ſhew you what aſſiſtance the Spirit of God ordinarily gives men in the opening of Scriptures.
That the Spirit of God hath by ſuch an immediate worke ſhewn its power in enlightning the minds of his Saints heretofore is true, ſo he did in the Apoſtles daies. But thus the Spirit doth not now.
Eam f•cultatem humana partim induſtria ſuperveniens uberior ſpiritus gratia non diſſolvit nec abſolvit, nec adimit ſed adjuvat qui ſicuti naturae•otes egregias nactus, magnificentius per eas exercet energiam ſuam, non aliter quam inſignis artifex li•entius & accuratius oſtendit artem ſuam in ſplendida tractabilique materia, ita noſtram induſtriam adeo non aſpernatur ſpiritus ille coeleſtis, ut exigat etiam, nec indignatur ſua dona noſtro viceſſimi ſtudio adjuvari, tantum abſit impia noſtri fiducia. Eraſmus de ratione concion. l. 2. p. 202. Edit Froben. 8. But thus far the Spirit aſſiſts: God hath allowed us means75 to finde out the meaning of his word, we have waies to come to the knowledge of the Languages in which they were writ, and the labours of many eminent ſervants of God who have taken paines in it, we may by ſtudy conſider the coherence of the words and paralel Scriptures. Now whoſoever he be that with an humble heart takes up the book of God, and in order to the finding out of the wil of God in any portion of his word, ſhall firſt ſeek God by prayer, that he would open his heart to underſtand the wonder of his law, and then give up himſelfe to ſtudy the word of God;Sint caſtae deliciae meae Scripturae tuae nec ſallar in eis nec ſallam ex eis. — Vide pateaſpice & approba & placeat in conſpectu miſericordiae tuae invenire me gratiam ante te, ut aperiantur pulſanti mihi interiora ſermonum tuorum. — q•i illi ſervo tuo dediſti hoc dicere da & mihi haec intelligere. D. Aug. confeſſ l. 11. c. 2. &c. 3. Optimus interpres hic eſt qui ſenſum è ſcriptura potius retulerit quam attulerit. Hilari•s l. 1. de Trin. uſing the means that God hath afforded him, conſidering the ſcope of the penman, and of the words precedent and conſequent, and other paralel places; and ſhall bring to this enquiry not diſcutiendi acumen, a diſputing head, but diſcendi pietatem a pious heart, deſirous to be inſtructed. This man ſhall be aſſiſted with the Spirit of God. 1. Raiſing up his naturall parts of reaſon and judgement to comprehend the will of God. — Secondly, Poſſibly bringing to his mind ſuch Scriptures as may paralel the place he ſeeks about, and help him in the interpretation of that Scripture, for the meaning of which he ſeeks. 3. Working in him perſwaſion of neceſſary truths. But for any other aſſiſtance, I know not where it is promiſed, nor how it can be expected.
1. Nor doe I take the two firſt to be any ſpeciall work of the Spirit, for then it were incommunicable; but we finde that not onely Saints, but ſuch as have left little evidence of the work of grace in their hearts, have yet left us judicious and ſound expoſitions of Scriptures, which we have cauſe to bleſſe God for. And beſides, ſecondly,
2. If the Spirit by ſuch an immediate work inſpired Saints as Saints,Hoc perpetuo debet animo obſervari homines illos fuiſſe carne circundatos noſtri ſimiles qui in multis labi potuerunt & reverâ lapſi ſiat, &••Hyperius de ratione ſtudii theolog. l. 4. c. 9. then it were impoſſible their interpretations of any76 Scripture ſhould be falſe; but how much the holieſt ſervants of God have erred in ſome expoſitions of Scripture and doe erre, former times have evidenced enough. And Sir, I hope the Spirit of God dwelleth in you; yet as I hinted before, it did not thus aſſiſt you in the application of Iames 4.5. or Zech. 12.10. or Rom. 8.15, 16. p. 9. There might be a quick experience of this: Take a Saint and turn him to a difficult place of Scripture or two, and try if he can give an infallible interpretation; which he muſt doe if it proceed from the immediate work of the Spirit that dwelleth in him.
3. Further yet, if this were truth, Let twenty Saints expound the ſame Scripture, and they muſt all agree, if all their interpretations proceed from the Spirit; that doth not dictate to me this to be the ſenſe, and to another another ſenſe. But the contrary of this we ſee by daily experience. Quot ſancti, tot ſententiae.
4. If this were a truth, The ſame Saint could never alter his judgement upon any one text. But I believe you will ſee cauſe, Sir, to alter yours (as many Saints before you have done theirs) in the application of ſome Scriptures which you have made uſe of; and we live in times when moſt eminent Saints give this to be the ſenſe of a Scripture now, and another a twelve moneth hence.
5. Nor doe I ſee how you can ſhift granting, that every Saint muſt have this faculty; for in every Saint the Spirit dwels. But if this be true, you doe well in the eleventh page to give us reaſons why it doth not appeare. But you tell us there that your meaning is,That there is in all the people of God a ſeminall vertue and power more or leſse enclining and enabling them hereto, ſome ſparke of the heavenly fire of Gods ſpirit herein. 1 Jo. 20.27.
If you meant by ſeminall power and vertue, an habit of reaſon, and ſome degree of judgement. &c. I grant it you; but you mean I perceive ſomething elſe, viz. a ſpirituall97 ability, a ſpark of the heavenly fire of Gods Spirit herein; that there is ſomething of the Spirit in them I grant, there is ſome ſparks of that heavenly fire, ſhewing them things neceſſary to ſalvation,Quod autem omnia dicit noviſſe, non univerſaliter capi ſed ad praeſentis loci circumſtantiam referre debet. Calv. ad loc. V. Deodate ad loc. and ſhewing them the things freely given them of God (yet not that alwaies neither) and ſerving to burn up their luſts, and to enflame their hearts for God; but the word herein I queſtion, yea, and deny that in every Saint there is ſuch a Spirituall ability. Nor doth that Text you bring, 1 Io. 20.27. prove it. The knowledge of all things there ſpoken of, muſt not be taken in the latitude, for ſo we know the Scripture would not be true. The meaning is, all the parts of doctrine neceſſary to ſalvation, ſaith Deodate; but the interpretation of all the Scriptures, or an ability to doe it is not neceſſary to ſalvation. But you will quarrel with me if I leave behind what you have p. 9.
This propoſition now is ſo mollified, that I know not how to touch it. Firſt, it is minced with are or may be; who can deny that ſo long as there is an Almighty God. Then it is minced with more or leſse; it were hard elſe, if there ſhould be any Saint, that ſhould not be able to tell the meaning of one line in Scripture. Then I meet with the term Scriptures, which I know not whether I ſhould underſtand it of the Scriptures generally, or ſo much of Scripture as is neceſſary for them to know in order to ſalvation: If in the latter ſenſe, it is true enough; if in the former ſenſe, the Author will underſtand it, ſtill he will ſave himſelfe in the arms of his are, or may be: or elſe of his more or leſſe. But to prove this he brings 1 Cor. 2.12. onely he feares it will be objected againſt. How he hath warded it we will conſider by and by; onely by the way I could78 have told him of a fitter place to prove this propoſition, which would have put it paſt diſputing; it is that Mark 10.27. With men it is impoſſible, but not with God, for with God all things are poſſible. This proves his may be. But let us heare what he concludes from 1 Cor. 2.12. the words I quoted before if he can argue from hence at all, it muſt be thus:
Thoſe which have received the Spirit which is of God, that they might know the things freely given them of God: thoſe have the Spirit given them to interpret Scriptures.
But the Saints have received the Spirit which is of God, that they might know the things which are freely given them of God. Ergo.
Num igitur ex his concludemus eos qui Spiritum Chriſti habent omnia noſſ•? fatebimur ſed quadantenus, ut a deo condita ſunt ad ejus honorem faciunt & ad noſtram ſalutem conducunt, &c. P. Martyr ad loc. Ʋ. Pareum ad loc. The Minor is unqueſtionably true, but the Major is falſe; and is ſick of that fallacy that Logicians call Fallacia a dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter. The Spirit doth not teach all Saints all things that are freely given them of God. Many Saints doe not know they are juſtified or ſanctified, that Chriſt or Heaven is theirs, and yet are reall Saints; and the text (ſaith Mr. Leigh) is to be underſtood chiefly of that knowledge. All that the text proves, is this, that the Saints may know by the Spirit the things freely given them of God. It doth not prove that they doe know all of them the things given them of God: Nor that, they doe know all the things given them of God.
But a word more, Sir, before you and I part with this text. Doth not this text look as if it were to be underſtood of a reflex knowledge: ſuch a knowledge by which a man knows that he knows. The originall word is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and doth ſignifie a certain and infallible knowledge; ſo Col. 3.24. Col. 4.1. and if it ſo ſignifie here, you doe ill to apply it to a direct knowledge. The words ſeem to argue ſuch a knowledge as is infallible; and thus ſurely every Saint doth not know the Scriptures. I perceive you were afraid we ſhould tell you, that the things here ſpoken of79 are thoſe good things which God hath prepared for them tha•love him,So Pareus underſtands it. as indeed the coherence tell you, v. 9. and the knowledge ſpoken of an infallible perſwaſion of our right unto them: And to defend your ſelfe you tell us,
I am glad to heare you of that mind; that God hath grounded you in his truth againſt Enthuſiaſmes. But ſir, I muſt tell you, they may be known to us by the hearing of the word of God opened to us, and preached to us, and uſually are ſo. And therefore it will not follow, that a Chriſtian in order to his knowledge of them muſt have in himſelfe the ſpirit of interpretation. You further tell us.
"That the promiſes are the things freely given us of God; (ſome of them at leaſt.) 2 Pet. 1.20.
Truth, Sir; and the Spirit muſt make us to know that theſe promiſes belong to us: but doth it therefore follow that every Chriſtian muſt have an ability to open all the Scriptures? Many of the promiſes, thoſe eſpecially of greateſt concernment, are ſo plainly written, that he that runs may read and underſtand them. Some of the promiſes indeed are darker. Nor doe I think every Chriſtian hath an ability to underſtand all the promiſes fully; but God is pleaſed to enable his Saints to underſtand the promiſes, ſo many of them, and ſo far as they are neceſſarily to be underſtood in order to his ſalvation. But we (Sir) that are as much verſed, I believe, and ſomething more, then thoſe not in the Miniſtry, with the workings of Chriſtians ſpirits, finde it by experience, that Gods deareſt Saints oft times put ſtrange interpretations upon the promiſes: which is evidence enough, that the Spirit doth not enable all Saints to know the true meaning of them. But I return again to the 11. and 12. pages.
Having laid down for a poſition, that all the Saints have a ſeminall vertue enabling them to expound Scriptures,80 you come to enquire the cauſe why it doth not appeare; and you are pleaſed to charge it upon us, ſaying,The Preachers preach, and the people believe there is no ſuch power in them, nor to be exerciſed by them: and therefore the peopl•never look after it.
Upon this you dilate, p. 12, 13. ſhewing how gifts are improved by exerciſe, and loſt by neglect of it (a thing no one ever denied, that I know.) And there you take upon you to give us a fatherly advice.
To all this impertinent diſcourſe I ſhall anſwer briefly. That the Preachers are charged falſely: we doe deſire all that fear God to ſtir up the guift that is in them, to be much in reading and ſtudying of the Scriptures, to meditate upon them, to inſtruct their families out of them. Indeed we doe not preſſe them to preach; for if you mean by guift〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the office, in which ſence the Apoſtle uſeth it, 1 Tim. 4 14, we believe according to that Scripture, that that guift is given them by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. [That is] that by ordination they are impowred to the exerciſe of that Office. But you tell us,That ſuch as have this fire within them, cannot well forbeare, for it is like new wine, or materiall fire within them, which cannot be kept in, but will break forth, Amos 3.8 Acts 4.20. Jer. 20.8, 9. Pſal. 39.2. Joh. 1 41, 45. Jo. 4.28, 29 Job 32.19, 20.
Severall Scriptures, but ſtrangely applied; as if Saints under the Goſpell had generally ſuch a ſpirit of prophecy as Jeremy and Amos,Why doe you put rules and reſtrictions upon them then Sir, in your 78, 79, 80. p. 25. and Peter, and John had: but indeed it ſeems they cannot forbear, for the Law of God cannot reſtraine them, their pretended ſpirit is like new wine indeed (that hath intoxicated them.) And like fire (for it hath broke forth, to the burning up of a great part of the Lorde heritage.) But (Sir) you are miſtaken in ſaying that we doe not perſwade them to refreſh themſelves with81 their new Wine; we onely wiſh them to forbeare Ivy buſhes, except their Wine were better, and to keep their bottles for their own uſe, and not to make their guifts means of others drunkenneſſe. We doe perſwade them〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to blow up their fire onely, we adviſe them to keep it within the chimney.
I ſuppoſe you mean publiquely, or elſe you both charge us falſly, and ſay nothing to the purpoſe too. But (Sir) we muſt finde God commanding us to doe it, before we durſt take your counſell. But yet your experiment hath been tried, and is (God knows) too much. There is a liberty enough given to men this way, and the people are ready enough to take it. Nor are there ſome wanting that have bidden them God ſpeed. The Socinians and Arminians of old, after them the Browniſts, and lately ſome of our more valuable reverend diſſenting Brethren; and I believe any time theſe ten yeeres in ſeverall places this liberty hath been pleaded. But where's the flame, Sir? or what is the fruit of it? is not T. Colliers ſpark blown into a flame? ſee his blaſphemous diſcourſe at Axbridge. It is indeed miſerably true, that their ſparks are blown into flames, but they are ſuch flames as have conſumed the Church of God, and endanger the Elect: the blowing up of theſe ſparks hitherto in all places in the world where they have been endured, hath proved a ſad flame. Enquire of the Churches in New England, did not Mrs. Hutchinſon, and the reſt of her followers ſparks come into flames? Aske the Churches in Holland what pretty flames theſe ſparks made; did not the Yorkſhire Sadlers ſparks make a flame too in Mr. Oxenbridges Church (if I have not been miſ-informed.) I believe our judicious brethren will ſoon ſee if this practice goe on, that they will be troubled with ſuch flames that they will hardly be able to quench. We82 have ſeen theſe ſparks by blowing grow into flam s of Anabaptiſme,Ʋbi Africa everſa fuit per Manichaeos mox ſecuti ſunt eos Donatiſtae, qui & ipſi inter ſe diſſentientes diviſi erant in tres ſectas — Ita ſecta ſemper parit ſectam & alia aliam damnat. Lutherus. Antinomianiſme, Blaſphemy, Ranting, Diviſions, &c. Theſe are the beſt fruit we or any of the Churches of Chriſt ever ſaw of it. But to paſſe this diſcourſe which I believe will hardly pleaſe you.
I perceive you are afraid that the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. •2 10. ſaying that all men have not gift of prophecy, hath thwarted your large maxime. Now to this you anſwer.
1. That that Text may be meant of extraordinary prophecy, which is now ceaſed.
Very right; but ſurely tis the ſame prophecying ſpoken of in all that Chapter and the two following; and if that be extraordinary, you have loſt the beſt ſtring to your bow. But it ſeems you have two ſtrings to it. For ſecondly you tell us,If it be to be underſtood of that prophecy which doth continue, it is not againſt your point; for then it is to be underſtood of a great degree of Scripture expoſition and application. Every one that hath the guift of prophecy hath the guift of expounding and applying; but every one that hath a guift to expound and apply Scripture, hath not a guift to prophecy, that is, to ſpeak in publike aſſemblies.
The latter clauſe is unqueſtionably true; but, Sir, I muſt mind you again of your marginall note, p. 29. Ʋbi lex non diſtinguit, non diſtinguindum eſt, you force a ſence here upon the Apoſtle. In ſhort, to turn this trifle out of the way, your ſence is this, Every one hath the guift of prophecy, but every one hath not an eminent guift to prophecy; then, Sir, the ſence of the foregoing words muſt be this, Every one hath the guift of healing, but every one hath not the eminent guift of healing? Every one hath a guift to work miracles, but every one hath not an eminent guift to work miracles; every one hath the guift of Tongues and interpretation of Tongues, but every one hath not an eminent guift of Tongues, and interpretation of Tongues. Is this the Apoſtles ſence (Sir) think you? if it be, bring forth your linguiſts, and your miracle-working Saints; or elſe ſhew us a reaſon why the Apoſtle in the83 words before and after ſhould ſpeak de re, and in thoſe words onely de gradu. — Et eris mihi magnus Apoll•. And now I have done with your fifth propoſition.
CHAP. VIII. Containing an Examination of the ſixth and ſeventh poſitions: and a ſcanning of Mr. Sheppards proofe of them.
YOur ſixth point is this,Page 14.That the people may as well uſe the guift of expounding Scriptures as the preachers.
"3. The Scriptures expoſition is as of great concernment to the people as to Preachers.
This terme as well troubles me again, if you mean by it as publiquely, and as often and ordinarily, and as warrantably; I deny it.
To your firſt reaſon I anſwer, that the publique uſe of this guift is confined. Chriſt did not ſay to all the Diſciples,84 but to the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors onely, Goe preach and baptize, Matth 28, &c. and what though the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 12 7. that the manifeſtation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall;Datur unicuique ergo nema ſolus habet ūniverſa. Pareus ad loc. he opens himſelfe v. 7.8 and ſhews that he means not, that the ſeverall guifts of the Spirit are given to every one, but one to this Chriſtian, another to another; ſomething to all, v. 29 Are all Prophets, are all Teachers, are all workers of miracles? That very Text, 1 Cor. 12.7, 8. is witneſſe enough againſt you. Nor doth Rom. 12.6. prove that the uſe of this guift is not confined: for it is confined to them that have it, and thoſe are onely ſuch as are Officers, (if you mean by prophecying ordinary preaching, which I perceive you take for granted, though I ſhall ſhew you anon you have no reaſon to doe ſo.) For your third place, Acts 17.11. that onely proves that ſearching the Scriptu•es is not confined to officers but people alſo may doe it, and this none denies.
Your ſecond reaſon to prove that they may uſe the guift is, becauſe they have the ſame guift the Preachers have. The Argument is thus:
Thoſe that have the ſame guift with others, may uſe it as well as others.
But the people have the ſame guift.
Your Minor is undoubtedly falſe of the moſt Saints. But ſuppoſe it were true, you Major is fallacious. If you mean uſing it in their places, and relations, none denies it; if otherwiſe, your Major is falſe. For by ſuch an argument, I would prove that every one that hath the guift of a Souldier may exerciſe the Office of a Colonell or a Generall. For the Scriptures you bring to prove they have the ſame guift, I have anſwered them before. But you ſay, by this guift they did interpret in the Primitive times, and for this you quote, 1 Cor. 14.26. Acts 18.16. Acts 8.4. Acts 11.19. Here, Sir, you beg a queſtion, which is ſo great a piece of truth that I cannot give it you upon85 alms; you muſt purchaſe it by a ſolid proofe, if you have it, viz. that the Prophecy ſpoken of in the New teſtament was not an extraordinary, but an ordinary guift. That they did preach, I deny you not, but what their guift was, whether ordinary, or extraordinary, we will argue anon.
But thirdly, you tell us that reaſonably they ſhould uſe the guift, becauſe they have occaſion to uſe it, to reprove, exhort, teach, comfort. This you told us before p. 9. I told you then this proves a private uſe, but not a publique uſe of their guifts.
But you tell us fourthly, that God hath commanded them to uſe this guift, 1 Pet. 4.10.11. I have fully anſwered this place, I mean this falſe gloſſe put upon it, in my Vindiciae p. 57. to which I refer you.
You tell us, That ſome ſay,Page 15. none but thoſe that are skilled in the Tongues can interpret Scriptures, ſome places in it are ſo difficult.
To this you anſwer: 1. That Preachers grant, that ſuch as want School-learning, being duely called, may be publique Preachers.
2. You agree that ſomethings in Scripture are very hard to be underſtood, but others eaſie.
3. You take it, that the knowledge of the truths of Gods Word is a guift of God, attainable by the Spirit onely, and not by any humane power and ſtrength: and this you promiſed after to ſhew.
This is to ſet up a man of Straw, and then to ſpend time in undreſſing him. I know none ſay that none can interpret, or rather know the meaning of any place of Scripture, but ſuch as have skill in the Tongues. In omni copid Scripturarum ſanctarum paſcimur appertis exercemur obſcuris, illic fames pellitur, hic faſtidium, Aug. t. 1. p. 16. E.
This indeed we ſay, that none are ſo accompliſhed by means to doe it, as they; nay further, that there are ſome Scriptures, to the right interpretation, and full interpretation of which a knowledge in the Tongues is neceſſary. Other Scriptures there are which need no interpreter, he that runneth may read them; and the coherence is evident enough.
86But you ſay we grant, That ſuch as are not skild in the Tongues,Nam quan•o Scriptura, non habet vivam vocem, quam audiamus, utendum eſt quibuſ dam medus quibus inveſtigemus quis ſit ſenſus, quae mens Scripturararum: ſi enim Chriſtus ipſe nobiſcum ageret: ſi Apoſtoli, & prophetae inter nos viverent, eos adire poſſemus ut ſenſum illorum quae ab iis, ſcripta ſunt nobis indicarent: ſed cum illi abierint, & libros tantùm ſuos reliquerunt, videndum eſt quibus medits ut verum Scripturae verborumque divinorum ſenſum inveniamus. Eccleſia enim ſemper mediis quibuſdam uſa eſt. Whitaker. de Scrip. l. 5. c. 9. if duely call'd to it, may be publique Preachers.If there be ſuch a neceſſity that the Church cannot be otherwiſe ſupplied, and theſe be otherwiſe qualified, we grant it.
