errour and so seldome walk steddily stagger and reel near the truth many times but cannot or rather will not see it But 2. I answer these Prophets might be inspired what to speak Answer 2. but not in what manner and order You know Prophets infallibly guided in what they spake were not alway infallibly guided in their actings but therein might erre Againe all things are not revealed to one God raised up many Prophets then and what was not revealed to one was revealed to another So that it might please the Lord that Paul who had the spirit of Prophecy more then they all should have this among other things left to him viz. to give directions to the other Prophets as to the manner and order of Prophecying 3. Answer 3. This direction might be given by Paul perhaps not so much for their sakes who were true Prophets 't is like they would have kept to this order though Paul had never prescribed it but rather because of some that might pretend a spirit of Prophecy when not inspired by God and so bring in disorder and confusion into the Church this seems to be intimated vers 37. But he hath yet one reason more which lies in page 87. in these words Praying and Prophecying are put together 1 Cor. 11.5 was it extraordinary Praying too The P. G. Routed I wonder that is left out I answer Answer I will put in that too 〈◊〉 his Learning and prove there was an extraordinary gift of praying then as well as an extraordinary gift of Prophecying And indeed 't is strange a man that pretends to so much acquaintance with Scripture as he does should never read of an extraordinary gift of praying yea and singing too among the Corinthians Pray read 1 Cor. 14.14 15. For if I pray in an unknowne tongue my spirit prayeth but mine understanding is unfruitfull c. What think you of this is not here extraordinary praying You may conjecture how these men read Scripture if they did not rather strive to bring Scripture to their opinions then their opinions to Scripture these plain things could not be hid from them You have had an account of the five Reasons he gives to prove the gift of Prophesie to be ordinary and as he sayes proper to all the Saints you shall have as many of mine to prove the contrary My first Reason is Reas 1. because it is joyned in 1 Cor. 14. with gifts onely extraordinary Observe that in this whole Chapter there are no gifts spoken of but such as are extraordinary as speaking in strange languages and interpretation of tongues both which all acknowledge to be extraordinary as for the first strange languages they were used three wayes in preaching praying and singing all these extraordinary and the Apostle puts in Prophecying among these and discourses of all promiscuously as gifts of the same kind only differing in degrees of excellency and yet shall we conceive that Prophecying is ordinary when all the rest that are intermixed in discourse with it are extraordinary sure 't is very unlikely Another paralel place is Ephes 4.11 where we find Prophets are set betweene two extraordinary officers Apostles and Evangelists He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists c. Are Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary and yet Prophets placed in order betweene them ordinary he must be a very easie and tractible soul that can beleeve it But to this he answers somewhat page 81. and 84. And what is it Why least you should think that Prophets were extraordinary because joyned with Apostles that were so he sayes that Apostles were not extraordinary neither As for Evangelists he ha's nothing to say to them Ah alas what is it that this man will not say to help a bad cause Apostles were no Extraordinary officers he thinks if he put a good face upon it 't will passe But what is his Reason you have it page 84. Apostles sayes he signifies 〈…〉 sent O profound reasoning Therefore all that are sent are Apostles And whâ— may not I say as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angels fignifies Messengers There all Messenger are Angels The Prophets of old were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Seers or men seeing Therefore all that see are Prophets I confesse this way they may be all Prophets if they have not lost their eyer But if any man should argue thus would you not laugh at him Would you not answer him true all that See as the Prophets did Divine and extraordinary Visions are indeed Prophets Why so praâ— answer this man that all that are Sent 〈…〉 the Apostles were by extraordinary revelations and by an immediate call from God and are guided to speak infallibly as they were are Apostles and none else â—nd such I hope will be acknowledged to be extraordinary persons by all that are not extraordinary stupid But he sayes Apostles are men sent to gather Churches or to gather Saints as his words are why then all that are sent to gather Churches are Apostles What will he say of the seventy Disciples the seattered Brethren were not they