To your ſecond, it is granted that there are ſome places of Scripture eaſie, and theſe need no Interpreter.
But for your third, viz. That the knowledge of the truths of Gods Word, is a guift attainable by the Spirit of God onely, and not by any humane power or ſtrength; You have delivered it ambiguouſly. I know not whether you mean a practicall reflex knowledge, or a notionall direct knowledge. If you mean the firſt, we grant it you; but it makes nothing to your purpoſe. If you mean a notionall knowledge, we deny not but that the Spirit can and doth teach us that: but it is (Sir) in the uſe of means, of which the knowledge of the Tongues is one. If your meaning be, that an enlightning our minds in the knowledge of our Scriptures, upon our ſearching of them, meditating, ſtudying of them, and uſing all other means is a guift of the Spirit, none denies it; but this is nothing to your purpoſe. But if you mean, that the Spirit by a work of ſpeciall grace enlightens the minds of his Saints onely in the underſtanding of Scriptures; and that (I know not which way) without the uſe of thoſe means he hath allowed us, in order to that end: As it is a pernicious opinion, ſo it is as falſe and ſimple. For how many have been able to expound Scripture, that never had the Spirit of grace? what think you of Iudas? And what ſtrange nonſenſicall erroneous interpretations doe many make of Scriptures, that think, and others think too, that they have much of the Spirit in them. But you promiſe to prove your aſſertion hereafter. You had need open it too.
I am now come to your ſeventh point: That it is the duty of all Gods people, as well as Preachers, to expound Scripture. This you endeavour to prove, ſaying,
"4. It hath been commended in them that have done it. Act. 17.11. 2 Pet. 1.19. Rom. 15 14. Tardior eſt ſtultorum (ut ait ille) Magiſtra experientia, & quemadmodum mauſpicatus eſt medicus; qui occidendo homines diſcit mederi, ita non eſt optanda prudentia quae laedendo diſcit prodeſſe, ſi quis in negotiis privatis multum putet tribuendum experimentis cum hoc non admodum pugnabo. Caeterum in functionibus publicis in quibus levis error haud levem perniciem populo affert, non oportet ſaepius audire vocem illam non putâram. Eraſ. de rat. concion. l. 2. 203. edit. Frob. 8.
"5. It is in effect commanded to all the people of God. Jo. 5 39. Deut. 6.7. 1 Pet. 4.10. Col 3.16.
What you mean by expounding Scripture I cannot tell. If you mean by it ſearching the Scripture, to finde out the will of God in it, for the advantage of their own ſoules, and to furniſh them to the duties of their relations and callings, it is granted you. But if you mean by expounding, undertaking to deliver to Congregations, this to be the meaning of the Scripture, you have neither proved it is commanded nor commended.
Your five reaſons which have ſerved almoſt all your Doctrines prove it not. To the firſt I anſwer: What ever duty lies upon private Chriſtians to doe, may be done by them to their brethren, without ſpeaking to them out of Moſes chaire.
To your ſecond I anſwer: You have not proved that they have the guift of Scripture expoſition; if they have the guift, yet they muſt have the Office too. Thoſe two places, 1 Cor. 2.12, 16. 1 Cor. 12.7. I anſwered before.
To the third, I deny that they muſt be able to expound them themſelves, to enable them to make the beſt advantage of them. The beſt uſe they can make of••m, is to ſearch their hearts, and order their lives by them; And this they may doe upon the hearing of others expound them. 2. For their own uſs they ought to apply them.
To your fourth, I ſay, that this was never commended by God. Indeed ſearching the Scriptures, to ſee if it be true that Preachers ſay, is in that place Act. 17.11. commended:88 but for that other place which you quote, 2 Pet. 1.19. I admire at your application of it. The words are theſe, We have alſo a more ſure word of prophecy, to which ye ſhall doe well if ye take heed,Exhortatio eſt ad legendas Scripturas propheticas. Eſtius ad loc. as to a light that ſhineth in a dark place, till &c. The words are in themſelves a precept, indeed they carry in them a commendation of them that Take heed to the word of prophecy. But (Sir) what doe you think is meant there by the word of prophecy? Private brethrens expounding Scripture? Doubtleſſe the Apoſtle never call'd this a light ſhining in a dark place. No, no, the Apoſtle means the Prophets,V. Calv. ad loc. Beza ad loc. Deodat. ad loc. Lorinus ad loc. and word of prophecy in the Old Teſtament. See Calvin, Deodate, our late Annotations. Beza, he call's this a more ſure word,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. More ſure, not in reſpect of it ſelfe, but becauſe the Jewes, to whom he wrote, had it in a very high eſtimation. So Beda, Aquinas, Hugo, Eraſmus, &c. yea, and St. Auguſtine ſo underſtands it, De verbis Apoſtoli, Ser. 27. Quis enim noſtrum non miretur delata voce de coelo certiorem propheticum ſermonem ab Apoſtolo dictum eſſe, &c.
Who would not wonder (ſaith he) that the Apoſtle ſhould ſay,Aug. ſer. 27. de verbis Apoſtoli. that the words of the Prophet are more ſure then the voice from Heaven. He ſaies indeed it is more certain, but he doth not ſay it is better or more true, for that word from Heaven was as true and good and profitable as the word of prophecy. What therefore doth he mean by more certaine, but that the hearers would not undoubtedly believe: and why ſo? becauſe men were unbelievers, and detracted from Chriſt, ſaying, that what he did he did by Magick; therefore unbelievers might refer the voice that came from Heaven to Magick arts by their humane conjectures, and unwarra•••ble curioſities. Thus that holy man. And further to the ſame purpoſe, T. 9 tract. 35. in Joan.T. 9. tract. 35. in Johannem. So that this place, Sir, is nothing to your purpoſe.
Your third place to prove it is commended, is Rom. 15.14. where the Apoſtle ſaith, that he was perſwaded they were full of goodneſſe, full of all knowledge, able to admoniſh89 one another. Here he commends them, that they were full of all knowledge; but how doth he commend them here for expounding Scripture, that is a piece of practice. Nor doth the Apoſtle mean,Scilicet eorum quae ad fidem pietatem & ſalutem ſicat piis neceſſaria. Pareus ad loc. they were fill'd with all knowledge in all kinds and degrees, for 1 Cor. 13 12. he ſaies, that himſelfe knew but in part: he meanes therefore all neceſſary knowledge.
Laſtly, you tell us, they are commanded to expound Scriptures: but where, ſir? You tell us, Jo. 5.39. Deut. 6.7. 1 Pet. 4 10. Col. 3.16. For that place, Io. 5.39. they are indeed commanded to ſearch the Scriptures; but what is that to a practicall expounding of them?
In Deut. 6.7. we are commanded to teach our children the Law of God, and to talk of it in our houſe: but doe you think (ſir) every Jewiſh houſholder was to expound the Law, or that there have not been many old Chriſtians have taught their children and families more of the Law of God heretofore, then profeſſors uſually doe now, and yet never expounded the Law to them. But ſuppoſe they may hint to their families ſome obvious obſervations from the Scrip•••es they read (though I doe not think that is commanded there) yet neither is this an expounding Scriptures, nor that which you plead for.
For the third place, 1 Pet. 4.10. I ſpake to it before: There is nothing but a generall command to Chriſtians, to uſe the guift of God beſtowed on them; which generall muſt be reſtrained by other Scriptures, to manner, time, and place. Your laſt proofe is 3. Col. 16.
There indeed Chriſtians are commanded to let the word of God dwell in them richly, to teach, and admoniſh one another. But (ſir) all this may be done without expounding Scripture: ſo that this place proves nothing to your purpoſe. And thus I have ſhewed you the inſufficiency of the proofe of this propoſition, though if you mean no more, Then that it is the duty of Chriſtians privately to read, ſearch, and ſtudy the Scriptures, to endeavour to finde out Gods90 will in them, I grant it you. But then this ſeventh propoſition amounts to no more then your fourth, and you might have ſpared your ſelfe and me this trouble.
CHAP. IX. In which the 16 and 17 pages of Mr. Sheppards book, containing his eighth and ninth poſitions are examined, and his proofe of them ſcann'd, &c.
Page 16.I Am now come to your eighth poſition, viz.
This you prove by ſix Reaſons, which I will examine apart. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſaith the Proverb. We have had this ſaid over and over again; it was the ſubſtance of the ſeventh propoſition. Let us ſee if it be better proved here.
1. Your firſt reaſon is, becauſe the Se•••ure by expoſition is made more uſefull and profitable. This doth not prove (ſir) that therefore they ought to expound it to themſelves, or one to another. This proves indeed that it ought to be expounded to them.
2. Your ſecond reaſon, becauſe they are to be alwaies teaching, reproving, & comforting one another: and this cannot be done without expounding, &c. How often ſhall I anſwer this crambe? 1. This may be done by applying to themſelves and others plaine and eaſie Scriptures, for which there needs no expounding. 2. By applying to themſelves and others the ſound interpretation of thoſe that God hath call'd to that office to interpret his will.
3. Thirdly, you ſay, Every private Chriſtian hath in him a guift more or leſſe, and this is not to be hid. To prove that they have a guift of Scripture interpretation you91 bring again, 1 Cor. 12 17. I am ſick of this tautologizing, this is the third time I have met with this, but I muſt look I ſee inſtead of ſtrength of arguments, for to be ſerved with a flood of words, I anſwer again you have not proved they have all a guift. 2. If they had they muſt be called to the exerciſe, or elſe, every Souldier that hath the gift of warlike prudence might be a Colonell.
4. They ſhould covet more then this (you ſay) viz. to prophecy, 1 Cor. 14.1, 5. and to ſpeak with Tongues too v. 5. They are as much bound to one as the other. But (Sir) it was their duty to covet thoſe gifts, becauſe then they were not ceaſed, but not ours alike now: the like may be ſaid to that place, Num. 11 29. Prophecy was an extraordinary gift of God then in date, now ceaſed, Moſes did not wiſh they were all Prieſts.
5. Your fifth reaſon is the ſame with the fourth you ſay: All the people of God as well as the Preachers, are commanded to labour for the higheſt degree of this guift, and wherfore are they to labour for it if not to uſe it when attain'd, 1 Cor. 14.1, 39. 1 C r. 12: 31. 1 Cor. 14.20.
1. The ſubſtance of this was anſwered before. 2. The ſecond as wel as, upon which all your ſtrength lieth, is not proved (but I perceive you take great paines to prove that which none denies. You ſay Io. 4 39. Page 16. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉I ſuppoſe you meane Io. 5.39. We are commanded to ſearch the Scripturet, and Mr. Loigh te's you it is a metaphor taken from them that dig in mines, and if ſo, it noteth foure things. 1. The breaking in pieces of the earth. 2. The taking out the precious matter. 3. The carefull laying of it up. 4. The employing it to the uſe to which it ſerveth, whence you infer p. 17. That it is the duty of all Chriſtians induſtriouſly to ſtudy the word of God, to breake it in pieces in his meditations, draw and take out the ſpirituall ſenſe and truths thereof. carefully to lay up theſe in his ſoule, and then bring them forth upon occaſion for the profit of others, and ſo no doubt it is, Pſal. 1.2. Col. 3.16. Acts 17.11. Deut. 6.7. Mat. 13.51 Pſal. 119.11.
92Nihil neceſſe eſt ut ſimilitudo aut Analogia quadret per omnia. Eraſmus de rat. conc. 428. To your foure particulars and your inference, I anſwer ſhortly.
1. I perceive you are good at making ſimilitudes run on foure feet contrary to the knowne maxime, I ſhall minde you of a rule in Divinity. Theologia parabolica non eſt argumentativa, and a Latin Proverb, Similia ad pompam, non ad pugnam.
2. You are out in your metaphor, for uſually thoſe that dig in the Mine are neither they that lay up the oare, nor Mint it, nor employ it.
Similitudo legitur proverbiorum. 11. Monile aureum in naribus porci eſt mulier formoſa — magnum ſane diſc•imen inter porcū & mulierem. Hyperius de rat. ſtudii Theol. l. 2. c. 19. Ob. 5. 3. The care is to be purified in the furnace too, and to receive a ſtampe before it be currant, but Gods word is purified ſeven times.
4. I grant all you ſay to be a Chriſtians duty, but what Chriſtians? and when, and how, this is the Queſtion, he that digs in the Mine muſt have a ſpade, Chriſtians muſt have gifts to doe it with; and doe it by meanes, and then imploy it according to the rule, as the righteous man, Pſal. 1.2. as the Coloſſians ch. 3.16, and the Bereans, Acts 17.11. in their families, Deut. 6.7.
6. You adde: By this meanes eſpecially Chriſtians may as ſalt ſeaſon themſelves and others, keepe them from corruption and deſtruction, and they and their workes made ſavoury to God and good men, and as a candle they will give light to all the family of God about them, Math. 5.13, 14, 15.
By this meanes? what meanes by unlearned mens expoſitions of Scripture? Saint Peter thought otherwiſe, for he ſayes they wil wreſt them to their own deſtruction, 1 Pet. 3.16. there is no ſpeaking againſt experience (Sir) we have ſeen this a meanes to corrupt and pervert others to draw men off from Ordinances and duties, and to a contempt of the meſſengers of the Goſpell and meanes of grace, inſtead of giving light they have beene like thieves in the candle, eclipſing the light of truth and holineſſe, a little more time will convince you Sir of your miſtake; in this ſurely a diligent attendance upon the preaching of the93 Goſpell by Chriſts commiſſion officers, were a better meanes to theſe ends.
I am now come to your ninth poſition:
Your not opening your propoſition, makes you ſpeak very darkly, and puts me to much trouble, you ſhould have told us.
1. What you meane by gift of prophecy.
2. Who are thoſe that have that ſame ſpeciall gift.
1. If you meane by gift, office, as the Apoſtle hath it, 1 Tim. 4.14. it is granted, but then it makes nothing to your purpoſe.
2. For the guift of prophecy, none hath it now.
3. For the gift of expounding Scripture, thoſe that have it are bound to exerciſe it in their place and calling, otherwiſe it cannot be for Gods glory or the Churches good.
But I ſuppoſe your meaning is, That there are ſome not in office that have an ability to expound Scripture, and they are bound to uſe it as ſhall be moſt advantagious to the Church Keeping the rules of Gods word and the bounds of their callings, I grant it you. You ſay, 1. It is given them for this purpoſe: Right.
2. God requires it (you ſay) 1 Pet. 4.10, 11.
You are afraid we ſhould ſay that that Text is onely to be underſtood of gifts given to men in office only, and to prevent it, you tell us, it is improbable; for,
1. You ſay the Epiſtle was written to the Jewes amongſt whom were as you thinke few regular Churches.
2. The words are generall, and ſo not to be reſtrained.
I know none ſayes that the gift there ſpoken of is to be reſtrained to gifts given men in office, but it may much be queſtioned whether the gift there meant, be not•ffice,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. it is the ſame word there uſed that is uſed. 1 Tim. 4.14.94 and there office is plainely meant, and then it followeth, as ſtewards of the manifold grace of God; now ſtewards is a name of office, applyed to Miniſters and officers. 1 Cor. 4.1. Tit. 1.7. and no where in Scripture applyed to private perſons not in office. But you thinke there were no regular Churches amongſt the Jewes, and ſo no officers, what thinke you (Sir) of the Elders mentioned, 1 Pet. 5.1.2. that are commanded to feed the flocke of God amongſt them, taking the overſight thereof not by conſtraint, &c. Was not that flock of God under the overſight of Elders a Church thinke you?
But the words are generall, and therefore to be underſtood of all Chriſtians and all gifts? Truth (Sir) if there were no other Scriptures to limit them, nor are the words generall neither, if Chriſtians have not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there ſpoken of. I paſſe over your other five reaſons as proving nothing that I have denied, nor any thing to your purpoſe.
CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 18, 19, 20, 21 pages, are examined, and his tenth poſition, and what he hath ſaid to prove it, is ſcann'd.
I Am come to the laſt of your Lifeguard, your propoſition is this:
Now you have done us the favour to tell us, what you meant all this while by expounding; for your poſition, I onely am troubled you have not told us, when and where and how, and that you have uſed the word frequently. 95For the proofe of this you appeale to experience, ſaying,
1. (Sir) if you meane that God hath pleaſed to bleſſe the private labours of his people in their private exhortings and reprovings of one another to encreaſe Grace in the ſoules of his ſervants, I doubt it not.
2. But if you meane that God hath frequently bleſſed the publike preachments of perſons not called to that office for the converſion of ſoules, I doubt it very much.
3. You make a very ill appeale to the Converts of our age. Perverts there are many, but the Lord knowes few converts, and very ſtrange believers and profeſſors; appeale (Sir) to the old puritanes of formes ages, aske them by whom God ſpake to their hearts.
4. Gods making uſe of ſuch meanes, as private admonition or reproofes to convert ſouls, doth not prove that this is Gods great ordinance, for that end Waldus the father of the Waldenſes confeſſeth his converſion to a ſudden death of a friend or companion of his, but yet none will ſay ſudden deaths are Gods ordinance for converſion.
5. God may ſometimes poſſibly begin a conviction by a private reproof, but I believe he uſually makes uſe of his word Preached to beget Faith, and to perfect the work.
Laſtly, I ſay the holy one is not limited, but I believe you would be poſed to bring me one good inſtance of a ſoule converted from a looſe and profane life to an humble, cloſe, ſtrict walking with God in truth and uprightneſſe that hath ſate under no meanes but onely the Preaching of a private perſon, that not being called to the office of96 the Miniſtry hath yet ſet upon that work, it were eaſie to bring you five hundred that have been perverted.
I appeale to all the Hereticks and Blaſphemers in England, all the Antinomians, Antiſcripturiſts, Antitrinitarians, Ranters, where did any of you learn your principles? was it with conſtant hearing of the Miniſters of the Goſpell, or rather was it not with hearing men that without any call but upon the pretence of their gifts undertooke to expound the myſteries of God.
And (Sir) if three have been this way converted and edified, and the ſoules of five hundred perverted and deſtroyed, what becomes of your propoſition, or to what purpoſe is it brought us?
To your proofes, That God doth hold forth thoſe duties and ordinances as meanes of Grace, 1 Cor. 7.16. Math. 18.15, 16, 17. Jam. 5.19, 20. we grant it, and they are ſo when performed regularly; the woman may be an inſtrument to ſave her husband. 1 Cor. 7.16. But not by Preaching to him, but by carrying her ſelfe as a believing wife before him, Math. 18.15, 16, 17. proves it concerning private admonition, but prove Sir, by any Scripture. That the teaching Brother, not called to the office hath a promiſe made to him.
"You tell us ſecondly, that it is the word that doth regenerate.
Yea, and this (very controverſiall truth doubleſſe) you prove by a whole line of quotations. Fewer would have ſerved the turne (you ſhould lay moſt proofe Sir upon the weakeſt cauſe) He that diſpenſeth it, is but the conveyance or conduit-pipe by which it is carried, 1 Cor. 3.5. Very much truth doubtleſſe; but to what purpoſe doth any ſpeak otherwiſe? hence you infer, that the word is the ſame in a private, as in a publike officers mouth; True Sir, it is ſo materially, but not formally; the one ſpeaks with authority, the former only as a Scribe, the one as Chriſts meſſenger particularly entruſted, the other without any ſuch commiſſion.
97By this time your conſcience checks you, that the Apoſtle Ro. 10.14, 15, 16. and you in this doctrine are not of a minde and p. 19, 20, 21. you ſpend, to anſwer that unanſwerable place.
(Sir) for this conceſſion we thanke you, for we are beholding to any one that in this erroneous age will give an aſſent to any truth of God, and to requite you, we grant you that Preaching of officers is not the only means of edification, which is all you ſay.
But you conceive that that place, Ro. 10, 13, 14, 15. is miſtaken, and therefore you have favoured us with a kinde of looſe paraphraſe, p. 19, 20. But Sir to keep you cloſe to the buſineſſe, what ſending is there meant? the Apoſtle plainely ſayes, how ſhall they preach except they be ſent? your paraphraſe hath not touched this paſſage; I ſuppoſe you were ſhy of it wittingly, for this is the onely paſſage in the Text that galleth you.
You tell us negatively, p. 20.
"That it is not to be taken in a literall and reſtrained ſence, for then theſe things would follow.
1. That by hearing the Scriptures read by a Preacher in office, men may (I ſuppoſe you would ſay, may not) be brought to believe.But you think men may be converted by reading, or hearing them read by any.
It is eaſier to ſay what is not meant then what is, but p. 21. you tell us. That the Text is cleare enough that by Preachers ſent is meant any one that God by his providence ſhall ſend to tell men the glad newes of the Goſpell; by the ſubſequent words, v. 15. and the two Texts, Nahum. 1.15. Eſ. 52.7.
2. Pag. 20. You tell us, that when a gifted brother doth preach the doctrine of the Apoſtles and prophets, the hearers heare the Apoſtles and prophets, who were preachers ſent.
This is the ſubſtance of all you ſay over and over again; it comes to this little pittance of truth, that preaching is taken in a proper and in a figurative ſenſe, that a man may be ſent providentially as well as authoritatively; but Sir:
1. We will allow that gifted brethren may Preach, as the workes of God are ſaid to preach, Pſal. 19.1, 2, 3. Micah. 6.9. And as dead Abel ſpake, but (Sir) theſe preachers were not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Gods heralds, as thoſe ſpoken of, Rom. 10.
2. Gods word (Sir) doth ſpeake, but it doth not preach (in Scripture phraſe) nor is its ſpeaking the ordinary meanes of God to convert ſoules to Chriſt. Mr. Perkins tels you there is a difference betweene reading and preaching a Sermon. Mr. Burroughes in his Goſpel-worſhip ſaith the latter is under a more ſpeciall appointment for converſion of ſoules then the other. God hath ſaid, Heare and your ſoules ſhall live, Not, Read and your ſoules ſhall live, though we99 grant reading to be a duty, and of ſingular uſe.
3. For your new Nonneno of ſecond hand hearing, the Scripture allowes no ſuch diſtinction, that's but a cheat put upon the reader, will not any one thinke him mad that ſhould interpret, Faith comes by hearing, that is, by reading, and how ſhall they preach, that is, how ſhall the Scriptures preach, except they be ſent?
4. By the ſame foppiſh fancy I would avoid all places of Scripture that plead either for preaching or hearing. Go preach and baptize, what is the meaning of that, go preach by an holy life and baptize, or go write bookes and baptize; but having ſhewed you the folly of your quibles, I come to your anſwer. As you cannot avoid the ſtrength of this place by diſtinguiſhing of preaching, the preaching there meant, being the preaching of words not of workes, and writings, and dead letters, but the preaching of them that make reports of God to the ſoule, v. 16. thoſe that have feet, and bring glad tidings of peace, not the Goſpells preaching, but the preaching of the Goſpell, v. 16. ſuch a preaching as hath a ſound goe with it, v. 18. and correlates to hearing.
So neither can you avoid it by diſtinguiſhing upon ſending, I demand what ſending is meant? you tell me a providentiall ſending, and this is cleare enough by theſe ſubſequent words, v. 15. Nahum. 1.15: Eſ. 52.7.
So ſay the Socinians and Eraſtians, but it is a miſerable ſhift.
1. The Originall word is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which ſignifies to ſend as an embaſſadour (ſaith A lapide) to ſend with power and authority (ſaith Chamier.)
2. But ſecondly I am at a loſſe to underſtand this blind notion of a Providentiall ſending, when may a man be ſaid to be Providentially ſent? And indeed it hath poſed better heads then mine to fadome this Notion, how ſhall one know if he be providentially ſent, will you ſay, if God hath furniſhed him with gifts, and he meets with100 an opportunity to exerciſe them? then a Blaſphemer may be a ſent preacher, for he is providentially ſent, the providence of God permitting him to play his game, but ſurely the Apoſtle never meant ſuch a ſending as might be from the Devill directly, and from God onely permiſſively; yet ſuch are providentially ſent; but I have cleared this Text from this Eraſtian gloſſe in my Vindiciae Miniſterii, p. 42, 43, 44, 45.
3. Thirdly, let us ſee what ſenſe you have made of the Apoſtles words by your gloſſe: how ſhall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, that is, either by the writings of good men; or by reading of the Scriptures, or by conſidering the workes of God, or by making uſe of the Examples of dead Saints (for this four-fold hearing you will have) and how ſhall they heare without a preacher, that is, how ſhall they read the Scriptures if they have no Scriptures to reade? how ſhall they conſider the workes of God, if they have none to conſider? how ſhall they read good bookes, if none write any? how ſhall they imitate ſuch men as Abel if there be none to imitate? And how ſhall they preach except they be ſent, that is, how ſhall any man ſpeake to another, if he doth not come where he is? Sir, I am of the minde the ſpirit never guided you in this interpretation, by which you have juſtled out the two great ordinances of the Goſpell, Preaching and hearing, and have pleaded faire for the Papiſts who tell us of their pictures preaching, and making lay-men ſermons. But fourthly:
4. Sir doe you thinke the Apoſtles were no more then providentially ſent? had Iſaias no more thinke you, nor the 70 any more?Ʋ A fuller anſwer in Gilleſpies Miſcell. quaeſt. p. 40. it is plaine that they are ſpoken of, v. 15, 16 17, 18, had Chriſt no more? he is ſpoken of Nahum. 1.15. ſo that the following, verſes and thoſe two Texts, Nahum 1.15. Iſ. 52.7. are ſo farre from being clearely for you, that they are fully againſt you, and argue more then a providentiall ſending.
1015. The providence of God ordereth all our motions and actions, Hananiah, Ier. 28. was providentially ſent, but was he ſent to work faith in the hearers think you.
6. It is ſuch a ſending, as it muſt be a duty in us to heare them that are ſo ſent, but providentiall ſending is no ſuch ſending, the ſeducers mentioned 2 Tim. 3.6, were providentially ſent, (how came they there elſe?) but yet ſurely it was not a Chriſtians duty to heare them, but to avoid them, v. 5. So that Sir, what ſending ſoever the Apoſtle meanes, it was not a meere providentiall ſending, you muſt find out a new diſtinction, or you cannot avoid this place.
But you ſay,Pag. 20. the Text cannot be underſtood in a literall and reſtrained ſenſe: what that is you doe not mention. I ſuppoſe you meane, That none may preach but thoſe that are in office, So you expound your ſelfe in your three anſwers.
I am glad to hear you grant that the literal ſenſe of Sent, is one in office,Whitaker de Interpretatione Scripturae q. 5. c. 2. Etſi enim verba varie accommodari & applicari poſſunt vel tropologicè, vel Allegorice, vel Anagogice, vel alio aliquo modo, non tamen ob id ſunt varū ſenſus variae interpretationes & explicationes Scripturae, ſed ſenſus tantum unus eſt, idemque literalis, qui variè poteſt accommodari, &c. ib. now ſir I will give you a noiion of Reverend Whitaker in his controverſies. Saith he, though words may be variouſly referred and applyed, Tropologically, Allegorically or Anagogically, or any other way, yet there are not various ſenſes of Scripture, or various interpretations and explications of Scripture, but the ſenſe of all Scripture is one, and that literal, which may be variouſly applyed, and out of which many things may be gathered.
It is Baſils note, that the literall interpretation, if it can be admitted, is never to be rejected. Ex verbis ſenſum ſequamur, ex ſenſu rationem & ex ratione veritatem apprehendamus. D. Hilarius de Trin. l. 5. V. Hyperium. de rat. ſtudii. Theol. c. 35. But you tell us it cannot be admitted here, and why? I pray it will follow then you ſay.
That by reading the Scripture or hearing it read, men cannot be converted.This is the ſubſtance of your firſt and ſecond cavill which are both the ſame, but you have102 not writ your book by the rule of fruſtra fit per plura quod fieri poſſit per pauciora.
3. You anſwer, that then it will follow, that it is as impoſſible "for a man to be converted and have faith without hearing a ſent preacher, as it is for a man to be ſaved without faith.
1. To theſe three cavills I anſwer, that it is not ordinary for a man to be converted by reading, or hearing the Scriptures read, nor by hearing thoſe that are not miniſters of the Goſpell. To God all things are poſſible, nay, I believe an hundred are ſaved without actuall faith, to one that is converted by a gifted brother, or any way but by Goſpel-officers; for what ſhall we thinke of children of believing Parents dying in their infancy. But ſecondly:
2. According to your owne interpretation no man can be converted but by a Preacher ſent providentially; ſo that for your objection concerning Reading and converſion that way,V. Gilleſpy Miſcell. Qu. it will fall heavy upon your ſelfe, and when you unty it for your ſelfe, we ſhall have the liberty to make uſe of your diſtinction for us we hope.
3. Preaching is as neceſſary as hearing, and a ſent preacher as neceſſary as either, yet all onely mentioned as Gods ordinary meanes to which he is not tied.
4. They are all neceſſary, not by abſolute neceſſity, God can ſave thoſe that never call'd upon him, nor actually believed nor heard, but he doth not ordinarily convert or ſave thoſe that have opportunities to heare preachers ſent,Gilleſpy Miſcel. Queſt. p. 41. and time of believing, and refuſe thoſe meanes of grace which he hath appointed: It will be hard to prove ſaith Mr. Gilleſpy that any believe who can heare the Goſpell preacht by Miniſters lawfully call'd and ſent, and doe not heare it.
5. Laſtly, it is poſſible that by reading the Scripture, or hearing it read, or by conferences, or private exhortations, or reproofes, or the like, God may create in ſome ſoules, reflections upon themſelves, and begin convictions,103 but the queſtion is now, ſuppoſe theſe Chriſtians ſhould never hear a miniſter of the Goſpel preach, and yet might doe it, whether a continued Reading were enough to carry on this work to a full worke of conviction and contrition, and to a clozing with Chriſt in ſincerity. I doubt whether one inſtance of this can be brought or no. (Sir) every ſlighty conviction and reflection of ones Spirit upon it ſelf, that may be in order to converſion is not formall converſion.
And now, Sir, having examined your lifeguard, I come to the great propoſition which you lay downe p. 21.
CHAP. XI. In which the main Queſtion is ſtated, and Mr. Sheppards Extenſions and Limitations of it are Examined.
THis great point of controverſie as you call it, you lay downe p. 21. open it p. 22. I will be thrifty of my paper, and take you at the ſecond rebound; in the cloſe of the 22 page you tell us, The ſumme of what you hold is this,
That is without Election, Ordination, or confirmation, (as you expound it before) this propoſition you, 1. Extend. 2. Limit. 3. Pretend to prove. 4. And to Vindicate from objections. In this Chapter I will examine your Extenſions and Limitations. For your Extenſions, you ſay it may be done,
2. It may be done you ſay by taking Texts, raiſing obſervations "and doctrines, and making applications thereof.
"3. It may be done on the Lords day, or any other day.
"4. In the publike Aſſemblies.
5. In the publike meeting place.
6. In the Pulpit.
We grant you all this where there are no preachers in office can be heard; it may be done as you ſay ordinarily and conſtantly, and he that doth it may expect a more extraordinary aſſiſtance of God, in regard the ordinary means faile. But (Sir) what kind of conſtituted Churches are theſe that have no preachers in office belonging to them. I take it, a conſtituted Church muſt be a body of Chriſtians united, and under the inſpection of a Paſtour.
Extraordinarily and occaſionally, if on the Lords day the congregation be met, and the Miniſter failes through ſickneſſe or otherwiſe, and there be no preaching Miniſter near to whom the people may go, we agree with you, that a private perſon, if prepared and truly gifted, may either in the Church, or in ſome other place, according to his gift, diſcourſe of the Scripture to the people, though we think he might ſpend the time as well in repeating a Sermon to them, and they ſpend their time as well in going home and ſearching the Scriptures, and meditating and praying privately.
It is true that you ſay, that there were exhortations in the Jewiſh Synagogues, but the places you quote, Io. 16.20. Acts 18.28, 13, 15, 20, 9. prove onely that Jeſus Chriſt ſo taught, and Paul and Apollos (called by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 3.5. a Miniſter, and rank'd with Paul) ſo exhorted, none of theſe were meere gifted brethren.
Page 24.You would have ſuch men as theſe, viz. Naylers, Taylors, Bakers, Weavers. p. 22. have leave and encouragement105 to viſit Pariſhes deſtitute and unprovided, and exerciſe their gifts; and doubtleſſe you ſay this would doe more good then ſetting up meer Readers.
I anſwer: 1. Provided that firſt all thoſe be firſt employed who are more fit for it, being more eminently gifted with learning and the knowledge of the Tongues, being alſo ſober and godly.
2. Provided that according to the Apoſtles rule, theſe ſame Nailors leave making Nailes, and the Taylors leave ſtitching, and the Coblers cobling, and the Weavers weaving, or elſe I am afraid that rule of the Apoſtle will be broken, which he gives to preachers, 1 Tim. 4.15. Meditate upon theſe things, give thy ſelfe wholly to them, and that v. 13. Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. Surely you will not ſay, that thoſe rules concerne onely preachers ordained, that are paſtors: for then it muſt follow. That it is Gods will that the paſtors of Churches ſhould meddle with his word reverently and ſeriouſly, and ſpeake of it premeditately: but the gifted brethren have a priviledge to prate at randome and ex tempore, and that curſe denounced on them that doe the worke of God negligently belongs onely to paſtors in office.
3. Provided that they be called and ſent out, and ordained according to the Goſpel-rule, elſe they will not be able to anſwer him that queſtions them, who gave you this authority? it will be no Scripturall anſwer to ſay: the State gave it me, with theſe proviſoes, I grant you what you would have, eſpecially conſidering your excellent limitations, and your ſober reproofe of extravagant members in p. 24. 25, 26, 27. Againſt which I have nothing to ſay, but eaſily grant you that all Goſpel-preachers muſt be limited by thoſe rules. And I am glad to heare from you ſo ſober a checke of the lawleſſe preachers of this ſinfull age.
But yet (Sir) you muſt pardon me, if I yet after all this ſay to him that would be a preacher〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉one thing106 is yet wanting, if you be an ordinary conſtant preacher, viz. A ſolemne ſetting apart to the office after Probation by faſting and Prayer, and laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, without which his conſtant preaching will be a conſtant ſinning againſt God in the rules of the Goſpell. This now you oppoſe by 10 Arguments, from the 27 to the 50 page of your booke: I come now to the ſtrength of them.
CHAP. XII. In which Mr. Sheppards firſt Argument for Guifted brethrens preaching ordinarily, is examined, and anſwered.
YOur firſt argument is (ex conceſſo) you ſay, we grant you:
2. —That we give you leave privately, occaſionally, extraordinarily, and by way of diſcourſe to reprove, admoniſh, encourage, teach, exhort, comfort, ſupport, feed, out of the texts: Leu. 19.17. Heb. 3.13. Eſ. 2.2. Mal. 3.10. Gal. 6.2. Job 2.17. Acts 18.26. Pro. 20.23. And
3. —They alſo allow you to make an open confeſſion of your faith, or an Apology for defence againſt unjuſt accuſations, or being a Magiſtrate to give a charge to the people, and this they warrant by other Scriptures.
4. And that in caſe of planting or decay, or corruption of a Church, and where a Church is not regularly conſtituted, that in theſe and ſuch like caſes a gifted man may ordinarily and publikely preacht and that without a ſolemn call.And
1075. That they may preach as probationers, and by writing. "Nay
6. We doe admit ſtrangers to preach, of whoſe call we are not "aſſured.
Here is now an huddle of arguments together, all taken out of our own conceſſions and practice; for my better anſwer I will obſerve this method.
1. I will ſhew you how farre we have granted thoſe, or any of thoſe.
2. I will examine, quid inde? what this Gentleman can conclude from thoſe our grants.
3. I will anſwer what he ſayes in the enforcing his argument.
1. Therefore I confeſſe I have granted him, that private perſons muſt read the Scriptures, Catechize their families, and they may obſerve what God diſcovers to them of the ſenſe and meaning of the Scriptures. This I have granted from Deut. 6: 6, 7. and the uſuall notion that every one is a Prieſt, Prophet, and King in his family, in my Vindiciae, p. 19. 20. but not that he may un•y the difficult places of Scripture, or meddle with the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; ſee my limitations of this grant, p. 20. for Col. 3 16. indeed my Brother Hall quotes it as a proofe of this, but I have not, being not I think ſo clear and concluſive; but ſuppoſe we doe grant this, if you have any argument from this (Sir) it muſt be thus.
What private perſons may doe in their families privately, that they may doe in a conſtituted Church, and its aſſembly publikely, but privately they may teach their Children and ſervants. Ergo.
I deny your major utterly, (Sir) you may as well conclude that every private perſon may rule the Church, becauſe he may rule in his family. God hath ſet him over his family to inſtruct that, but not over his Church to inſtruct that; ſee my anſwer to this trifling argument in my Vindiciae, p. 64. 65.
1081. I grant you, that for the terme Prieſts, it doth not properly belong to the Miniſters of the Goſpell.
2. That it is by alluſion applyed to both, and the people are called Prieſts, and Preachers Prieſts in a common notion. But yet let me tell you, I doe not thinke their ſervices are both alike. For:
3. He that Miniſtred the Goſpell of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being ſanctified by the holy Ghoſt, was one that was in office and had grace given him of God, to be a Miniſter of the Goſpel of Chriſt, Ro. 15. •6. Shew me where in that ſenſe the people are called Prieſts.
You tell us next, that that place Deut. 6. Doth contain and command more then bare reading the Scriptures, and and preaching of them to a mans owne family onely, and to this purpoſe you tell us, that that Text in Deut. ſeems to be a Metaphor taken from whetting an inſtrument, by which it is made more ſharpe, and ſo more uſefull.So the word of God, &c.
I wonder how many words you would have to reſtraine a Text, here are four or five, 1. To thy children. 2. In thy houſe. 3. When thou lyeſt downe and riſeſt up. 4. Ʋpon the poſts of thy houſe and thy gates. Let the indifferent reader judge whether this Text be not enough reſtrained.
For your obſervation of the metaphor, I ſay nothing, for it is nothing to the preſent purpoſe.
Sir, we can give you no licenſe to preach to any. To the law and to the teſtimony, if that ſay you may, you may, if not, you may not; this Text in Deuteronomy gives you no liberty to preach to them, nor doe I know any that doe; you may doubtleſſe, if they come occaſionally109 to joyne with you in a family duly) go on with your duty before them, but if you make it your buſineſſe to call them into your charret to ſee your zeale for the Lord of hoſtes, I know no Scripture will juſtifie you.
I paſſe on to our ſecond and third grant, as you ſay. Scriptures miſapplied.
We doe, (nay the word of God doth) grant you, that you may privately, occaſionally, extraordinarily, and by way of diſcourſe reprove, admoniſh, encourage exhort, comfort, ſupport, but we doe not grant it you from Pro: 20.22. or Mal. 3.10. there is not a letter in them to any ſuch purpoſe, no more is there in Io. 2.17. nor in Gal. 6.2. nor in Acts 18.26. Apollos was more then a gifted brother, (Sir) indeed we grant it from Levit. 19.17. Heb. 3.13. Eſ. 2.2. your other five places are ſhamefully applyed to ſhew you that it is not the ſpirit of God that immediately and ſpecially directs you in applications of Scriptures alwayes.
We doe grant alſo, that private perſons (if called to it) may make open confeſſions of their faith and apologies on their own defence, and magiſtrates may make charges: and in them make uſe of the Scriptures. But now let us heare what you will conclude.
If they may doe this, then they may without any call preach the Goſpell publikely in a conſtituted Church. I deny this ſhamefull conſequence; (Sir) are families conſtituted Churches? or meetings of people at aſſizes conſtituted Churches? fy, fy; ſurely your mind (if we may judge of it by your Logick) is to abuſe, not convince your readers; but to defend your weake cauſe you tell us,
1. The texts named and duties preſſed doe as much appertain to preachers as people, what then Sir? therefore the preachers may alſo exhort &c. privately, we doe not goe to conclude from thoſe Scriptures what you may not doe, but what you may doe.
"To theſe cavills I anſwer.
1. If the preachers have deviſed the diſtinctions of Occaſionally and Extraordinarily, and privately, you are beholden to them for it, for you your ſelf make uſe of them, p. 23. and tell us, that but in ſome caſes it may be done ordinarily and conſtantly.
2. Though the very word privately ſhould not be found in Scripture, yet words are found that argue the ſame thing, Heb. 3.13. exhort one another, which is a terme of a private notion and differing from exhorting the congregation.
3. The peoples inquiry concerning the interpretation of Scripture was privately, Math. 24.3. Mar. 13.3. Math. 13.36. contrary to the practice of many publikely to diſpute with the Preachers when they have done their ſermons, or interrupting them when they are preaching.
4 As the term (extraordinarily) is not put in, ſo neither is it needfull: for the duties commanded them are, to111 be done ordinarily, viz to admoniſh, reprove, comfort, ſupport, &c.
5. Though it be no where ſaid they muſt doe it onely privately, yet withall it is no where ſaid they may do it in a conſtituted Church that hath publike officers to preach to them.
6. Neither is there any one example of any not gifted with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Choſt, nor in office that did it publikely.
7. If Apollos mentioned, Acts 18.25, 26. were at that time out of office (which yet by your favour is not doubtleſſe) yet he was no private perſon, for it is more then probable, he had the extraordinary gift of proph••cy, and to be ſure he was to be a miniſter in office, 1 Cor. 3.5.
8. The very putting in of that terme, Acts 18.28. and that publikely argued that it was not ordinary for private perſons or any not in office to ſpeake publikely in the Synagogues.
9. It is an eaſie thing for men to pretend ignorance, when they have no mind to underſtand; to helpe you, By privately, we meane not in publike aſſemblies and congregations: By extraordinarily we meane they may doe it. 1. Where no Miniſters in office can be procured or reſorted to, till ſuch time as the congregation can be ſupplyed regularly.
10. The duties enjoyned are common and neceſsary, but thoſe duties are private exhortings, not publike expoundings, for thoſe are neither common nor neceſſary to be performed by perſons not in office, and the command is generall, but not to all duties.
11. The command to preach is no more common then that to Baptize Math. 28.19. But your ſelfe will grant they may not Baptize, unty the knot for your ſelf, and you doe it for us.
12. What though the ſame words be uſed to expreſſe112 the duty of the peoples private exhortations one of another, and the Paſtors publike exhortations: yet this will not prove that their exhortations are to be in the ſame manner, nor that the duty is the ſame. The Magiſtrate in his charge at an aſſize may be ſaid to exhort: yet ſurely it is not every private perſons duty ſo to exhort the people.