sent to gather Saints Or were they therefore all Apostles I am sure he argues very stifly page 70. That they were not Apostles An what confusion is here they were Apostles and they were not Apostles any thing for a shift I would not so particularly discover his weaknesse and absurdity but that he deceives many with the opinion of much knowledge when alas you may see he appears as very an Ignoramus as ever I think was read in print My second Reason is Reas 2. because this word Prophet ha's been alwayes used to signifie a person extraordinarily inspired by God when taken in a good sence and to signifie a Diviner or a man of a familiar spirit when taken in a bad sence I might bring at least an hundred Texts to prove this if 't were needfull but because he sayes Prophets under the Gospel were not such as they were that were under the Law I shall onely bring some Scriptures out of the New Testament to prove that the Prophets were such them too As for Agabus Act. 11.27 he acknowledges he was extraordinary because as foretold things to come But what with he say to Zecharias Luke 1.22.67 c. Ananias Act. 9.10 Cornelius Act. 10.3 Peter Act. 10.10.19 Paul 2 Cor. 12.1 c. Act. 9. The Disciples mentioned Acts 19.6 Were not all these Prophet by extraordinary Vision and Inspiration Doe not the Texts before mentioned make it plaine I could give more instances as in the Prophets that were at Antioch to whom also God did speak immediately Acts 13.1 2. Now if all these Prophets which an more then we read of in all the New Testament beside were extraordinarily inspired and there be no reason in Scripture why we should question the like of the rest I hope we may conclude that Prophets even in the Gospel dayes were extraordinary also and by consequence
type unto the Jews in times of the Law and what is that to the businesse Baptisme is a Type to Christians under the Gospel They that have argued so long against Infant-Baptisme from this reason that they are uncapable of understanding its mystery could never yet give a reason why the knowledge of the mystery of Baptisme is necessary to make a subject capable of it when the knowledge of the mystery of Circumcision was not necessary to make the subject capable of it Tell me what thing made Infants then capable of circumcision and then I 'le tell thee and thou mayest satisfie thy selfe that the same thing makes Infants capable of Baptisme now Their being such as God had vouchsafed to take together with their Parents into Covenant with himselfe was that which made them capable of Circumcision as appears in Gen. 17.7 8 9 10. where they are commanded Therefore to be Circumcised because God had made a Covenant with them Now the same thing makes Children of Beleevers now capable of Baptisme But his third Answer is of all the fittest for such a man to give it is this 3. The P. G. Routed There was a Command for that of Circumcision c. O egregiously gifted Disputant Answer The Objection was if Infant-Baptisme be childish because the subjects are Children then Circumcision was also Childish which was commanded of God to this he answers Circumcision was commanded of God Can you beleeve that the spirituall gifts that these men pretend to are reall when as in the utmost improvement of their gifts they write such non-sence If they write thus how do you think will they speake when they come to handle difficult matters if they preach too without meditation or study as they boast But whereas he sayes The command is that which gives a capacity c. I shewed even now what it was that gave the Infants then a capacity of Circumcision from Gen. 17. The Command as Mr Marshall sayes well is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it They were therefore circumcised as before because taken into Covenant and so Church-members But enough of this let me away to his second Reason why Infant baptisme is childish which is as follows 2. The P. G. Routed It is Childish as relating to the Administrators c. in not understanding the command of Christ c. But how doth he make that good Answer why you must take his word for it He will call thousands of able judicious men ignorant that by his confidence you may think he is knowing and intelligent His next corrupt Assertion borders upon the same controversie touching Infant-baptisme 'T is this His third Error That none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age. YOu have this defended by him page 6. thus And is this such a strange thing with you who professe your selfe a Minister of the Gospel The P. G. Routed c. Was not Christ himselfe Baptised at thirty years of age the Eunuch by Philip Acts 8 And those of John c. Yea Answer and it may be strange for all that for what shadow of reason is there in it why none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age Is this good arguing Christ and the Eunuch c. were of perfect age when baptised therefore none but men of perfect age must be