13. If the uſe of the ſame word for both be any argument, then they are not only bound to exhort and preach but to doe it as Apoſtles and prophets and paſtors, the places you quote will prove this, yet you your ſelfe ſay, p. 24. that they cannot doe it as preachers in office, in an•uthoritative way, or as a paſtorall act.
14. The ſame word ſignifies to Baptize and to waſh our hands, or pots and cups, and by your Logick it will follow, that every man that may waſh his hands, or every kitchin wench, that is by her office to waſh a cup, may Baptize a Chriſtian, why? the word is the ſame.
But to proceed yet with you p. 30. you ſay:
1. Let us ſee how far this is granted. 2. What you can conclude from our grant. 3. how you apply it, and cavill from it.
1. I never granted you that in caſe of the planting or decay of a Church, and where a Church is not regularly conſtituted, that in theſe caſes a gifted man might preach without a call, &c. except the caſe were ſo, that none could be found to ordain, nor none ordained found to do the Lords worke.
Nor doe I thinke it Regular. I doe not thinke it the113 beſt way to convert Indians to ſend unguifted men to them not ordained. But for the Church to ſet ſome apart by faſting and prayer, and ſend them out to them, with authority. See M. Firmin•ſeparation examined, p. 60.I am ſure this is Gods way when he was to ſend preachers where Churches were not formed, Acts 13.5. indeed if the caſe be ſuch that no ordained perſons can be found, nor any Preſbyters to ordaine them, the caſe is otherwiſe. My Brother Hall in his pulpit-guarded p. 5. 6. durſt grant you no more, now what doe you argue from hence.
Thoſe that may preach to Heathens or to Chriſtians where no officers can be had to preach or ſet apart preachers, theſe alſo may ordinarily preach where there are preachers in office and more may be made. A miſerable conſequence, Sir; apply it to Magiſtracy, and you will ſee the abſurdity of it.
But you tell us this is our caſe or very neere.
We are beholden to you for this (Sir) are we no better then Heathens thinke you? 2. Have we no officers ordained in England? nor 3. Any meanes of Ordination? But our Churches are not rightly conſtituted.
1. The Church of England (Sir) is rightly conſtituted, here are in it preachers rightly ordained, and people rightly qualified, and the ordinances rightly adminiſtred.
2. For the particular Churches in England, poſſibly they may not be organized regularly, but conſtituted they are, though corrupted, and ſo have much need to be reformed.
3. You have foiſted in this terme, Rightly, into our grant; we doe not thinke that every particular fault in the conſtitution of a Church makes the Lords Vineyard ſuch a common, that every one may come and dig in it.
But fourthly you tell us we grant you,
That gifted men may preach as Probationers, and by writing in what manner and method they pleaſe, without any call at all — and that a judge may give a charge, — and a Colonell114 or Captain exhort his Souldiers. — That a man may comfort his afflicted friend.
1. The three latter we grant you in terminis as you propound them.
2. We alſo grant, that men may exerciſe their gifts as probationers, but not in what manner and method they pleaſe; for their method we deny them not what they pleaſe, but for the manner it muſt not be ordinarily but once or twice, or more, in order to Timothies laying on of hands upon them, which muſt not be ſuddenly.
3. Theſe Probationers muſt not be Naylors, Taylors, Coblers, &c. but ſuch as have beene approved, as have ſtudied the Scriptures and give themſelves wholly to that worke.
4. We ſay others may write, but we doe not call writing preaching.
But what followes upon this grant?
Will you conclude that therefore thoſe that never intend the office of the Miniſtry, nor to give themſelves wholly to that worke, may make it a Trade to preach every Lords day in a conſtituted Church, is there no odds thinke you (Sir) betwixt our grant and your taken concluſion? we have given you an inch, you have taken an ell.
But laſtly you tell us, that we doe conſtantly admit preachers to preach for us that are ſtrangers to us, and of whoſe call we can have no aſſurance, I anſwer.
1. It is no argument to argue a facto ad jus, that becauſe ſome doe it, it is lawfull.
2. But ſurely none do it, if they know them to be ſuch as are not called, if we be deceived by report or common fame, or their own words, the ſin is not ours ſo much.
3. I know none that doe it; if there be any, let them plead for themſelves. If ſuch thruſt into our places, we give them no leave.
And thus Sir, I have ſhewn you the weakneſſe and inſufficiency115 of your firſt argument, which proves too ſhort for your purpoſe. I come now to your ſecond.
CHAP. XIII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards foure next main Arguments are weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and found too light.
I Am come now to the ſecond argument (which you call a maine one.
Your Logick is this.
What is not forbidden to be done is not unlawfull:
But the ordinary preaching of gifted uncalled men in a conſtituted Church is not forbidden, Ergo. Arg. 2
As you deliver your mind we muſt be forced firſt to diſtinguiſh, then to anſwer: 1. A thing is forbidden either generally or ſpecially, either directly or by conſequence.
If you meane that what is no way forbidden in Scripture, neither by any generall precept, nor by any particular precept, neither directly, nor by conſequence, is not unlawfull, then we grant you that what is not forbidden in that ſenſe is not unlawfull. But every thing not commanded or allowed is in that ſenſe forbidden, for Rev. 22.18. It is forbidden to adde any thing to the word of God.
But then we deny your Minor, and ſay, that the ordinary preaching of perſons uncalled publikely in conſtituted Churches or publike aſſemblies, if they be ſuch as have not the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt (which are now ceaſed) is forbidden.
1. For how ſhall they preach except they be ſent, Ro. 10.15. and no man takes this honour to himſelf.
2. It is no where commanded nor allowed, therefore implicitly forbidden.
1163. Conſequentially they are forbidden, for it is an act of office which they are (by your own confeſſion) forbidden Math. 28.18, 19.
•. If you meane by not forbidden, not forbidden in ſo many words, we deny your Major, and ſay it doth not follow a thing is lawfull, becauſe it is not forbidden in ſo many words. For upon this ſcore the Surples, the Croſſe in Baptiſme, bowing at the name of Jeſus: in ſhort, moſt of the Popiſh ceremonies are not thus forbidden.
1. We grant you that expounding of Scripture is neceſſary, but it is not alike neceſſary for every private Chriſtian to expound Scripture as to pray, Prayer is a piece of naturall worſhip, Preaching a piece of Inſtituted worſhip, and we muſt keep to the Inſtitution, God hath bid all pray, he hath not bid all preach.
2. The places of Scripture you quote prove nothing for preaching onely, but for praying, which none denies you; yet you ſet your Scriptures as if they ſhould prove both, but there is no ſuch matter.
Your third argument is this.
To bring your argument into forme it muſt be thus.
You prove it thus:
1: To this I anſwer, Sir, that I grant God hath commanded private perſons to comfort, reprove, exhort, edifie one another, this is an end commanded.
2. That God hath allowed, yea and commanded them the uſe of neceſſary meanes to this end, without which the end could not be attained.
3. I ſay, that although by publike preaching this end is promoted, yet this is not the onely neceſſary meanes; but Chriſtians may be edified by their brethren without this, and therefore it doth not follow this is commanded them.
4. Through the ignorance of the preachers, this more probably would be a meanes to pervert them: 2 Pet. 3.16.
5. This argument would prove, that they are command•d to adminiſter the Sacraments too, and do all paſtorall acts; for they are commanded, ſay you, to edifie one another, and theſe are meanes of edification.
6. This argument would prove, that all Saints though not gifted nor any wayes proved or approved, may preach and doe all other paſtorall acts, for they are all bound to edifie one another, and theſe are meanes in order to this end. By this time (Sir) I believe you underſtand your own fallacy. For what you ſay, that the Scriptures have enjoyned theſe duties, and no where reſtrained time, place, or manner. I anſwered that before: there muſt be a time and place too, Sir, obſerved, or elſe you may prove they are bound to preach, when the Miniſter is praying and preaching, as118 well as what you doe, and for the manner you your ſelf have ſet downe one, p. 25. and pretended to bring Scripture for it. You ſay you
I will tell you Sir. 1. Prayer and praiſe are both pieces of naturall worſhip, preaching a piece of inſtituted worſhip; in performance of which you muſt keep to the inſtitution. 2. The Scripture doth not ſo fully prove, nor indeed at all prove your duty of publike preaching. 3. By this argument the vileſt men in the world may, yea and are bound to preach for they are bound to pray, Acts 8.22.
Your fourth maine argument as you call it is this.
It being forbidden for women to preach publikely in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12. It is ſtrongly implied that it is permitted for men to doe it. As the forbidding of certain perſons the entry into the Congregation of the Lord doth neceſſarily imply, that all others not forbidden might enter otherwiſe that prohibition of the Apoſtle had been alogether impertinent and uſeleſſe. For there were at that time no women in office, but extraordinary propheteſses, who did and might ſpeake publikely &c.
Your argument is this.
The Apoſtle forbidding onely of women to teach and prophecy gives liberty to all men to expound Scriptures publikly, but women are forbidden to prophecy or teach publikely, Ergo. 1 Cor. 13 34. 1 Tim. 2.12.
If any reaſonable ſatisfaction would have ſerved this argument, and the authors and the Abetters of it, it would never have come halting on to the ſtage againe: I know of twice it hath been beaten off. The Browniſts appears with it firſt, holy Mr. Rutherford knockt it downe, in his due right, p. 301. Chillenden brought it on againe, the Author of the Booke called Church-members ſet in joint, knockt it downe the ſecond time, p. 30. of that Booke, to it therefore hath beene already anſwered.
119It will infer a liberty for all men as well as gifted men,Church-members ſet in joynt, 308. Rutherford, due Right, 301. and if you put in (if they be gifted) why may we not put in if they be ordained.
2. It will infer that all men may adminiſter the Sacraments too, becauſe all women are forbidden.
3. It is to be underſtood of women that had, or pretended to have the gift of prophecy. This the Author of the aforeſaid Booke proves, becauſe it is not ſaid〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which particle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he notes from Scaliger, is determinative.
But to this third anſwer,Gilleſpy, Miſcell. Qu. p. 75. Filodexter Tranſilvanus, p. 30. Rutherford, due Right, p. 302. that women propopheteſſes might prophecy publikely; ſo it could not be meant of them, for they might ſpeake publikly. So ſaid the Browniſts, ſo ſaith Chillenden. But it is anſwered by Gilleſpy, Miſcell. Queſt. p. 75. by Mr. Rutherford, p. 302. of his due right of Preſbytery, by Filodexter Tranſylvanus, in the Book before named, p. 30. that it cannot be proved that women propheteſſes propheſied publikely in Goſpell Churches: nor do any Scriptures prove it: ſee what they ſay ſeverally to this cavill.
4. It is anſwered by Mr. Rutherford, that the Lawes of France forbidding women to fit on the Throne of France, doth not therefore prove every Frenchman may. To this now this Gentleman replies.
This is a begging the queſtion: we queſtion whether they have right or no, you prove if they have right they may: that is, if they have right, they have right. Pretty Logick.
5. To what you ſay, that the forbidding certaine perſons to enter into the Congregation, Deut: 23. allowes all other to enter.
I deny that; it allowes indeed that all that are not forbidden there, nor any where elſe may, but not that all not there forbidden may: for all the heathen, and all uncleane120 perſons are not forbidden there, yet it is plaine from other places, they might not enter.
6. Laſtly I anſwer, your compariſon halts, there is no paralell betwixt undertaking the worke of preaching, and entring the congregation; entring the Congregation was a thing common; a priviledge that nothing but a prohibition could debar them from; preaching is a publike act of office, to which a man muſt have a call and miſſion, or elſe he can have no warrant to his worke.
CHAP. XIV. In which Mr. Sheppards fifth Argument is brought to the Touch-ſtone of truth, and found Braſſe, not concluding what he would have.
I Am come to your fifth maine argument:
And that is drawne from an induction of particular examples.
To this purpoſe you bring us the inſtance of the Elders, Num. 11.23, 24, 25. Saul, 1 Sam. 5.10. Noah 2 Pet. 2.5. Jehoſaphat: 2 Chron. 19.6, 7. Stephen: Acts 7. the 70. Luke 10.1. Simeon, Lu. 2.25, 26. Iob and his friends. Anna, Lu. 2.36, 38. Apollos, Acts 24.25. the primitive Chriſtians, 1 Cor. 14.26. Paul: Acts 29.20, 22. Scribes, Phariſes, and Lawyers:Thoſe Paul ſpeakes of, Phil. 1.18. the cuſtome of the Jewes: Acts 13.6. Chriſt himſelfe, Lu. 2.42.
Dr. Seaman in his anſwer to Chillenden, prefixt to his〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pulpit guarded, p. 46, 47, 48, &c.To this argument and every piece of it, is already enough ſaid by learned Doctor Seaman, the Author of Lay preaching unmarked, p. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. Mr. Hall in his Pulpit guarded, Mr. Ferriby in his lawfull preacher, p. 33, 34, 36, 37. &c. The Author of Church members ſet in joynt, p. 14.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, &c. Mr. Rutherford121 in his due right,Lay-preaching unmaskt, p. 11. 12, 13, 14. Mr. Ferriby, in his lawfull preacher, 33. &c. p. 281. 282, 283. and in his peaceable plea, 255. Mr. Gilleſpy in his Miſcell queſtions p. 66. 67 &c.
One would thinke here have beene replies enough to ſtop the ſcolding tongue of this Argument But to be ſhort your argument lies thus:
1. This propoſition is falſe enough, 1. You muſt prove that theſe men were meerly gifted, as Chriſtians are now gifted, and not in office, nor extraordinarily inſpired.
Your inſtances of the Elders Num 11.23, 24, 25. of Saul 1 Sam. 5.10. of Stephen, of Anna, of Apollos, of Paul, of the Scribes and Phariſees, of Chriſt, come ſhort here.
The Elders had the extraordinary gift of prophecy, Num 11.23. ſo had Saul, and never after ſo 1 Sam. 5.10. Stephen was ordained and full of the holy Ghoſt. Anna was a propheteſſe, Apollos a Miniſter. Paul had received the holy Ghoſt, Acts 9. The Scribes and Phariſes ſate in Moſes chaire ſaith our Saviour, and ſurely Chriſt himſelfe was ſome thing more then a gifted Brother.
2. Secondly you muſt prove they expounded and applied Scripture, prove this concerning Eldad and Medad, or Saul, or Noah, or Iobs friends, or Anna.
3. Thirdly, You muſt prove they did it in a conſtituted ſettled Church, in which were publike officers; prove this of Noah, of Saul, of the primitive Chriſtians that were ſcattered, Acts 8.
4. Fourthly, you muſt prove they did it ordinarily and conſtantly, prove this of Saul, of Eldad and Medad, of thoſe ſcattered Chriſtians, Acts 8.
Thus you ſee Sir what your argument comes to, not122 one inſtance holds to your caſe, you may ſee fuller anſwers to them in the Bookes which I before cited, when you have diſproved them you may expect an anſwer from them or me.
For Mr. Simons or Mr. Marſton, whoſe Letters you inſert, their words are no Oracles, and they have neither anſwered what hath been ſaid againſt it, nor yet favoured us with any arguments for it. Magiſteriall placets or friendly Commendams are worth little to prove a truth, unleſſe you can aſſure us that they are in them guided by an infallible Spirit, which I believe they will hardly ſay they are, they are Gentlemen I know not, they may be learned and holy, but as I take it there be ten for one as learned and holy are of another mind, you are beholden to them for their Letters, but I thinke the truth of God and the Goſpell of Chriſt is not much.
Page 35.In the cloſe of this argument you would know,
O Sir, take heed of paralelling the great ordinance of God to an Oration or a Speech, this is a very unſavoury paralell to come from one who ſeemes to have ſo much of the feare of God dwelling in him, as you have given the world cauſe to hope you have (from ſome ſober paſſages in your Booke) why doe you not as well ſay what is the difference betweene the word of the living God and a good Sermon-book? Betweene Reading the Scriptures, and reading a godly booke; yet Luther was wont to ſay he would burne his bookes if he thought any one would make that uſe of them. Suppoſe there be not a materiall difference, but both be good, yet is there not a great formall difference, is not one the Ordinance of God to ſalvation, and are the other publike Ordinances under the like divine appointment: (Deare Sir) take heed of ſuch termes to vilifie this great Goſpell Ordinance.
CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Sheppards ſeventh and eighth Argument for Lay-preaching are Examined, and one of them found not to conclude Logically. In the handling of the other is examined whether Prophecy, mentioned in the new Teſtament, be ordinary preaching and expounding Scripture.
I Am come to your ſixth argument.
The Apoſtle Paul doth reprove the irregular uſe of this gift in the Church, 1 Cor. 1.14. and doth direct them in the right uſe of it. — Ergo.
Your Logick is thus:
Both theſe propoſitions are true, I muſt deny the concluſion which ſhould be thus, or elſe it doth not conclude what you would have it.
Ergo, The Apoſtle doth grant that gifted men not called to the office, may expound Scriptures publikely in a conſtituted Church.
But Sir, if you conclude thus, I will tell you your premiſſes do not prove your concluſion, and your argument is a paralogiſme, all that you conclude is this: Ergo, The Apoſtle eſtabliſheth an uſe.
We grant it, that in thoſe times there was an extraordinary gift of prophecy, which the Apoſtle eſtabliſheth the uſe of, and directeth thoſe that had it how to exerciſe it. But what's this to your purpoſe? if you look againe into that, 1 Cor. 14. you will finde that the Apoſtle doth give rules likewiſe to direct in the uſe of the gift of124 Tongues, but doth it therefore follow, that that is a ſtanding continuing gift?
But I haſten to your ſeventh argument, for in this you have not ſo well lookt as to conclude your queſtion in your concluſion, (ſurely this is not the argument confirmed Mr. Marſton, nor that light that in Mr. Simons Judgment ſhould convince the world of this truth) for this argument ſhies at the Monſter and refuſeth to conclude neer it. If I miſtake not, I am now come to Goliah, & indeed it is the beſt argument can be brought; yet, if I miſtake not, in the ſtrength of God with a ſling and a ſtone, he may be ſlain too. It is drawn from: 1 Cor. 14.23, 24, 31, 32.
Your argument is this, If all that had the gift of prophecy in the primitive times, might prophecy orderly, then all that have the gift, may expound and apply Scriptures now.
But all that had the gift of prophecy then might — Ergo. we deny your Major: for two reaſons.
1. We ſay that that gift of prophecy was an extraordinary guift which none now have, your argument labours of that fallacy which is call'd Fallacia equivocationis, we ſay again.
2. That that prophecying was an act of extraordinary officers.
To this you anſwer:
1. By telling us there are two ſorts of Prophets mentioned in Scripture, 1. Such as were to foretell things to come, or reveale Secrets by vertue of an extraordinary calling from God onely, ſuch you ſay were Agabus, Acts 11.17, 18, 19, 20 21. Philips Daughters, Acts 21.9. Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Saul, Acts 13.1. Judas, and Silas: Acts 15.32. the twelve Brethren, Acts 19. John Baptiſt, Math. 11.7, 9. of ſuch the Apoſtle ſpeakes, 1 Cor. 12 8. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 13.2.125 and they, Math. 7.22, 23. Math. 15.7. 1 Sam 9 6. All this is true, we will make uſe of it anon; by the way, I hope I ſhall heare of none of theſe Scriptures or inſtances brought to prove the liberty of private brethrens prophecying. But then you tell us:
Here now is a tedious confuſed diſcourſe to very little purpoſe. I know not well how to unravell it, there is ſuch a jumbling together of things granted and denied; things true and falſe, and doubtfull. I had beſt (I think) deale with it in this laſt method. And 1. ſhew you what is true, and granted to us. 2. What is falſe and denied by us. 3. What is doubtfull betwixt us. Firſt therefore:
1. It is true that ſome were called Singers, that had rare gifts in making ſongs, though not one of all the five places he brings proves that any one in Scripture was called a Singer, but thoſe in Office, 2 Sam. 23.1. Indeed David is called a Pſalmiſt, becauſe he made Pſalms.
2. It is true that he ſayes, That a skill in Scripture muſt be got by ſtudy and labour and doth not come extempore and miraculouſly.
3. It is true, That the Preachers in Office are diſtinguiſhed from Prophets, Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 12.28. neither were they ſuch Prophets.
4. It is true, The Angel is called a Prophet, Rev. 22.9. and the witneſſes, Rev. 11.3.4. From hence we argue,
If a skill to open and apply Scriptures muſt be got by ſtudy and labour, then it doth not immediately come from the Spirit without any humane power and induſtry, as be told us, p. 15. 2. Then thoſe are not to undertake it that cannot ſtudy, or doe not labour for it.
3. If the Prophets ſpoken of, Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. be diſtinguiſhed from Preachers, then their Office is ſomething elſe beſides expounding Scripture and applying127 it, that's the Paſtors and Teachers worke.
4. If the Prophets were ſo guifted, as Paſtors and Teachers are not, then ſurely beyond our guifted brethren?
Come we now to what is falſe in what he hath ſaid.
1. It is falſe that Balaam is called a Prophet, as prophecying is uſed for expounding and applying Scripture. He foretold things to come, Num. 24.5, 6, 7, 8. V Calv. ad loc. Deodat. ad loc.Mr. Calvin ſayes, he was inſpired by God. Deodate thinks it was becauſe he was a witch.
2. It is falſe that thoſe places, 1 Chro. 25.6. 1 King 10.12. Ezra. 2 65. 2 Sam. 23.1. prove that any are called Singers not in office; and if they did prove it, it were nothing to the purpoſe.