baptised Is not this as good an argument When Christ gave the Supper none were admitted but Apostles therefore none but Apostles may receive the Supper If he say there be other Scriptures that give not Apostles onely but all believers admittance unto the Supper I answer so there are other Scriptures that do authorize us to admit Children to baptisme Therefore he might have saved the labour of answering the Objection viz. That that was in the first Plantation of the Church c. For first we need not fly thither because what he urges concludes not at all the thing asserted by him He sayes None must be baptised but such as are of perfect age c. To prove it he urges that some that were of perfect age were then baptised which you know no way concludes that none but such must When any Anabaptist in England can prove that no Infants were baptised in the Apostles times then it may be we shall make use of that which he brings in as an Objection which if we doe we must intreat him to take a little better knowledge of the Objection and not mistake it so ignorantly as he seems to do in his Answer For the thing urged in the Objection is not That there was one rule for them in the infancy and another for us now If he did understand sense he would have seen it but that the same Scripture rule that was then delivered to the Churches directs us to a different course in gathering Churches and in Churches gathered which is very clear So that none need wonder why they heare of baptising growne persons then and Infants for the most part now The reason is because though when our work is as theirs was to gather Churches we baptise growne persons upon their Profession of the Christian Faith as they did and that most frequently yet when the Church is constituted we doe take in according to Christs appointment the Children of Beleevers in their infancy the which I shall speak more to by and by Pretious Souls you that love the appearing of the Lord Jesus I from mine heart owne the lowest appearances of Christ in his people I would not quench the smoaking flax for a world nor dare I despise the day of small things in any but when Ignorance doth so exalt it selfe yea even presuming to call the Spirit of Christ its Father as in these men give me leave to be zealous for your sakes that you may with the Church of Ephesus Revel 2.2 Try them which say they are Apostles or men sent and are not and finde them lyars But that I may follow my valiant Antagonist marching in the head of his victorious absurdities and impertinencies yet a little further in what he says more to this controversie page 8. I shall step over one or two particulars reserving the handling of them til afterwards and apply my selfe to the finishing of what I intend about Paedo-baptisme He undertakes in the eigth page to vindicate the Anabaptists in respect of another errour charged upon them viz. that they deny all consequences of Scripture c. to which he sayes You are mistaken man in this too The P. G. Routed they deny unnecessary and untrue consequences I beleeve indeed this is the opinion only of the weakest and simplest of them Answer and though the Pulpit Guard Routed be ignorant enough yet it seems he is not so ignorant as to deny necessary consequences drawne from Scripture I should have said nothing to this but for what followes Sayes he Your consequences are such
and yet ever and anon in his discourse he sayes Prophets are Teachers and proves that gifted Brethren are Teachers because Prophets Sure the man is in good hope that the most of his Readers will be men of bad memories or judgements or both that when they are reading one page will forget what he says in another or he would not venture thus to contradict himselfe But he holds a Wolfe by the ears as the Proverbe is and pitifully puzled you may see he is One part or other of the contradiction he knows is true but which he cannot tell and therefore he will be sure to speak both that he may be somtimes found in the truth Surely either this man hath but a bad cause to plead or else the cause hath falne upon a bad Advocate in him to plead for it notwithstanding he talks of gifts so much He need not have another to answer him while he is so good at confuting himself Much of my designe is to help the weaker sort to see this that is very open to such as are intelligent Obser 2. You may observe further Obser 2. that he never distinguisheth of Preaching nor doth he define what Preaching is that yee might understand what he meanes when he pleads for the lawfulnesse of gifted Brethrens Preaching But his designe is to cheat you if he can with ambiguous termes never adding any explanation to them All the distinction that he makes of Teachers is onely this Teachers by Office and Teachers by gift without Office As good as if he had said Teachers that are so indeed and Teachers that are not so but onely esteem themselves so or at best might be so if the power of the Church