3. It is falſe, that thoſe mentioned, 1 Cor. 14.1. or that prophecying mentioned 1 Tim. 4 14. were ſuch Prophets as did that thing which you call expounding, and applying Scripture; or that that was their prophecying, to expound Scripture upon ſtudy and labour. Prove that: for your places, 2 Tim. 2.15. 1 Tim. 5.17. They have nothing about Prophets or prophecying.
4. It is falſe that the term Prophet is any where in the Goſpell either applied to ſtanding Goſpel-officers, or to people.
5. It is falſe to ſay, that by that text Pſal. 105.15. Prophets can be applied to the people, for they are before called the Lords anoynted; nor can it be properly applyed to any but the Prophets of the Old Teſtament.
6. It is falſe to ſay, the term Prophet, Gen. 20.3. is applied to ordinary people, for v. 3. the time is not mentioned, v. 7. it is, Abraham is called a Prophet, but was he an ordinary brother, think you? he was a Prieſt, Gen. 22. he ſacrificed, and might every Jew doe this? he did it in an extraordinary time, before the Law was ſetled for the worſhip of God; he was called a Prophet, becauſe God revealed himſelfe to him miraculouſly.
7. Neither doe the Preachers apply any way, but by128 way of alluſion any of thoſe Texts, 1 Cor. 14.22. Lu. 4.24. Rev. 18 20. to themſelves they literally reſpect neither people, nor ordinary Goſpell preachers.
8. It is falſe to ſay, that the prophecy mentioned, 1 Cor. 13.9, 14, 3. 1 Theſ. 5.20. 1 Cor. 14.1, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 13.9 is nothing elſe but a gift and ability that ſome men have above others, by labour and induſtry to open Scripture, and apply Scripture for edification. It was a miraculous extraordinary gift given by extraordinary revelation in that infancy of the Church, and thoſe Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Math. 7.22, 23. 1 Cor. 14.31. ſpeake onely of ſuch a gift, ſee reaſons for it in my Vindiciae, p 50. 51. how you have anſwered them we will ſee anon.
9. It is falſe to ſay, that the prophecying and prophets mentioned, 1 Cor. ch. 12. ch. 13 ch. 14, &c. is not ceaſed, nor doe your Scriptures prove it, 1 Pet. 12.10. doth not ſo much as mention it.
There is ſomething doubtfull betwixt us: viz.
What prophecying of the witneſſes is, Rev. 11.3, 6.
By the way before we paſſe on, I deſire the Reader to conſider, how you wind about the Scripture to ſerve your turne. He that runs may read, that in the twelfth, thirtenth, and fourtenth Chapters of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, the Apoſtle ſpeakes of the ſame prophets and prophecying, yet you tell us, that the 1 Cor. 14.1, 24.31. 1 Cor. 13.9, 14, 3. are meant of ordinary gifted brethrens expounding: p. 42. but 1 Cor. 1•.28. 1 Cor. 13.2. you tell us, p. 36. are to be underſtood of revealing ſecrets; and extraordinary prophecying, p. 42. you tell us, that perhaps, 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8, 9. 1 Cor. 14, 24, 31. are to be underſtood of ordinary and extraordinary prophecyings: Give me leave here to argue, Sir, ex conceſſis.
The ſame prophets and prophecying rationally, muſt be meant in 1 Cor. 12.6, 7, 8. that are meant 1 Cor. 12.28.129 and in 1 Cor. 14.1. that are meant 1 Cor. 14.31. or elſe you muſt ſhew us ſome reaſon in the Text againſt it.
But according to your own confeſſion, 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Cor. 14.31. are to be underſtood of extraordinary prophets. — Ergo.
Anſwer me this riddle, keeping your own rule p. 29. Vbi lex non diſtinguit non eſt diſtinguendum.
But (Sir) now the ſuperfluities of your diſcourſe are pared off; the whole amounts to this, that the prophecying ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 14.1. &c. is an ordinary gift ſtill continuing. This you might have ſaid in fewer words: we deny it, you go to prove it, p. 42. 43.
1. You ſay it was promiſed: Joel. 2.18.
To that place I anſwered before I deny it, that the gift there prophecyed of, was the ordinary gift of expounding Scripture.
1. I have the Apoſtle Peter on my ſide, who ſayes it was meant of thoſe gifts given in the dayes of Pentecoſt.
2. Then dreames and viſions muſt be ordinary too.
3. Then daughters muſt alſo prophecy, contrary to the Apoſtles rule, relating to the order of Goſpell Churches.
But you adde four Reaſons to prove it, let us weigh them in the ballance of the Sanctuary.
Your firſt reaſon is this:It is reckoned you ſay amongſt ordinary and continuing gifts, Ro. 12.6. 1 Cor. 14 1.
Your Argument is this: That gift which is reckoned amongſt ordinary and continuing gifts, is alſo an ordinary and continuing gift.
But the gift of prophecy is ſo reckoned, 1 Cor. 14.1. Ro. 12.6.
By the ſame medium I will prove it an extraordinary and not continuing gift, thus: That gift which is reckoned amongſt extraordinary and not continuing gifts, is alſo an extraordinary and not continuing gift.
130But this gift of prophecy is reckoned amongſt extraordinary and not continuing gifts. Ergo.
It is reckoned with the gifts of healing miracles, diverſe Tongues, 1 Cor. 12.9, 10, 28. 1 Cor. 13.1. 1 Cor. 14.1,•.
So that this argument Sir is too weak, it ſerves as well for me, as you.
Secondly,You ſay all Gods people of all ſorts, and in all times and places are earneſtly to labour for it, and earneſtly deſire it; now if it were an extraordinary gift it were not to be deſired, nor could it be attain'd by induſtry, 1 Cor. 14.39.
Your Logick is this: That gift that is to be deſired and laboured for by all Saints of all ſorts in all times, is an ordinary gift. This is true.
But the gift of propheey mentioned by the Apoſtle, is to be laboured for, and deſired by all Saints of all ſorts, in all places. Ergo. This is denied, you prove it.
What the Corinthians were exhorted to covet and labour for, that all Saints in all times are to labour.
But the Corinthians are commanded to Covet and labour for this gift. Ergo.
I deny the Major: the Corinthians were to deſire that extraordinary gift. (I read of no labouring commanded) becauſe that gift was then in date, but this command doth not reach us, becauſe it is ceaſed. 2. They were to deſire tongues and miracles and the gift of healing as well, v. 1. v. 5. they are all comprehended under the Notion of ſpirituall gifts: yet ſurely theſe are not ordinary gifts.
Your third reaſon is this:What is commanded by a ſtanding rule of the Goſpell not to be deſpiſed, is a ſtanding Ordinance.
I deny that private expounding Scripture by men ordinarily gifted, is the prophecying here meant, by prophecyings is meant the Ordinances of God, of which131 prophecying was then one, or thoſe expoundings of the myſteries of Scripture, which were then uſually made by ſuch as had received an infallible Spirit.
Fourthly, you tell us, there are many at this day that have it.
That there are many this day can expound Scripture, we deny not; but we queſtion whether there be any can expound it infallibly, as thoſe prophecyers mentioned, 1 Cor. 14. could; being doubtleſſe inſpired and guided by an infallible ſpirit; or that can expound it extempore without ſtudy, as doubtleſſe they could; and till you prove thoſe two you cannot prove that there are any now have that gift of prophecy there ſpoken of, which if you doe not prove, you ſay nothing to the purpoſe.
For your other Reaſons, p. 43. you doe but repeat what you ſaid before, and I have already anſwered them.
You ſee (Sir) what weake proofes you have ſerved us with, to prove that the prophecying ſpoken of 1 Cor. 12: ch. 13. ch. 14. this is a common gift. Now you come to anſwer our objections.
1. We ſay thoſe prophets were extraordinary officers, and good reaſon we have to ſay, for they are reckoned amongſt ſuch. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.28. and if Eph. 4.11. will prove that Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, paſtors and Teachers are officers, it will prove as much for prophets too ſure.
That they had a gift above others in expounding Scripture is queſtionleſſe true, for doubtleſſe they expounded by revelation, 1 Cor. 14.26. and infallibly. But that they were not extraordinary officers, I cannot grant you, you offer us ſeverall reaſons.
1. There were ſuch in the primitive times, as the 70. Lu. "10.1. and thoſe, 1 Pet. 4.10.
132I doe not know how to expound this terme ſuch: if you meane ſuch as could expound Scripture extempore, and by an infallible ſpirit, I yeild it, but that theſe were not in office you have not proved. V. Chemnit. ad loc.Surely the ſeventy were, for Lu. 10.1. Jeſus Chriſt appointed them and ſent them away,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if Chriſt could put them in office, they were in office. It is gratis dictum to ſay thoſe, 1 Cor. 12.31, 14, 1. were not in office. But you ſay.
1. I know none ſay that Prophets were officers of this or that Church, onely I believe their office was larger.
2. Saint Paul (Sir) is of age, let him anſwer for himſelfe. But indeed:
3. The confuſion is only in your own head and Judgment, for St. Paul ſpeakes plaine enough to diſtinguiſh, 1 Cor. 12.7, 8, 28.
1. I anſwer the Apoſtle there makes a diſtribution of Church officers; ſome are extraordinary, theſe are comprehended under prophecying; ſome ordinary, theſe are comprehended under Miniſtring.
2. Secondly it is no more call'd a gift; then exhorting and miniſtring, ruling, and giving and ſhewing mercy is, but ſurely ſome of theſe were officers.
3. Though the Apoſtle doth call it〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet it doth not follow that prophecying is not an office, no more then that Timothy was not in office, becauſe the Apoſtle calls his office〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by the ſame name, 1 Tim. 4.14.
4. You tell us the Officers of the Church were but few, how doth that appeare? perſons extraordinarily gifted and in office, might be many, though officers in our Church that are ſtanding be not.
133But you ſay, admit the Prophets mentioned be not ſuch as our guifted brethren, yet the prophecying you plead for is.
Surely (Sir) if you quit the name and the officer, you muſt alſo quit the act too. But let us heare what you ſay.
"1. You tell us, thoſe that were no Prophets might prophecy.
1. Suppoſe this were true, yet the queſtion is, whether the prophecying mentioned, 1 Cor. 14.23 24. &c. be not the act of thoſe Prophets mentioned 1 Cor. 12.28. if it be, you have loſt your cauſe, except you can prove the brethren ſuch Prophets.
2. You have not proved that any prophecyed but Prophets. That is, ſuch as were by divine exordinary inſpiration enlightned; or by miſſion ſent and obliged to doe it. So the high Prieſt prophecyed, Io. 11.51. and Agur, Pro. 30.1. it is only ſaid that Bathſheba taught her ſon a Prophecy, Pro. 31.1.
1. This is, Sir, but a playing with the Engliſh word (Think) the originall word is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which doth not alwaies ſignifie a bare conjecturall opinion, Acts 15.28. It ſeemed good to the holy Ghoſt, and to us, &c. Did the holy Ghoſt but conjecture (thinke you?) You may as well tranſlate it judge, if you pleaſe; and then your criticiſme is worth little.
2. What though true Prophets might know it? might not ſome that were not ſo think themſelves ſo too? now (ſaith the Apoſtle) if they doe think ſo truly, they muſt acknowledge what I ſay.
But thirdly you tell us, the Chapter and the coherence "thereof is clearly againſt this reſtrained ſenſe. How, I pray?
1. You ſay,This Epiſtle was directed onely to this Church of Corinth — and then the ordinary teaching Officers were134 but two, and this diſcourſe of the Apoſtle cannot intend ſo few.
1. How doe you prove ſir, that the ordinary teaching officers in this Church were ſo many as two?
2. But ſuppoſe they were but two: who ſayes theſe Prophets were ordinary Officers. Now extraordinary officers might be many. All that you ſay beſides hath been by me anſwered again and again.
You tell us, Many learned and godly men have taken this "to be the ſenſe of the place.
We can tell you, that many more learned and godly men have thought otherwiſe, and ſo we are even with you: yea we have the odds.
I told you that All muſt be reſtrained in that paſſage, You may all prophecy. You tell me no: for it is contrary to the tenor of the words. Yet in the very next words you reſtrain it to your ſelfe: to all that have the guift of prophecy. I ask no more.
There is nothing more in your ſeventh Argument, but what is repeated over and over again, and hath already received its anſwer. I come to your eighth.
CHAP. XVI. Wherein the 47, 48, 49, 50 p. of Mr. Sheppards book are examined, and his two laſt Arguments found — Non ſequiturs.
THe ſubſtance of it brought into form, is this: Thoſe men that are fitted and furniſhed with abilities from God to open and apply Scriptures in a conſtituted Church publiquely, thoſe may doe it. For you ſay, God hath done nothing in vaine.
But there are many private perſons whom God hath fitted135 and furniſhed with abilities to this worke, who are not called and ſet apart: Ergo they may doe it.
Heark a little, and tell me how this kind of arguing ſounds in your eares: Thoſe who are fitted with abilities to be Generals of an Army, or Parliament men, or pleaders at the bar, may doe the work of Generals and Parliament men, and plead at the bar:
But many Colonels in the Army are fitted with abilities to execute the office of a Generall: And there be many Gentlemen have abilities to doe the work of Parliament men; and many Lawyers have the abilities to doe the work of Iudges; and many that are not called to the bar have abilities to plead: Ergo they may doe all theſe.
In earneſt (Sir) if my Lord Generall hath you to diſpute for him, or the honourable houſe of Parliament ſet you to diſpute for them, or the Judges or Lawyers for them, I will undertake in an houre you will diſpute them all out of their places; Iohn Lilburne could not make a better argument againſt them.
To anſwer you directly: Preaching (Sir) is an office, and he that may do it, muſt beſides inward abilities have an outward call, and ſetting apart; as Paul and Barnabas had, as Timothy had, &c.
I will proceed to your ninth Argument. You ſay, There have been, and are many learned and godly men who have held the lawfulneſſe of the thing.You inſtance in Dr. Ames, Mr. Cotton, and the five Apologiſts.
Logically thus, What ſome learned and godly men "have held lawfull, that is lawfull:
1. I deny your major. Surely we doe not deny infallibility to the Church of Rome, and give it ſome few ſingle perſons.
1362. I will retort your argument:
What ſome learned and godly men have judged unlawfull, that is ſo.
Aſſerimus.) Nec parentum nec majorum errorem ſequendum eſſe ſed authoritatem Scripturae & verbum Dei docent•s. Tertul. Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. Cyp•in ep. 63. ad Caecilium. But ſome learned and godly men, as Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gilleſpy, Mr. Ferriby, Mr. Hall, Dr. Seaman, &c. have judged it unlawfull, Ergo.
I believe you will not grant my argument: yet I take ſome of theſe to be as learned and holy as thoſe you inſtance in.
(Sir) Dr. Ames and Mr. Cotton, and the five Apologiſts are learned and reverent men, but not without their miſtakes; and they are all parties in that caſe; we are as ready to argue it againſt them as you: their placet is nothing to us. Cyprian ſaith right, that it is onely to be conſidered, Quid Chriſtus qui ante omnes fuit faciendum putavit, what Chriſt who is before and above all ſaith.
Your laſt Argument is this, That which may have very good ends and fruits is lawfull.
But this practice may have very good ends and fruits, Ergo.
I deny your major. We muſt not doe evill (ſaith the Apoſtle) that good may come of it. The meanes muſt be good, as well as the end.
An Argument is as good againſt you thus:
P. 48, 49. Quemadmodum inauſpicatus eſt medicus qui occidendo homines diſcit mederi, ita non eſt optanda prudentia quae laedendo diſcit prodeſſe. Eraſm. That which may have very ill and pernicious ends, is unlawfull.
But this practice may have ſo, 2 Pet. 3.16.
Yea, how many are led into errours, and hereſies, and blaſphemies thus, let this age witneſſe. You reckon eight good ends and fruits of this: I doe not think it a probable means to any one of them ends.
1. You ſay the Church may be edified by it, and unbelievers converted. And (Sir) may not the Church be thus deſtroyed and perverted? Conſider experience a little: ſhew us where God hath laid this prophecying (as you call it) under a divine appointment to this end.
2. You ſay hereby men may be fitted and tried for the Miniſtery. 137How (Sir) by preaching publiquely and ordinarily; or rather by ſtudying the Scriptures, and preaching once or twice, or more, before Timothy, who is able to judge.
3. You ſay hereby the Doctrine of the Goſpell will be kept pure, contrary to 2 Pet. 3.16.
In ſhort, it were eaſie to anſwer all you pretend to ſay in this thing: But, 1. Experience anſwers it ſufficiently that it would have no ſuch fruit. 2. If in reaſon we might hope for ſuch an iſſue, yet Gods ends muſt be proſecuted and attained by his owne waies.
You ſhut up this Chapter, by telling us what Arguments you doe not ſtand upon: I hope I have ſhewed you as much reaſon (Sir) to quit theſe you have inſiſted upon, which I am ſure conclude not what you would have, any more then thoſe Arguments you have quitted doe.
I come now to ſee if you be better at anſwering our Arguments, then making any for your ſelfe.
CHAP. XVII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 pages are examined, and his Anſwers to two of our Arguments againſt guifted brethrens ordinary preaching, are examined, and found too ſhort.
THe firſt objection you pretend to anſwer is partly mine and partly ſome of my other reverend brethrens.
We had charged you with this Argument:
But the truths of the Goſpell are ſuch as according to Scripture-warrant are onely to be communicated to others by ſuch as being faithfull and able to teach others, and have thoſe things committed to them by Timothies; and private perſons are not ſuch to whom theſe things are ſo committed.Ergo.
To prove the Major I inſtanced in 2 Tim. 2.2. and ſhewed the force of it p. 40. I alluded to that place, Mal. 2.7. but not as a proofe on which I much inſiſted.
My brother Hall hath not inſtanced this Argument in his firſt Edition of his Pulpit-guard. The other Editions I have not.
Now let us ſee if you have ſufficiently anſwered this Argument, which is chiefly founded on 1 Tim. 2.2. though 1 Tim. 1.11.18.6.20. Titus 1.3. prove a part of it.
1. You anſwer by way of conceſſion, telling us, that you grant ſuch an officer as a preaching Miniſter, and tell us that they are more eminent preachers. And ſomething is undoubtedly committed to, and required of them, as to the preſervation and promulgation of the Word of God, over and above what is required of and committed to men out of office.
1. They are bound to it ex officio by their office, others not.
2. They are bound to doe it more lively and vigorouſly then others. Ro. 10.14. Eſ. 40.9. Eſ. 48.1. Ro. 9.27. Mat. 3.3. Jo. 7.37, 38.
3. They may preach with authority. Titus 2.15. 2 Theſ. 3.6. 1 Tim. 5.2.
4. They may doe it with continuance, they may make it their calling and whole worke, 2 Tim. 4.2. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Theſ. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3 4.
5. They are to aſſume the whole office to adminiſter the ſeales alſo.
But you ſay ſecondly, that the Texts are not excluſive but private men may doe it too.
139Thirdly, you ſpend a great deale of time and paper to vindicate that text. Mal. 2.7. p. 54, 55. and thoſe places Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.
Having thus analyſed your anſwer, in the next place let me come to examine the ſtrength of it.
1. From what you have granted us, I gather:
1. That there are to be ſome Preachers in office, and to theſe onely it belongs to adminiſter the Sacraments, and theſe are onely to preach authoritatively, vigorouſly, ex officio, conſtantly, making it their work. This is all a great truth then it ſeems.
2. That for guifted brethren, they may doe it, or they may let it alone, it is but an act of liberty in them; yet you told us before it was their duty.
3. They may doe it coldly, and poorly, and lazily: for the preacher is onely bound to doe it vigorouſly and lively, p. 52. and earneſtly.
4. They can onely preach precariouſly, for they have no authority, and cannot do it authoritatively, Titus 2.15.
5. They muſt not make it their whole work.
1. Surely our guifted brethren will give you little thanks for your conceſſions.
2. Surely all people that are in their right wits will take heed of hearing theſe guifted brethren, that at the moſt can but preach coldly and lazily, without authority or any vigour, without due meditation and ſtudy. Surely the countenance and bleſſing of God is moſt likely to follow thoſe that come in the name of God, and with his authority, and can command in the Lords name.
But you ſay that the Texts are not excluſive, though they doe plainly hint that thoſe that preach the Goſpell ſhould have it committed to them: yet you think that ſome may preach that have it not committed, and ſo you would make my argument a fallacy, à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum fimpliciter. But ſir, I reply upon you:
1. Neither are any Scriptures excluſive in ſo many140 words that you bring to prove that they may not adminiſter the Sacraments, and that they may not preach with authority, nor make it their work; yet this you grant us, and upon good grounds.
2. What the Scriptures doe not ſay, that none may doe in the worſhip of God: for we muſt not adde to Scriptures.
But the Scriptures (although they ſay preachers in office may and ought to preach to others) yet no where ſay that the guifted brethren may doe it. Ergo.
The Scripture plainely ſayes, that thoſe that teach others muſt not onely be able and faithfull, but muſt have the Scriptures committed to them:See your own rule, p. 45. Generaliter dictum, generaliter intelligendum. this (Sir) is excluſive except you can bring another Scripture that proves they may teach others, though they have not thoſe things committed to them: And beſides the Apoſtle plainely ſpeakes de re of the thing, not de modo of the manner of performance, the Apoſtle ſayes teach others, you put in authoritatively, vigorouſly, &c. Bring us a Scripture that ſayes that gifted brethren may teach others publikely, for that is plainly meant there, if you cannot, this Text is proofe enough againſt you. Your ſimilitudes prove nothing.
By your anſwer I would infer, that all the Acts of Church officers may be done by private perſons, becauſe the Scriptures, that ſay they ought to doe them, doe not ſay, others ought not.