did call them into the office As if one should say a Magistrate by gift and a Magistrate by office He confiders not that as the gift disposeth a man to the office so only the office disposeth him unto the execution of the gift A man gifted for a Magistrate is no Magistrate nor may execute the work of a Magistrate till called to the office even so a man gifted to be a Teacher is no Teacher nor may execute the work of a Teacher till he be called to that office except in the cases signified in stating the controversie All the definition he gives of Preaching that you may know what it is is page 59. where he sayes Preaching is but a speech or speaking of words and if so for all his pretended gifts a Parrat may preach as well as he But 't is well he sayeth Preaching is a speaking of words for many of those that undertake publique Preaching without any mission speake words 't is true but many times no sence let their judicious hearers if there be any be judges But he meanes I suppose speaking words unto spirituall edification and if this be all the Preaching he pleads for to be allowed to gifted Brethren why doth he contend when as brotherly admonition exhortation instruction reproof c. are granted by his Adversary not to gifted Brethren onely but to all Christians in their proper sphere and keeping within their line I say this is granted to all Christians even to women also who yet I hope may not be Preachers I think no honest heart even among them that oppose his opinion doth desire to abridge Christians liberty in speaking to the edification one of another in such a way nay rather we stir them up and provoke them to the use of their liberty do I say nay to the practise of their duty herein But can any one be so blind as not to see a vast difference between the publique pastorall duties of a Minister which he is obliged to by his office called in the Scripture feeding the flock of Christ c. And those Christian duties that lye upon all Beleevers enjoyned in such language as this Thou shalt not suffer thy brother to sin but shalt reprove him and tell him his fault Lev. 19.17 Comfort ane another with these words 1 Thess 4.18 And againe They shall speake of thy Kingdome and talke of thy power Psal 145.11 And 2 Cor. 1.4 That we may be able to comfort them which are in trouble by the comfort wherewith we our selves are comforted of God Places which among others he urges for publique Preaching of men not in office I say is any man so blind as not to see a difference betweene these Is it not plaine that though they may agree in matter yet doe differ in forme Forma dat nomen esse which is that which gives name and being to things But this he would not have you take notice of if you doe a great part of his Book is answered without much a doe Wherefore he denies any difference between publique and private Preaching He sayes This distinction came from Rome The P.G. Routed and ha's no footing in Scripture if in private why not in publike if we may preach to one or two in private why not to a thousand in publike page 88. 91. Answer Much of the controversie depends on the clearing of this and If I can prove this distinction from Scripture and shew you that there is a specificall difference betweene publique and private preaching Preaching taken in a large and Preaching taken in a strict sence then you 'l say that the heart-strings of many of his answers and arguments are cut and that nothing is remaining but confident expressions to give any life to them This I shall doe God willing by two Arguments grounded not on Scripture testimony onely but also on his owne concessions Thus Arg. 1. If we find in Scripture that all Christians may Preach take Preaching in a large sence for the private duties that they owe one to another and that they may not all Preach take preaching in a strict sence for publique pastorall preaching then there is a specificall difference between these for otherwise the same thing would be to the same persons lawfull and unlawfull which is a contradiction But I prove by Scripture 1. That all Christians may Preach take Preaching in a large sence for brotherly exhortation admonition reproof c. See 1 Thess 4.18 Heb. 3.13 Lev. 19.17 Mal. 3.16 2 Cor. 1.4 with many other places concerning which Scriptures you may observe that they speak not to some Gifted Brethren onely but to all the godly indefinitely Besides he himselfe grants this ever and anon in his Discourse 2. I prove that all Christians may not preach take Preaching in a strict sence as before by the plaine words of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Teachers which Question he himselfe acknowledges imports a deniall and is as much as All christians are not teachers and so may not take upon them to teach that is in a strict proper sence So that the inference is most undeniable that there is a specificall difference betweene the one way of Teaching or Preaching and the other Unlesse you will beleeve