The third part of your anſwer lies in a vindication of that Text, Mal. 2.7. The Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, and the people ſhould require the Law at his mouth.
To this you anſwer:
1. Critically telling us the words are better read, the Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, &c. and ſo ſome read them.
2. That it is not excluſive.
3. That the caſe of people under the Law and Goſpell differ. For my own part I was aware of your laſt anſwer, and therefore did not inſiſt upon that place; yet now you141 have brought it upon the ſtage, let me take its part a little, and ſee if you have done it no wrong.
Whereas you ſay that thoſe words, Mal. 2.7. which we tranſlate. The Prieſts lips ſhall preſerve knowledge, are read by ſome, The Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, and this reading beſt agrees with the coherence of the words antecedent and ſubſequent, I anſwer:
1. It is true Piſcator doth ſo tranſlate it, and make the ſenſe what you ſay, but he is the onely man I finde doing it: Tremellius, and Calvin, and Gualter, and Ribera, and Oecolampadius, the Septuagint, St. Hierom. Our late Annotations, &c. Tranſlate it ſhall or ſhould, and this is agreeable to Haggai 2.12. (which St. Hierome quotes as paralell.) Thus ſaith the Lord of hoſts, aske the Prieſts concerning the Law, &c. So that you ſee for one authority, for you, we have found ſeven againſt you. But let us enquire the Hebrew.
2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word is there in the future tence, and properly to be tranſlated, ſhall, or will, or ſhould, and although it be a truth that the Hebrewes doe ſometimes confound tenſes and we often tranſlate their future tenſe by the preterperfect, yet (with ſubmiſſion to thoſe more learned and criticall in that language) I conceive it ſhould not be ſo tranſlated, except the ſenſe inforceth it, the primary and proper ſignification being otherwiſe.
3. Neither doe I ſee ſuch a neceſſity for the coherence ſake ſo to tranſlate it there;V. Our Annot. for might not the Prophet as well ſet out their impiety by their declination from their duty, as well as from the piety of the Prieſts formerly.
4. Nay under favour (Sir) the coherence is both againſt you and Piſcator too, the very next words are, — for he is the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts; now let any judicious man judge whether the ſenſe be better as you would have it thus.
For the Prieſts lips did keep knowledge, and they did ſeeke142 the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angell of the Lord of hoſts, or as we read it,
For the Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, and they ſhould ſeeke the Law at his mouth. For he is the Angell of the Lord of hoſts: or the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts for the ſame word ſignifies both: this is the reaſon given why the people ſhould enquire the interpretation of the Law at his mouth, becauſe he is the Meſsenger ▪ he is one authorized and ſent and appointed by God to open the Law.
5. But Fifthly, ſuppoſe we admit your reading, it alters not the caſe at all, for you grant that the Prieſts lips did keep knowledge, and the people did require the Law at his mouth: and this in the purer ſtate of the Jewiſh Church, and this was a piece of their ſinne that they were deviated from this practiſe, this is as much as we deſire, ſurely the Jewiſh Church order was not altered, but by their corruption in Malachies time, if we take your ſenſe it amounts to this.
In the old time, The Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, and they did require the law at his mouth, who was the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts. But now the Prieſts are ignorant, and the people profane, they care for no Prieſts ▪ but thinke themſelves beſt able to interpret the Law of the Lord, (for they were deviated as well as the Prieſts. ) v. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Have not you warded this Text well think you (Sir?) It is as if we ſhould ſay of England.
In the Prelates times the Miniſters of the Lord Jeſus preached plainely and powerfully and conſtantly, they preached Law and Goſpell reproofes, and exhortations, and the people heard the word of God diligently and reverently, and were content to teach their families, and to repeat Sermons, and then the power of godlineſſe encreaſed, and Chriſtians kept in the Vnity of the ſpirit and the bond of peace, and walkt humbly with God, and hated Arminian and Socinian, and familiſticall Errors143 and Blaſphemies, and were kept under an aw of Ordinances.
But now many Miniſters are come to preach notions, and allegories, and whimzies, to read Sermons inſtead of preaching, to lay aſide preaching duty and reproofe, and to preach nothing but priviledges and myſteries and nonſenſicall notions, and to preach once a fortnight. And the people they are come to neglect and deſpiſe Ordinances, to thinke themſelves as much preachers as the Miniſters, and to know as much as they can tell them, and hence they are puft up with pride, and are taken in the ſnare of the Devill, and are continually rending and dividing one from another, and running into error and blaſphemies; and the whole Nation of profeſſors almoſt is turn'd Arminian, Socinian, or Familiſticall.
You have put the interpretation (Sir) upon the Prophets words, I have to ſtrengthen our argument helpt you with a parallell, Quam bene conveniunt.
To your ſecond anſwer in which you point us to Deodate for a note, but you have abuſed him, for he hath never a note upon the words you quote. I grant you the words onely held to us, Analogically; but where is the Analogy, if not here? as the Prieſts were the onely ordinary perſons that had the knowledge of the Law, betruſted to them to communicate it to others, and the people were not to go to ſeeke it at an ordinary Jewes mouth, but at the publike officers mouth, ſo the Miniſters of the Goſpell are the only ordinary perſons under the Goſpell, that have the Goſpell committed to them to teach others out of it, and Goſpell Chriſtians are not to require the opening of thoſe Myſteries at one anothers mouthes, but at theirs.
But you tell us thirdly, the Caſe is otherwiſe under the Law and Goſpell. I grant you all you ſay there, onely I do not finde that Iſ. 61.8. the people of God are called Prieſts, nor doe I believe that all people generally come144 under thoſe promiſes: you mention onely Saints, and I turne your argument upon your ſelfe thus.
If under the Goſpell people be generally more full of knowledge then under the Law, then they had need have more eminent able teachers, that ſhould give them ſtrong meat.
And theſe, Sir, had need be ſuch as are able to ſearch the deeps of Scripture, to dive into the hidden myſteries.
Beſides, as knowledge encreaſeth, ſo in ſome wantonneſſe will encreaſe, and the Goſpell preachers had need be ſuch as ſhall be able to oppoſe thoſe that gaineſay their doctrine, in oppoſing thoſe that contradict a truth.
Thoſe that maintaine a diſpute either for a truth, or for an errour, had need have ſome more abilities then unlearned gifted brethren.
A late experience of this I could tell you in the gathered company at Bury, where were many thought themſelves able enough to Preach, but being challenged by the Reverend paſtor of the Presbyterian Church, to diſpute a point, which they might have beene well verſed in (for I believe the perſons have been ſtudying it, and practiſing it theſe ſeven years) whether the Miniſters of England be true Miniſters: they were glad to ſend for ſome of their Norfolk Brethren for helpe, and ſome of the gifted brethren went, and when they returned (being miſerably bafled) by their owne confeſſion they ſaid they wanted a Scholler, yet I ſuppoſe they thought they had the ſpirit of God, but God will convince men, learning is his Ordinance to enable men both to expound Scripture and defend his truth.
In the laſt place you come to the Commiſſion, Math. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.
From which both my Brother Hall and my ſelfe urged you to ſay:
"1. That the word may be read, go make diſciples, Jo. 4.1.
"2. There is no negative Clauſe in it.
"3. In common reaſon it doth not exclude others: and to the laſt purpoſe, you ſerve us with our uſuall fare, Similitudes145 inſtead of proofes, it is for want of better Arguments ſure Sir.
4. You tell us the people have a commiſſion to teach.
1. To your firſt cavill,Ʋ. Novar. ad loc. that the word may be tranſlated Goe make Diſciples: I anſwer, and it may be read Goe preach: it may be tranſlated, Go be Diſciples, Ʋ. Scapulam ad loc. But becauſe a word hath many ſignifications, doth it follow that any of them may be the ſenſe of that place where it is uſed?
2. But ſuppoſe it ſhould be tranſlated ſo: how is one made a Diſciple, but by converſion? and when is a man converted, but when he is brought to believe, and faith comes by hearing; then from hence will follow that the ſame thing is meant, yea and ſomething more. That thoſe that the Lord intends ordinarily to honour with the converſion of ſoules to himſelfe, muſt be commiſſion-officers in the buſineſſe of the Goſpell.
To your ſecond cavill, that the Commiſſion is not literally excluſive.
If it excludes them from baptizing, it excludes them for preaching; but you grant the former.
To your third, that in common reaſon they are not excluded. What you meane (Sir) by common Reaſon, I cannot tell. Socinian and Eraſtian reaſon wil not exclude them: but ſanctified reaſon that teacheth the ſoule to take heed of thruſting its name into a commiſſion, and doing any thing for which is not plain ground in Scripture, this will exclude them. But you tell us,
1. Your ſimilitude is no proofe.
2. It halts ſhamefully. Preaching is a piece of inſtituted146 worſhip, where the rules of inſtitution muſt be kept; but keeping the peace is not.
3. It is falſe, and the fallacy lies in keeping the peace. Every one is bound to keep the peace, as to his own private practice, not to be riotous: but every one is not to command others to keep the peace.
4. Conſtables (Sir) are officers, and ſo bound by office to keep the peace, and ſee it kept, and may doe ſomething more then Juſtices. But your guifted brethren are no officers at all.
1. It is not proper to ſay, healing the ſick was an office, and the Apoſtles had a commiſſion, it was a rare guift to which they had a power.
2. Supponis quod non ſupponendum eſt. No other had that guift.
3. If any other ſhould have gone to a ſick perſon and pretended to heale miraculouſly, ſaying as Peter, Act. 3.6. In the name of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt ariſe and walk, he ſhould have ſinn'd againſt God.
I am ſick of your ſimilitudes: to goe on therefore to your third Cavill, viz.
"That the people have a commiſſion to teach, &c.
What then Sir? The commiſſion 1 Tim. 22. to teach others. Matth. 28.20. to teach all Nations. Shew us where they have ſuch a Commiſſion. They may teach by private exhortations, by an holy life; not by publique expoſitions and doctrines: ſhew us where their commiſſion to this lies.
To your fourth cavill. Suppoſe it were but an enlargement of the Apoſtles Commiſſion, yet it was the firſt commiſſion that authorized them to preach the Goſpell to all Nations, or to any but Jews; and the originall copy of the Goſpell preachers commiſſion. Thus much your ſelfe confeſſe, we ask no more.
147To your fifth cavill I anſwer: That the force of that word lies in enabling them to preach the Goſpell to any ſort and condition of people, & in eſtabliſhing a perpetuall ſtanding office of Goſpel-Preachers, with whom Chriſt promiſeth to be to the end of the world; not as you would ſeem to hint, onely in laying it upon them as a duty, which yet was the liberty of all beſides them. Your places, 1 Cor. 9.16, 17. Ezek. 3.17, 18. ſerve to prove what none denies you, that we muſt preach; but they will not prove that all may preach, nor that the force of that word Mat. 28.20. is no more then you would have it, for they have no reference at all to that place, warranted by Scripture.
They are beholding to you for juſtifying their lazy preaching; but God and his word are not much beholding to you for this patronage of lazy, idle, unwarranted extempore preachers.
Thus (Sir) you may ſee how ſlight an anſwer you think to ſtop the mouth of our firſt Argument with.
Our ſecond objection as you ſay is,That men that have not skill in the originall Tongues cannot underſtand, much leſſe interpret the Scriptures, much leſſe can they divide the word of God aright.
To this you anſwer: 1. That we grant, that although they be not skilled in School-learning, if called, they may preach.
"4. That many great Schollers ſee little of Gods mind in them.
To all this I anſwer, 1. Generally. 2. Particularly.
Nunquam quis rectius aſſiquitur alterius mentem & germanam ſententiam, quam qui ipſ••loquent•voces & proprium ſermonem audit intelligitque. Hyperius in rat. ſtudii theol. l. 1. c. 9. 1. Generally. This is none of my Argument. My brother Hall doth hint it, p. 19. but Sir, (if you mean him) you wrong him, for his propoſition is this: Thoſe that want learning, both humane and divine, cannot be ſound interpreters, nor ſolid diſputants. You have ſet up a man of ſtraw, and then fall to puſhing of him. I know none that ſay, that it is ſimply unlawfull for thoſe that underſtand not the originall Tongues to interpret Scriptures.
2. But ſecondly, this we ſay, That the extraordinary and miraculous Revelation of the Spirit now ceaſing, no man can ſo ſoundly and well interpret Scriptures, as he that knows the Languages; without doubt it is no deſpicable means.
The Papiſts partly to juſtifie their ignorant Prieſts, and the authority of their vulgar tranſlation, and to juſtifie the Churches authority,Ʋ. Calv. in 1. ep. ad Corinth. c. 14. as the pillar and ground of truth, are much of your mind, that the knowledge of the Tongues is not neceſſary, and therefore have blotted out a paſſage in Eraſmus his Adages out of the late Editions, which I finde in Froben Edition fol. the paſſage will let you know his mind.
Aut ſe divinas literas interpretari conetur Graecae Latinae & Hebraicae linguae, denique & omnis antiquitatis rudis & imperitus fine quibus non ſtultum modo, verum impium eſt Theologiae myſteria tractanda ſuſcipere. Quod tamen heu nefas jam paſſim plerique faciunt qui frigidis aliquot inſtructi149 ſyllogiſmis & puerilibus ſophiſmatis deum immortalem? quid non auderit? quid non praecipiunt? quid non decernunt? Qui ſi poſſent cernere quos riſus vel potius quem dolorem moveant linguarum, & antiquitatis peritis quae porienta proferant, in quam pudendos errores ſubinde prolabantur, nimirum puderet illos tantae temeritatis & vel ſenes ad primae literarum elementa redirent. — Nullus unquam ſententiam alicujus intellexit ignarus Sermonis quo ſententiam ſuam explicavit, proinde Divus Hieronymus, cum conſtituiſſet arcanas interpretari literas, ne illotis ut aiunt pedibus rem tantum aggrederetur, quaeſo num ſophiſticis nugis inſtruxit ingenium? Eraſmi Adagia edit. Bafileae. 1526. p. 298. Cent. 9. Chiliadas 1. Adagio 55. tit. Illotis manibus. Num Ariſtotelicis decretis? Num his etiam Nugationibus? nugis minime. Quid igitur? in aeſtimabili ſudore trium linguarum peritiam ſibi comparavit. Quas qui ignorat non Theologus eſt ſed ſacrae theologiae violator, ac vere manibus paeriter ac pedibus illotis rem omnium maxime ſacram non tractat, ſed prophanaet conſpurcat, violat.
I ſhall not Engliſh it, ſuppoſing you underſtand Latine, I could furniſh you with many more of his minde. But I ſay, I cannot ſay that a knowledge in the Tongues is abſolutely neceſſary to me to interpret any Scriptures, but thus much we ſay.
1. He that hath not skill in the Tongues muſt take the credit of expoſitors and tranſlators, and if they quarrell, he will ſcarce know which ſide to take.
2. He will never know the full Emphaſis of Scripture, many ſweet notions of truth lie in the various ſignifications of the originall words, which Tranſlators could not hint us being to give the word only one tranſlation: v. Hyperium de ſtudio theol: c. 9.
3. There are many miſtakes in tranſlations and expoſitors.
4. There are many proper idiomes of Languages: which tranſlators cannot expreſſe. But for an abſolute neceſſity in all caſes I doe not hold it. Though I could heartily wiſh that all preachers might be able to underſtand150 the Originall Languages, and I thinke ſomething this way is hinted us by Gods furniſhing the firſt preachers of the Goſpell with the gift of Tongues.
And as light as you make Sir of humane learning, if you come to argue a Scripture againſt an oppoſer, that is learned, he will make you believe you had need of the Tongues, and of Logick too, and that preacher is worth little that durſt not appeare, or is not able to defend his own doctrine: nor doe I think ſuch for conſtant ordinary preachers are Gods Ordinance: indeed caſes of neceſſity have no Law. Better have one onely to read Scriptures then none either to read or preach, and ſo better have preachers that can but preach other mens Sermons and Expoſitions, then no preachers at all: This I anſwer generally: now to your Cavills.
To your firſt I anſwer:
1. We onely ſay, it may be in caſes of neceſſity, when ſuch as are more fit cannot be had, then let ſuch be ordained as have not ſuch skill in School-learning. But let even theſe labour for it, and the more they preach, the more they will ſee the need of it.
2. To your ſecond I onely anſwer.
It is a ſhame to England that it hath ſo many ſuch preachers, thoſe that ordaine now, ordaine onely ſuch as have a knowledge or ſolemnly engage to ſtudy the Tongues: get a ſtatute to enjoyne all Miniſters to be skilled in the Languages after ſome certaine time, (for it is fitting the preſent neceſſity ſhould be ſupplied) we will thanke you for it.
To your Third cavill I anſwer two things:
1. I know not one Scripture can be underſtood without underſtanding the Language it was wrote in, but he that expounds it muſt take the credit of the Tranſlator, and we know Tranſlations are not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; ſuppoſe it be the plaineſt151 Scripture how ſhall he know whether the words be rightly Tranſlated,Non omne quod verum eſt Scribentis mentis conſonat. Tolet. in Johan. 1. and ſo conſequently the minde of God, by comparing it with the Analogy of Faith; thus indeed the thing may be knowne to be true, but not a Truth in that Text; ſhall he know it by the coherence? and how ſhall he underſtand that without a skill in the Languages, except he takes it upon truſt, ſuppoſe there be no coherence, as in the Proverbs.
2. Surely a preacher ſhould be able to open the whole counſell of God, not this or that ſingle Text.
To your fourth cavill. viz.If humane learning be ſuch an helpe to the knowledge of Scriptures, what is the reaſon that ſome yea many great Schollers look into Scripture and ſee little of Gods mind in it, and how comes it to paſſe that many who are without humane learning have ſo large a knowledge and underſtanding hereof.
I anſwer, for great Schollers knowing ſo little of the minde of God in Scripture, you miſtake non cauſam pro cauſa.
1. Their learning and knowing of the Tongues in which they are written is not the cauſe, but there may be many reaſons.
1. Their lazineſſe or negligence,Ex eruditis igitur labi contingit alium quadam oſcitantia & ſupinitate, &c. V. Hyperium de rat. ſtudii theol. c. 9. l. 4. Alius errat ob verborum, aliu•ob rerum imperitiam; — Aliqui in errorem incidunt quadam animi perturbatione aut vitioſo affectu impulſi. — Quidam errorem amplectuntur magis authoritate & reverentia aliorum, quam judicio & veritatis inquiſitione promoti &c. V. pluta, Hyperius de ratione ſtudii theol. l. 4. c. 9. Fiunt ſubtilia ingenia poſtquam à verbo ſe patiuntur abduci & minu••tur ſuo ſenſu. Lutherus c. 4. tit. 767. not making it their buſineſſe to improve their learning and knowledge this way.
2. Their crotchicall fancies bringing to their interpretations not diſcendi pietatem, a pious heart to learne, but only diſcutiendi acumen, a criticall humour.
3. Their unſanctified undertaking their worke without prayer, and ſeeking of God by prayer that his ſpirit may guide them in the uſe of their learning, ut nec decipiant152 nec decipiantu•, that they may neither deceive themſelves nor deceive others.
For the ſecond part of your cavill, I anſwer:
1. I know very few men that want humane learning that can expound Scriptures.
2. They may have a large underſtanding and knowledge in the Truth of God revealed in Scriptures neceſſary to ſalvation, by conſidering the ſcope of Scripture, hearing the Scriptures preached and expounded, and the Spirit of God perſwading their hearts of the truth of what they heare.
Fifthly you tell us:That the preachers will grant you what is ſo clearely, and plainly held forth that the knowledge of heavenly truthes in Gods word is the gift of God attainable onely by the ſpirit of God, and not by any humane power and ſtrength, 1 Cor. 2.14. Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 7.15, 16 Jo. 6.44, 45 Acts 13.48. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Mat. 13.11. Jo. 16.13, Lu. 12.12. Jo. 14.26. Iſ. 50.4 5 Pſal. 25 14. Jo. 7.17. Gal. 1.2, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 2.1, 2, 10. Math. 16.17.11 25, 27. Rev. 3.18. Lu. 24 45. 1 Cor. 1.19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27. Jo. 7.47, 48. Phil. 3 7. 1 Cor. 3.18, 19, 20.
Here are many Scriptures brought, I wiſh they be not wreſted. But this is uſuall ▪ I ſaw a Pamphlet lately had ten times more to prove a man might lawfully beat his wife.
To anſwer therefore, I will tell you how farre we grant you.
1. We grant you that a ſaving practicall experimentall and a comfortable reflex knowledge of God, and of the truthes of God can only be from the ſpirit, that is the ſpirit can only teach the ſoule to come to Chriſt, and lay hold upon him, the ſpirit can onely teach the ſoule experimentally and effectually, that its condition is an undone condition, that there is a ſweetneſſe and excellency in Chriſt above ten thouſand worlds, this thoſe Scriptures you153 bring, 1 Cor. 2.14. Jo 6.44, 45. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Math. 13.11.
2. We grant you that the Spirit can onely teach the Soul reflexively,Reflexivè. V. D. Auguſt. t. 1. confeſ. l. 11. c. 3. the Miniſter teacheth that God hath promiſed that whoſoever commeth unto Chriſt ſhall not be caſt away, but is elected, juſtified, ſanctified, &c. This ſome other Scriptures prove, Pſal. 25.14. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11, 12.
3. Thirdly,Perſuaſivè. we grant you that the Spirit only can teach perſwaſively, we may beſeech, God alone can perſwade Iaphet to come and dwell in the Tents of Sem, we may teach people that it is Gods will they ſhould come to Chriſt, but the Spirit alone can perſwade them to come, Jo. 6.44, 45.
4. Fourthly, we grant you that the Spirit doth guide us in the interpretation of Scripture, upon earneſt ſeeking,Ego fateor charitati tuae ſolis iis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem timoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum authorem ſcribendo aliquid errâſſe firmiſſimè credam, &c. Aug. t. 2. ep. 19. cap. 1. Spiritum Sanctum eſſe ſummum Scripturae interpretem dicimus, quia ut nos certo ſimus perſuaſi de vero Scripturae ſenſu, oportet nos per Spiritum Sanctum illuminari: alioqui nunquam illam, quae fidelium mentibus ineſt,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉aſſequemur, etſi omnibus mediis utamur. Sed haec eſt interna tantum perſuaſio & nos ipſos tantum attingit, alios enim hoc modo non cogimus. Quod vero ad externam perſuaſionem attinet: dicimus ipſam Scripturam eſſe ſui ipſius interpretem ac proinde ad externum ipſius judicium veniendum eſſe ut aliis perſuadeamu•: in quo utendum eſt mediis. Whitakerus de Interpret. Scrip q. 5 c 3 ad finem. cap. but this may be but a common work, and is in the uſe of meanes but he did infallibly guide the pen men of Scripture and the firſt planters of his Goſpell, Jo. 16.13. and ſtill he doth guide humble hearts, yet not all Saints that undertake the expounding of Scripture publikely, for then all their expoſition ſhould be infallible, and ſo no preachers expoſition is, though never ſo holy, never ſo learned, indeed St. Hierom thought his was, as it ſeemes by one paſſage in Apolog contra Iovianum, Vbicunque ſcripturas non interpretor, ſed libere de meo ſeoſu loquor, arguat me quilibet, but St. Auſtine otherwiſe in Ep. 19. ad Hieron. c. 1. Learned Whitaker in q. 5. de Interp. Scrip. c. 3. doth determine againſt the Papiſts, that the holy Ghoſt is the higheſt interpreter of Scripture, becauſe ſaith he, we muſt be enlightned by the Spirit of God, that we may be perſwaded of154 the true ſenſe of Scripture; for without this, ſaith he, though we ſhould uſe all meanes, yet we ſhall never attaine to that full perſwaſion which is in the Saints hearts; but this ſaith he is but an inward perſwaſion, and onely reſpecting our ſelves, for we doe not thus perſwade others. But now for the outward perſwaſion, the Scripture is its own interpreter, and we muſt go to the Scripture to judge, if we will perſwade others, and in that we muſt uſe meanes.
Lectio inquirit meditatio invenit oratio poſtulat contemplatio deguſtat; quaerite legendo & invenietis meditando, pulſate orando & aperietur vobis contemplando. Aug. Ʋ. Whitakerum. ib.Thus, Sir, the ſpirit guides into truth: 1. Perſwading us infallibly ſometimes of thoſe truthes of God neceſſary to ſalvation: 2. Guiding his people in the ſearch and enquiry of truth, yet not giving them ſuch a ſpeciall infallible aſſiſtance in expounding Scripture alwayes that they cannot erre. 3. Nor doing of it extraordinarily, but in the uſe of meanes, what thoſe meanes are, Dr. Whitaker tells us excellently c. 9. of the ſame queſtion. 1. Prayer. 2. The underſtanding the Tongues. 3. A conſideration of the words, whether they be proper or figurative, limited or not limited. 4. A conſideration of the ſcope of the place, the matter, the pen man, the time of writing, &c. 5. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, like with like, and unlike with like. Qui his mediis ſic uti valet & opinionis ſue perverſitatem ac praejudicium partiumque ſtudium deponet (quo multi in omni cauſa utuntur) poterit ille quidem Scripturas ſi non in omnibus locis et in pleriſque, ſi non ſtatim ac tandem aliquando intelligere. Whitakerus ib.6. A conſideration of the Analogy of faith. Laſtly ſaith he:
Thus, Sir, the ſpirit doth guide into the knowledge of all truth, yet not ſo,
1. That any one may or ought to take any expoſition as infallible.
2. But ſo as, that it oft works in me an infallible perſwaſion of this or that truth.
3. But this the Spirit doth upon the uſe of meanes, not without humane power and ſtrength.
4. The Spirit doth helpe us to the knowledge of much truth, by bringing to remembrance what we have heard, Jo. 14.26.
5. We grant you, none are ſo fit to preach and expound Scriptures, as thoſe that have the Spirit of God: if they alſo have a capacity to uſe all other meanes which God hath appointed, and that humane learning meeting with a conceited proud ſoule, may prejudice a Chriſtian in underſtanding and ſeeking the will of God.
All this ſome of your Scriptures prove, though let me tell you ſome of your Scriptures prove neither what you would have nor this neither, nor any thing like it, as Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 17.15, 16. Acts 13.48. But what is all this to prove the two great things.
1. That the Spirit of God dwelling in us onely can teach the ſoule the proper and literall meaning of the Scripture and capacitate one to expound it to another, though indeed to that there muſt be a common work of the ſpirit, as a ſpirit of illumination. Or Secondly:
2. That the ſpirit doth this without meanes, without humane power and ſtrength.
Not a Scripture of all you bring, prove either of theſe, and ſo you have ſaid a great deale to little purpoſe, your ſixth cavill is the very ſame with your fourth.
To your ſeventh I anſwer: It is indeed part of the meaning of that phraſe dividing the word of God aright, to156 give every one their portion, but how ſhall the unlearned doe this, if they doe not know what portion the word hath for them, and how ſhall they know that, if they doe not know the ſenſe of the words.
2. Surely the underſtanding the parts of the Chapter, and ſeverall things contained in the Text, muſt goe to dividing the word of God aright. I have done with this; I come to your reply to the Third objection.
CHAP. XVIII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 p. are examined, and his Anſwers to our third, fourth and fifth Arguments are proved very weak and inſufficient.
OUr Argument is this, who ſo preacheth or prophecyeth muſt be a Prophet or a Preacher.
But all are not prophets nor preachers, 1 Cor. 12.30. 1 Cor. 12.9. Ergo. all muſt not preach and prophecy.
To this you make a tedious reply, p. 59 60. Had you been a little more skill'd in humane learning, you might have ſaid in very few words what you ſay in many lines; This is all.
You thinke that it is that fallacy which Logicians call Fallacia aequivocationis.
That there is a preaching as an act of office, and an ordinary preaching of others, ſo though it be true that whoſoever preacheth or prophecieth is a preacher or prophet, that is one that doth the act of a preacher and of a prophet, yet it doth not follow, in the ſenſe we underſtand it, that he muſt be by office a preacher or a prophet, this is the ſubſtance of all you ſay, your ſimilitudes from Taylors, Bakers, Watchmen, Schoolmaſters, Iudges, Lawyers, amount157 to no more then this poore notion; and if I ſhould run after them, they would all halt and lye downe, and confeſſe they came for nothing but a ſhew. But (Sir) you are not like to eſcape us thus. Give us a Scripture command for, or example of any that had not the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, or were not in office, that ordinarily preached & expounded Scriptures in a ſettled conſtituted Church. If the law of God doth not mention theſe ſame out of office preachers, your diſtinction is worth little, the Scripture knowes no preaching by ordinary perſons, ordinarily gifted and out of office, except in caſes of neceſſity, perſecution or the like, they are Apocryphall preachers (Sir.) But you tell us againe, that all have the gift of prophecy ſpoken of by the Apoſtle; but in regard you ſay no more to prove it then we had again and again before, I ſhall refer you to my former anſwer.
In your 61 page you come to another objection of ours, but indeed it is the ſame.
In my Vindiciae, p. 33. I charged you with this argument.
For any being officers to take upon them acts of office is ſinfull.
But for private perſons how well gifted and qualified ſoever to take upon them in publike aſſemblies where a Church is conſtituted to preach, interpret, & apply Scripture, is for them that are no officers to take upon them Acts of Office, Ergo. The Major I proved, 1 Cor. 7.20. 1 Cor. 12 14. Rom. 12.4. My Brother Hall hits upon the ſame thing in ſeverall places, and makes uſe of the inſtances you quote, I ſhall meddle with your anſwer onely ſo farre as it concernes me: for although I thinke an argument might be brought and managed from thoſe inſtances of Ʋzzab, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, Saul, &c. yet I deſire to make no further uſe of them then this, to prove that proper Acts of office may not be done by perſons out of office, which I ſuppoſe you grant, yet let me tell you not one of your Scriptures proves plainely.
1581. That the burning of Incenſe upon the altar was forbidden, all the Iewes except the Prieſts, though indeed the thing be true, it was forbidden becauſe the worke was aſſigned to others; and the like we ſay for preaching. In one or two of the places, ſtrangers are forbidden, but the Jewes are no where in thoſe places in ſo many words forbidden to offer incenſe; if you ſay by conſequence they are, we grant it: ſo are you forbidden publike preaching by as good rationall conſequence.
But Sir if we could not ſhew it were forbidden to warrant your practice, you muſt ſhew it us allowed and commanded, if it be a piece of worſhip.
But in the next place you will undertake to ſet out our office, telling us.
- 1. What it is to be in office.
- 2. Wherein our office lies.
- 3. What it is to be in the Preachers office.
- 4. What is an uſurpation upon the office.
All this is towards the proving that preaching is not a proper act of office.
1. You tell us what it is to be in office, and in this deſcription I agree with you, and ſo ſhall not repeat your words having nothing againſt them.
2. You tell us what are the parts of the preachers office.
- "1. Publike praying for the people.
- "2. Publike reading of the word.
- "3. Writing of Bookes and Epiſtles.
- "4. Publike Preachings.
- "5. Adminiſtring Sacraments.
- "6. Church government.
To all this I anſwer, we onely ſpeake of Proper acts of office, and thoſe are ſuch as belong to him and none elſe, and ſo Prayer, Reading, Writing, and Church governement159 are not, Chriſt never ſaid, go Read and Baptize, or Write and Baptize, or Rule and Baptize, though we grant all thoſe to belong to him, yet they are not proper Acts of his office quà a Goſpell Preacher, ſo he hath but two proper Acts that I know, viz 1. Publike preaching. 2. Adminiſtring the Seales, thoſe that are for Epiſcopacy adde a third, but we conceive that belongs not to him alone (except other officers be wanting.)
Thirdly, you come to tell us what it is to be in office as a Preacher: ſo you ſay.
"1. He muſt be lawfully called and authorized thereto.
To this I anſwer, that it is true that Miniſter and people are correlates, but to what people is a Miniſter a Correlate? what to this or that Church onely? I deny that: he is in office as a Goſpell preacher, to any people in the world; paſtors and teachers are in office, for the whole body of Chriſt, Eph. 4.11.12. when he is engaged to a particular people, he is but appropriated, not by that conſtituted a Miniſter, for if a miniſter be onely in office to his own Church,
1: He can adminiſter the Sacrament to no ſingle perſon that is not a fixt member of his Church.
2. He can Baptize none but ſuch.
3. He can preach by authority to none but ſuch.
See Mr. Firmins and Mr. Hudſons arguments for this novell fancy. See Mr. Firmin againſt ſeparation, p. 61, 62, 63. Mr. Hudſons vindication. 138, 139, &c. Baronius t. 4. l. 26. D. Hieron. ep. 61:It is true there is thus much ſaid for it from antiquity, that Biſhops were not uſually ordained fine titulo, but,
1. This was not to ſhew, that they were onely in office to this or that Church, but to prevent vagrant itinerary preachers.
2. St. Hierom conteſted with Paulinus the Biſhop of160 Antioch when he was ordained, and would not be ordained to any particular Church: if we may either believe Baronius or Hierom himſelfe in his 61 Epiſtle ad Pammachium.
But to make haſt, p. 63. you tell us five things which you conceive uſurpations of the Goſpell preachers office. I agree with you in all of them, onely I muſt ſtill maintaine:
That preaching is the proper Act of a Preachers office, and ſo incommunicable, and if I make good what I have ſaid to this purpoſe, you are condemned out of your own mouth.
To this purpoſe, in my Vindiciae I produced three Arguments, p. 34 35, 36, 37. you have anſwered not one of them; onely you ſay,
We ſay that it is as much his proper act as Baptiſme; Truth, I did ſo, and proved it, becauſe the ſame commiſſion authorizeth to both. 2. Saint Paul ſeemeth to lay more upon it then upon Baptizing, 1 Cor. 1.17. to neither of theſe doe you ſay a word.
A ſecond argument I urged you with was this, The proper acts of Elders, Biſhops, Stewards of the myſteries of God, Heralds, Embaſſadours, Watchmen, extraordinary Deacons, Paſtors, Teachers, are acts of office,
But this is their proper act, ſee Scriptures, p. 24.
Third Argument, Either this is their proper act, or they have no proper act. But God did not ordaine an office with no act proper.
You have nothing to ſay againſt this, unleſſe you ſay Baptizing and giving the Supper is their proper act, and then I require one Scripture to prove either of theſe a more proper act then preaching, ſee Vindiciae, p. 37. To none of theſe you anſwer.
So that for all that you have ſaid, our argument ſtands ſtrong, and will do ſo till you bring us a plaine Scripture, or a good argument from Scripture to prove that161 God hath appointed Goſpell preachers, ſome acts that are more proper to them then preaching.
CHAP. XIX. In which Mr. Sheppards 65, 66, 67 pages are anſwered, and his anſwers to our ſixth and ſeventh Argument found too ſhort.
THe next argument you pretend to anſwer is my 1 argument, and the ſubſtance of my Brothers Halls ſecond, eighth, and ninth.
You ſay, we ſay you may not doe it becauſe you are not called and ſent by the Preſbytery, as Ro. 10.15. 1 Tim. 3.10.4, 14.5.22, 2.2, 3.It is the Scripture ſaith ſo. (Sir) not we onely. To this you anſwer,
2. You agree that preachers in office muſt be duly called, none of them Scriptures ſay (Sir) preachers in office, but thoſe that preach muſt be ſent, Ro. 10. thoſe that teach oothers muſt be not onely faithfull and able, but have the Goſpell committed to them, 1 Tim. 2.2.
But you hold it convenient if not neceſſary; Jeſus Chriſt (Sir) is beholden to you for drawing out duties into conveniences, I ſuppoſe you hold it convenient too, that the Goſpell ſhould be Preached and people heare and be ſaved, it will be found neceſſary one day (Sir) Jeſus Chriſt will make you aſhamed of that ſame if not.
I profeſſe I tremble to read and heare men profeſſing to the feare of God ſo boldly contradicting his word, trampling upon his plaine precepts, and all to exalt carnall corrupt reaſon. But to anſwer a little.
1. If that be a call from God which you inſtance in, I beſeech you Sir, with what face of a Chriſtian can you ſay, moſt of the Scriptures quoted ſpeak of no more? there are but five Scriptures in all, 1 Tim. 3.10. And let theſe alſo be proved? who ſhould prove them, good Sir?) 1 Tim. 4.14. With the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery, is there no call from men thinke you? The third is 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands ſuddenly on no man ▪ what is that meant of Gods immediate ſending, thinke you, doth he lay hands on any? the fourth is 1 Tim. 2.2. — the ſame commit thou to faithfull men who ſhall be able to teach others, is God meant by that thou thinke you (Sir?) the fifth place quoted firſt is Rom. 10.15. that indeed is not ſo plaine, but carnall reaſon hath more roome to cavill; but I have ſpoke enough before to cleare that from the Socinian gloſſe of providentiall ſending: you tell us p. 66. you have cleared that Text, and ſhall adde no more. But truly (Sir) except you had ſpake more to the purpoſe before, you might have added your pleaſure: but you ſay,
In none but in caſes of neceſſity (Sir) and in ſuch caſes your note is falſe, for though believing actually be the ordinary meanes of ſalvation, yet infants may be ſaved without it.
Your anſwer to our argument, that it is forbidden, is not worth taking notice of, what is not commanded in divine worſhip in any eſſentiall part of it, is forbidden, eſpecially there being rules ſet downe for ſome doing of it, and none for others.
163But (Sir) if you will doe any thing, anſwer my argument formally, as you have it in my Vindiciae, p. 23, 24, 25 26, 27.
You come to anſwer one of my arguments,Page 67. to prove preaching a proper act of the preachers office, viz.
If they may preach they may baptize, &c. I gave two reaſons for it, Math. 18.19. It is in the ſame commiſſion. 2. The Apoſtle maketh it rather the greater act.
To this now you pretend to anſwer and ſay, 1. You deny the conſequence and collection, nor will that Text, 1 Cor. 1.17. make it out, but ſeemes rather to hold forth the contrary.Very well anſwered Sir, and with abundance of Reaſon: Secondly you ſay.
What's this to the purpoſe, I plead the Commiſſion, you expound the promiſe. By this argument you prove they ſhould Baptize too, if the whole commiſſion extends to all Saints. You ſay,
3. You agree, that ſuch as teach by office may Baptize, but gifted brethren doe not teach by office.
You adde to the Scripture (Sir,) by office is not in the Text, ſo that this is nothing to the purpoſe. You ſay,
Your baſe affirmings and denyings it are but poore empty words, that come to no more then wind.
1. Though they never did it, yet if they be commanded to doe it, they ought to take up their power.
2. Neither did any of them not called to office, or extraordinarily gifted with the gifts of the holy Ghoſt now ceaſed in ordinary times, when the Church was not under perſecution, ever doe it.
1643. I have proved before they are forbidden, and neither commanded directly nor by conſequence. You tell us.
No matter whether you agree it, or no, you ſhould doe well to prove that it is neceſſary that all Baptiſme follow or immediately goe before preaching; we grant it convenient, not neceſſary that Baptiſme be adminiſtred with Preaching, though you read of the Goſpell being Preached, Acts 2. Acts 8. before the Baptizing of the 3000. and the Eunuch, yet you cannot prove I ſuppoſe that thoſe Sermons were intentionally preached in order to Baptiſme.
I cannot tell how you will prove what you ſay here, that praying is a more ſpirituall worke then preaching, I am ſure neither in reſpect of the Subject, object, matter, or end, nor in reſpect of the right manner of performance. You ſay,
1. But Sir the people have no commiſſion granted them to preach.
2. If there be a Commiſſion granted to perſons to heare and determine Treaſons and Felonies, I ſuppoſe it is a good argument to prove they may heare and determine the Felonies; becauſe they may heare and determine the Treaſons, and they are both in the ſame commiſſion. This is the caſe (Sir) Chriſt Jeſus hath granted commiſſion to certaine perſons to preach his Goſpell and Baptize, if you ſay and prove they may Preach. I will prove they may Baptize; why? they are both in the ſame Commiſſion.
3. I obſerve that you ſay nothing to 1 Cor. 1.17.165 where the Apoſtle ſaith, Chriſt ſent him not to preach, but baptize. The words cannot be underſtood abſolutely, for St. Paul did baptize the houſhold of Stephanas, by his own confeſſion. The meaning muſt be, that he lookt upon preaching as his chiefe act as a Goſpel Officer. This you are not willing to take notice of.
CHAP. XX. In which Mr. Sheppards 68, 69, 70 pages are examined, and his anſwer to our eighth and eleventh objections found too ſhort.
IN the next place you anſwer our Argument drawn from the inconveniencies and evils will come of it.
This you have up p. 68, 70, 71. You divide it and make two objections. I will reply to your anſwers in both places together.
It is my brother Halls twelfth Argument, p. 26. edit. 1. and it is a good Argument, thus formd.
The tree which conſtantly and naturally brings forth corrupt fruit, is a corrupt root. This is our Saviours Logicke, Mat. 7. not to be denied.
But this principle and practice brings forth naturally very corrupt fruit. 1 Pet. 3.16.
Ergo, It is a corrupt root, a plant not of our fathers planting.
The Minor is proved by an induction of particulars:
1. It confounds offices. 2. It breeds diſorder. 3. It opens a doore to errour. 4 It deſtroyes preaching in office,Vindiciae miniſterii, p. 35. 36. and makes it contemptible. The firſt of theſe I u•ge, p. 33, 36. 5. Many of theſe Lay preachers deny Scriptures, Ordinances, Duties, Magiſtrates, Sabbaths, faſtings.
I am ſure the Argument is good enough, if we prove thoſe two things.
1661. That naturally, and ordinarily, and neceſſarily thoſe are the fruits.
2. That conſtantly they have been.
The Apoſtle proves the firſt plainly, 1 Pet. 3.16. That the unlearned wreſt the Scriptures to their own deſtruction. Experience proves the latter. Let us heare your cavils.
1. We ſay, Offices are uſurped and confounded by it.
To this you ſay nothing more then you ſaid before: that they doe not preach as officers; thats the ſubſtance of all, and the drift of your ſimilitudes from Bakers and Brewers comes to no more. We anſwer:
1. That you cannot prove any preaching in Scripture, but what was an act of office.
2. If a man bake his own bread, or brew his own beere, I know none hath any thing to ſay to him; but ſuppoſe he bakes for all will buy, what becomes of the bakers office then Sir? this is our caſe. But your ſimilitudes are generally miſerably lame.
3. We told you before, Reading was no proper act of the Preachers office; and therefore you argue miſerably to ſay, becauſe peoples reading the Scripture doth not confound offices, therefore their preaching will not.
4. To what you ſay, that theſe Ordinances rightly uſed may ſtand together, we anſwer, that we deſire you to prove their preaching publiquely to be an Ordinance, and then produce the Scriptures directing to the right uſe of it.