answers by disputing and takes not off his Adversaries Arguments but gives you in his owne This I could shew you in severall particulars but that I had rather make you see how bad his cause is then how abfurdly he manages it Now sith he grounds all on a few Scriptures abused by him if I can demonstrate the impertinency of them to his purpose and clear them from speaking any thing for his opinion then you 'l say The Router is Routed This I shall do in the next place Severall Scriptures opened and cleared from giving any countenance to that Babell and confusion pleaded for by the P. G. Routed THe two first Scriptures that I shall speak to are Acts 8.4 Acts 9.20 The first speaks of the scattered Brethren that Preached The second of Sauls Preaching as he supposes before called to be a Minister These are brought in by him as a running verse in the end of severall answers as being of great weight to his cause but how little they make for him shall I hope appear Before I speak particularly to them let me lay you downe these two profitable Rules as preparatory Reg. 1. Rule 1. In weighty things of God a Christian must have a certaine evident rule to warrant his practise and may not ground it upon likelihood and probability Though Scriptures be produced that make the thing somewhat likely yet if they doe not necessarily conclude the matter in Question they are not sufficient to lead any forth unto the practise of the same Reg. 2. Arguments drawne from Testimonies Rule 2. or examples of men in Scripture are of credit according to the credit of the persons whose testimonies or examples they are So that if the persons from whose testimony or example the Argument is drawne be fallible in their testimony or example the Argument drawne there-from must needs be infirme and fallible too These two things being premised I shal to the clearing of the two Scriptures which present us with the example of the scattered brethren and Saul their Preaching If we should suppose that these presidents did suit the matter in Question as they do not for their Preaching was not in a Church constituted but to Infidels Yet 1. They are the examples of men not infallibly guided in what they did This is most certaine as to the scattered brethren no man I think will say we have very much reason to judge that they were infallibly guided in what they did and as to Saul it is as evident too supposing that which he affirmes that Saul was a private Christian and not called forth to be a Minister if so then his example is no more infallible then theirs Now if there be not an infallibility in these examples they doe not necessarily conclude the Jus or right of the thing done though they make it likely which is not sufficient for Christians that in such weighty matters especially must walk by a certaine rule so that if I should say no more what is become of these two strong holds that he flies to so often At most they doe but conclude a likelihood of the lawfullnesse of this practise which he pleads for It concludes onely a may be and may any go upon may bees in such weighty matters But 2. As for the scattered brethren it is a great Question whether the Apostles that were at Jerusalem at the time of the scattering of the Christians there did not give them Commission to Preach as Mr Hall sayes The P. G. Routed And what ha's The P. G. Routed to say to this Why sayes he The Scripture doth not speake of any such thing Answer Very good neither doth Scripture speak the contrary and what follows then but that it is doubtfull whether they were sent by the Apostles or no and if so then still doubtfull notwithstanding that example whether any man else may preach without an externall call Besides 3. was their preaching in a constituted Church and not among the unbelieving Jewes rather as Acts 11.19 4. Was it not in an extraordinary season which as ha's been proved before quite alters the case This Scripture then you see proves nothing certaine and to the purpose As for the latter Scripture concerning Saul his Preaching before he was called to be a Minister as he affirmes 'T is evident he Preached but that he Preached before he was called to be a Minister is most false 'T is true he Preached before he was solemnly set a part to be an Apostle to the Gentiles as Acts 13.2 3. compared with Acts 9.20 proves but he was called to be a Minister before And I wonder this man was not afraid to bring in Acts 13.2 3. least any should have lookt into the verse immediatly preceding verse 1. where it is said expresly that before this he was one of the Prophets and Teachers that were at Antioch But it may be objected Object that the persons there mentioned were Teachers by gift not by office and so Saul was not in office before this time I Answer Answ All the members of the Church of Antioch were Teachers by gift according to the measure that they had received for all Saints are Prophets and Teachers in