5. For the Tryall you ſay is made, and no ſuch inconveniences appeare. We anſwer you in ſeverall places, ſuch hath appeared: aske the Churches in New England and Holland, &c. I remember Sir, the Fable in Eſop, that the Snake did not preſently ſting him that took it into his boſome. Tell me ſome ſeven yeers hence.
Our ſecond ill conſequence we charged it with, was "That all would then preach, and there would be diſorder, and God is the God of order.
To this you ſay, That all never had, nor will have this167 guift. Yet you told us before, that all the Saints having the ſpirit dwelling in them, and this ſpirit being a ſpirit of Scripture interpretation, all have this guift, more or leſſe.
2. All are bound to exhort one another privately, and you lay much ſtrength upon that Argument.
3. If all doe but think they have it, it is enough, who ſhall judge? You tell us,
"Order muſt be taken to regulate the exerciſe of it. By what Scrip•ure rule? there is a rule indeed for Church officers being proved, but as you have exempted gifted men from the other rules given to Goſpell preachers, viz. Meditating, giving themſelves wholly to it, making it their worke, ſo ſurely they are exempted from this too; except you produce your rule, the rules about prophecying were applicable in this caſe, which they are not, there is no reſtriction, onely that they ſhall not all doe it together, as if the Bells rung auke.
Beſides (Sir) is not order broke, when one body hath ten or twenty tongues, yea as many as Argus had eyes? the Apoſtle compares the Church to a body naturall; truly it ſhould not be all tongue.
The third ill fruit mentioned was,
That it would be a ready way to let in all Errours and blaſphemies.
To this you reply:
1. You doe not believe it.
Doe you believe Scripture? 2 Pet. 3.16.Superbia ut Auguſtinus veriſſime ait•ſt mater omnium haereſium. Lutherus. Ne•eſſe enim eſt ut prius ſit judicium quam eloquium prius ſapere quam dicere. Eraſmus. Niſi enim verba intelligamus quomodo ſenſam reperiemus? Whitake. de Scrip. q. 5. c. 9 Ʋ. illum ib. ſhewing many pieces of Scripture tranſlated, that according to the tranſlation we cannot anſwer Hereticks. that ſayes the unlearned will wreſt Scriptures; prove it is meant of practicall learning. Do you believe Reaſon? Reaſon will tell you and ſo doth Scripture too. 2 Tim. 6.4. that there are two fathers of Hereſie, Pride, and Ignorance, Pride is a168 great cauſe of learned mens errours, when men are of crotchicall heads, and then of proud ſpirits, conceited of their own fancies. 2. Ignorance, when men cannot underſtand the Originall or weigh parallell Scriptures, &c. but either wreſt in the leſſer or run mad in Allegories and figures; but you tell us,
"The greateſt learn'd men have been the greateſt hereticks.
It is true many learned men have through pride beene dangerous heretickes, Arrius, Apollinaris, Pelagius, and Socinus were all learned men: but Sir what thinke you of Iohn a Leyden, Knipperdolling, Becold, and many others, and what thinke you in our times of Collier and others?
Will you believe experience? enquire where you heare of any neſts of Ranters, Antinomians, Familiſts, &c. whence they came firſt? ſo that there are others of that opinion beſides Papiſts.
Pretty Religion! and a pretty argument for an Vniverſall toleration, let Chriſts face be ſpit upon, as much as it will, that his friends may wipe it off; is the Glory of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt no more pretious in your eyes Sir?
'But the Preachers give all leave to Print.
No ſuch matter (Sir) Mr. Batchelor indeed was wont to doe it, but Presbyterian preachers have learn'd Chriſt better, and tender his glory more.
"But the abuſes may be prevented and the right uſe retain'd.
1. That which you call right uſe (Sir) is an abuſe.
Zanchius in quartum praeceptum.2. Zanchy in quartum preceptum gives a good rule, In rebus non neceſſariis ſi modo abutantur, tollendus et uſus & abuſus, every body can ſay as much as this comes to for a Popiſh holiday. There is no neceſſity any ſhould preach without a due call.
Firſt prove it an errour (Sir) to hold, that onely perſons duly called and ſet apart to the office may ordinarily and publikely interpret and apply Scriptures in a conſtituted Church.
You tell us,That we are not to believe and take up all the Evill reports we heare of the people of God, many have been branded for Hereticks who are now in Heaven, &c.
What's this to the purpoſe? (Sir) you dare not deny but there are errours and hereſies, Gal. 5.20 What if Papiſts and heretickes brand the Saints with thoſe names? are therefore none rightly ſo called? what thinke you (Sir) of Pelagians and Socinians and Antitrinitarians, of ſuch as thinke, we are Godded, and there is no Angells, no Devills, no Heaven, no hell, read Jerrard Winſtanly his platforme of Freedome, dedicated to his Excellency, à p. 55. ad. p. 63. and tell me if you thinke him a Saint of God? yet there are not one or two, but one or two thouſand (rather) ſuch in England, moſt of which, if you enquire, you will I believe find either have been Preaching Brethren, or their hearers, and where ever they are met they have a Brother to preach to them; and defie a Miniſter of the Goſpell, &c.
I have heard of ſome that would never believe there were any witches till they or ſome of their friends were bewitched; (Sir) I truſt (If you have any) you have a more vertuous yoke fellow, but if you had a wife that with hearing a Cobler preach for the Community of all things, had beene ſo convinced as to have made her ſelfe common, and have gone from you and joyn'd with a party of thoſe principles, and two or three yeares after come home with a Child or two more then you had ſeene before, (as ſome I could tell you of in the world this day have beene ſerved) you might then poſſibly believe there were Heretickes, and yet theſe perſons were high profeſſors and pretended much to the Spirit.
170In the next place, p. 72. you tell us, God will diſcover Hypocrites in•he laſt dayes.
What then? muſt we therefore permit hereſies? or meanes directly tending to them, or would you infer from hence, that in order to this diſcovery gifted men ſhould be permitted to preach.
You are very unhappy (Sir) at making parallells, you tell us here of a Saint of God under a temptation, and a ſon of perdition and three profane wretches. 2. Nor are Heretickes ſo thin amongſt us as amongſt the Apoſtles. 3. Nor did Chriſt and the Apoſtles uſe a direct meanes to propagate errours, as we argue this would be.
This is truth (Sir) but to what purpoſe? hence I conclude therefore, they that are led by the ſpirit neither lead others into errours, nor are led themſelves, but unlearned preachers doe both, 2 Pet. 3.16.
2. The evill ſpirit may ſometimes lead thoſe into errour in whom the ſpirit dwells, this is a temptation Saints may be under, and it is one ready way to be brought into it, to uſurpe acts of office, and run before they are ſent, when they run out of Gods way the ſpirit of God leaves them.
The fourth ill conſequence we urged was,
That by this means Preachers and preaching in office would he uſeleſſe and contemptible.
To the latter you anſwer:
1. The ſame might have beene ſaid of the Prieſts under the law.
Right; and was it not ſo? ſee Num. 16.3. what Corah, Dathan and Abiram ſay, you take too much upon you, ſeeing all the Congregation are holy every one of them, and the Lord171 is amongſt them, wherefore then lift up your ſelves aboue the Congregation of the Lord.
2. You ſay you doe not believe it, becauſe you have ſeene the "contrary in your own experience.
None ſo blind as they that will not ſee (Sir) I durſt undertake for one that you can ſhew me, that being a private perſon gifted, and a publike preacher, that yet continues with an humble ſober heart under the aw of Gods ordinances, and honouring the Lords publike officer, I will ſhew you twenty that are either above Ordinances, or ſlighters and contemners of the Miniſters of the Goſpell.
3. You tell us, This is certaine, Thoſe that honour God, God will honour, that's our comfort (Sir) and we doubt not but God will doe it here or hereafter, Dan 12.3. but that is no warrant for our ſpitting on them.
Right (Sir) God will, but man would not, and what you have here ſaid will be an argument againſt you.
If this be Gods Ordinance and will, ſurely he would not have all uſurp the peculiar acts of his office, as this doth. See my Vindiciae Miniſterii, p. 96 37.
CHAP. XXI. In which Mr. Sheppards 70, 71, 72, 73 pages are examined and anſwered, and his anſwers to eleven objections ſcann'd and found very weake. Pulpit guard. p. 25, 26.
YOu are now come to anſwer my brother Halls eleventh Argument, which was this:
172To this you anſwer, 1. By denying the Minor; and you tell us there is a promiſe to a right hearing. Truth ſir, but this is not a right hearing, for how ſhall they heare without a preacher, and how ſhall they preach except they be ſent, Ro. 10.15.
2. You ſay, There was a bleſſing followed the preaching of "thoſe ſcattered upon the perſecution of Stephen, Acts 8.1, 4. Act. 11.21. I anſwer:
1. You are to prove, 1. That they were not in office.
2. That they had not the extraordinary guifts of the holy Ghoſt.
3. That they preached in a conſtituted Church ordinarily, when the people might heare ſuch as were in office. You will come ſhort in this proofe.
3. It is falſe that you ſay; we may as well ſay, there is no promiſe made to private teachings, and exhortings of one another. They are commanded duties, which when rightly performed, have promiſes annexed conſtantly.
In the next place you come to my brother Halls 17 Argument, p. 48. and my ſeventh, p. 46.
My Argument was this:
It is likely that that tenet which the Churches of Chriſt have in all ages rejected; and that practice which the Churches of Chriſt in all ages have decried and avoyded, is not a truth of Chriſt.
But the Churches of Chriſt in all ages have rejected and decried this opinion and practice. Ergo.
Now let us heare what you ſay againſt this.
1. You ſay, You are to live by Rule, not by example.
1. Truth ſir, but you can ſhew us no Rule for you.
2. Neither is there any Rule that hath not been put in practice by ſome of the Churches of Chriſt.
1733. Where you can onely ſay, It is not directly forbidden, not that it is abſolutely neceſſary. Example (Sir) if generall, or of the moſt, is not to be deſpiſed.
4. Surely the Apoſtle ſaid ſomething, when he ſaid, we have no ſuch cuſtoms, nor have the Churches of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 11.16.
You ſay it was not ſo in the primitive times. Prove that; "Nor ſo every where this day. What's that to the purpoſe? we have generally ſad examples in this age.
We told you, That many of theſe Lay-preachers were ſuch "as denied Scripture ordinances, Duties, Obedience to Magiſtrates, Sabbaths, Faſtings.
To this you anſwer:
1 None that are led by the Spirit doe ſo. They doe, it may be, "ſpeak againſt the abuſe of duties, and peoples reſting on them, and performing them carnall.
Sir, (notwithſtanding this ſhameleſſe inſinuation) we would have you know we are as much againſt, and preach as much againſt reſting in duties (that high idolatry) and carnall performance of them, as any others can or doe.
2. You ſay, None that are led by the Spirit doe ſo. But many guifted brethren doe ſo. — Ergo.
1. Whats this to the purpoſe? doe preachers in Office preach down Magiſtracy?
2. Any one is good when he is pleaſed. Suppoſe our Parliament ſhould forbid private perſons preaching; or ſeverely puniſh errours and hereſie; what would you do then? we can tell you when the guifted brethren were not ſuch friends to the Magiſtrates or Magiſtracy of England.
3. What if ſome Miniſters (not all, Sir) were for a while unſatisfied in the late change? was there nothing174 in it (Sir) that might ſtartle a tender conſcience?
4. We believe that our Parliament doth, and in ſeven yeers time will more thinke them like to be beſt ſubjects who moſt feare an oath, and are moſt tender of doing any thing which might make an appearance of the breach of it.
Another Objection you ſay we make is,
"It is againſt Goſpel precepts and order. 1 Tim. 5.1, 22. Act. 13.3.
You aime here I believe at my firſt Argument, p. 23. But you are ſo wiſe as not to put it in the forme I put it. To this you anſwer nothing, but Magiſterially deny it.
A 13 Objection which you pretend to anſwer, is drawn from 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every one abide in his calling.
This I think is one of my brother Halls Arguments.
You anſwer, That guifted brethrens preaching is a piece of their generall calling. But (Sir) I have already proved, that publique preaching is a proper act of a particular calling, and no ſuch act can be an act of our generall calling.
A 14 Objection. This was to be committed to others, 2 Tim. 2.2. This is now a bit of my fourth Argument. (Sir) you are a ſhamefull diſputant. You ſhould repeat my Argument, and then deny a propoſition. But you tell us,
"That place is meant of the office of the Miniſtery, which you contend not for.
Truth (Sir) but you contend for a proper and chiefe Act of that office, as I have already proved. Whereas you ſay that the word is committed to the whole Church, 1 Tim. 3.15. I have anſwered that place before.
In the next place you pretend to anſwer a fifteenth objection, which is my fifth Argument, p. 40. of my Vindiciae.
Whoſoever may lawfully preach the Goſpell and interpret175 Scriptures ordinarily, &c. may warrantably require a maintenance competent for them, of thoſe to whom they ſo preach.
But this guifted perſons cannot &c.
You grant the Minor, and tell me the Major is a Non ſequitur.
You deny the plain words of the Apoſtle (Sir) 1 Tim. 5.18. They that rule well, are worthy of double honour, (countenance and maintenance, viz.) eſpecially ſuch as labour in the Word and Doctrine. Matth. 10 10. 1 Tim. 5.18. Gal. 6.6. He that is taught in the Word is bound to communicate to him that teacheth in all good things.
1. Prove this is meant onely of ſuch as are in office.
And then 2. That any are to preach that are not in office, or elſe you tell the holy Apoſtle his words are falſe.
A 16 objection you pretend to anſwer is drawn from that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12Where the Apoſtle to ſhew that there ſhould be order kept in the Cburch of Chriſt, that one ſhould not be diſſatisfied at the excelling gift or office of another, compares the Church to a Naturall body, wherein are ſeverall Members, and all have their ſeverall offices, &c. ſome eyes, ſome eares, &c. and hence proves, that in the Church all ſhould not be eares, eyes, &c. they ſhould not uſurpe one anothers places, nor envy one another for them.
To this you anſwer, Who denies this, or what have we "ſaid againſt this?
You deny it (Sir) when you ſay God hath ordained all to be Tongues.
A 17. Objection: Then women and boyes may preach.
You tell us: 1. Women might if they were not forbidden. I deny it, they muſt be commanded, or elſe they might not; this was the old Popiſh plea for ceremonies, they were lawfull becauſe not forbidden.
2. You ſay women did it, 1 Cor. 11.3. That place (Sir) is to be underſtood of being preſent at prophecying, or of176 extraordinary prophecying, or elſe the Apoſtle contradicts himſelfe in the ſame Epiſtle 1 Cor. 14.34. which I hope you dare not ſay.
3. You ſay, Boyes may if they have a gift, and to prove it you tell us Chriſt did, Lu. 2.46, and Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.42.
1. You have put a pretty uncivill terme upon our Saviour and upon Timothy, ſurely they were no ordinary boyes (Sir) I perceive you have not read Ariſtotle, he would tell you there is a Juvenis aetate & Moribus, young men in reſpect of age, or manners and abilities. You come to an
18. Object. This gift of opening and applying Scripture, "eſpecially hard places, was onely temporary and now ceaſed.
You ſay right (Sir) this is ſomething, and before you condemne it for falſe, anſwer the Reaſons to prove it extraordinary, which I have gathered out of ſeverall learned and holy men, and preſented you with in my Vindiciae Miniſterii, p. 50. 51. and when you have done that well, tell me what you thinke of men having that gift in theſe dayes.
19. Object. Whatſoever is not of Faith is ſinne.
This is one of my Brother Halls arguments, and all you can ſay can never anſwer it, for it will not ſerve your turne to prove it is of faith, becauſe it is not ſpecially forbidden.
But you tell us, it is warranted by Scripture, where (Sir?) this is all you will ſay to this argument, I believe it ſcared you, and you made haſt to quit your hands of it.
20. Object. There are two ordinances of Parliament in force againſt it.
In anſwer to this you grant
"1. That it is a practice reſtrainable by Authority.
Now ſee (Sir) how obedient our gifted Brethren are to Magiſtrates.
1772. You ſay Authority doth connive at it.
Connivence (Sir) doth not fruſtrate publike acts nor warrant diſobedience to them.
3. But you hope in time the Parliament will repeale them.
It is poſſible, but if they doe not doe it till they finde them inconſiſtent with the lawes of Chriſt, they will be in force long enough.
4. You grant it irregular and inconvenient for them to preach till authority doth command or allow it, then I ſee our Brethren though they may have the Spirit are not infallible, in their principles and practices they may be irregular.
But I cannot but obſerve how upon all occaſions, our brethren are more beholden to you then our God is: you grant Magiſtrates in this caſe, have power to command and reſtraine, Ro. 13.1. Let every ſoule (ſaith the Apoſtle) be ſubject to the higher powers. — v. 2. Whoſoever reſiſteth the power reſiſteth the Ordinance of God, and receiveth to himſelfe damnation, this is undoubtedly true of reſiſting true and lawfull powers in things which they may command and reſtraine, yet you mince it prettily, not ſinfull and unlawful, but irregular and inconvenient when it concerns the gifted brethren.
I have now done to the doctrinall part of your Booke, and have proved your doctrine falſe.
The Application (if ſuch as it ſhould be) muſt onely be the concluſion from theſe premiſes. I have denyed the premiſes, I need not deny the concluſion, I will only in one Chapter note a note or two.
CHAP. XXII. Containing ſome ſhort notes upon Mr. Sheppards fourth Chatper, p. 73. to the end of his Booke; Concluding with a ſhort application unto him.
1. YOu chide the preachers, p. 74. that they never preſſe upon the people their duty to interpret Scriptures, we muſt (Sir) firſt know it is their duty and not their ſinne, you goe on, p. 74. 75, 76. in ſome things ſcandalouſly aſperſing, in other things unwarrantably reproving the Miniſters, impertinently applying and ſhamefully wreſting Scriptures, and laſtly calling away our people from us as from Babylon, Rev 18.34 — Bona verba quaeſo. As is a man,P. 78. ſo is his tongue, Cauſa infirma eſt ſemper querula, here's hard language enough (Sir) but your arguments before, and your ſenſe here, is as ſoft as a bulfiſt; Sir we hate Popiſh ſuperſtitions with as full an hatred as your ſelfe.
Then you turne to the gifted brethren, and give them eight wholeſome rules, againſt which I have nothing to ſay, but onely thinke there is one wanting, viz.
That they ſubmit themſelves to Examination and Ordination, much elſe there is of good in the latter pages of your booke, but nothing argumentative.
I ſhall here cloſe; I have not Sir (I thinke) aſperſed your perſon, you are a ſtranger to me, and (if I may judge by ſome things in your booke) one that profeſſeth much to the feare of God and the honour of Jeſus Chriſt, whom I deſire to feare, and in whom alone is my hope, and whom I deſire to ſerve in my ſpirit; If I have made my ſelfe merry with your Logicke ſometimes. — Hanc veniam damus petimuſque viciſſim.
Now I beſeech you (Sir) by the Love of God, and by the179 Lord Jeſus Chriſt, ſeriouſly to weigh this thing, and to conſider,
1. Whether there be any Goſpell precept or plaine preſident for this practiſe?
2. Whether there is not ground enough in Scripture to thinke this act of preaching a proper and reſtrained act, when as it is plainely betruſted to officers in ſo many Texts?
3. Whether, theſe things conſidered, it can be an act of Faith in them to preach who are not ſo called?
4. Whether uſually ſuch preachers be not puft up with an opinion of their own parts?
5. Whether moſt of the hereſies and blaſphemies by which the precious name of our God is diſhonoured this day, be not branches from this root and ſtill maintained by it.
And (Sir) let us not contend for Maſteries but for Truth. Can you thinke Sir that (as the polluted ſtate of Englands profeſſors now is) this is a way to reforme us? can a gifted brother convince a gaineſaying Socinian or Anabaptiſt, or Arminian thinke you? are not ſome of theſe in every corner of the Nation? Is not a gifted brother more likely to be ſeduced by their ſubtilities, then to convince and oppoſe or anſwer? ſhall not the Goſpell of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſuffer when a publike preacher of it ſhall turne his back upon an adverſary? (Deare Sir) I beſeech you by the Lord Jeſus Chriſt conſider theſe things, and take heed of pleading for Baal, no, let him plead for himſelfe; I beſeech you to peruſe Dr. Seamans Booke: Mr. Halls Pulpits guarded, Mr. Ferribies anſwer to Collier, the Booke called Church Members ſet in j•ynt, and that called Lay preaching unmask't, and (if you will ſtoop ſo low as to read my Vindiciae) you will finde there collected what Mr. Gilleſpy and Mr. Rutherford (thoſe two holy and learned men) have ſaid in anſwer to all arguments. For my part I am reſolved to take up pen no180 more, except I find ſomething more objected that theſe Reverend Fathers and Brethren have not anſwered, but if you ſay any thing that one of them hath not anſwered, or invalidate their anſwers. I will promiſe you a ſober reply. But (Deare Sir) ſtrive not for Maſteries Magna eſt veritas & praevalebit, the great God and his truth ſhall one day conquer all. Believe it (Sir) I could heartily wiſh all the Lords people were Prophets, O that their knowledge might be doubled if conjoyned with Sobriety and humility and the feare of God, let me be accurſed that day that I deſire any thing that my conſcience tells me ſhould tend to Ecclipſe divine light, no let it Triumph till the Prince of darkeneſſe be driven out of every corner, till our underſtandings be fully enlightned: thus far Sir, I hope we agree. The Lord guide us into all truth: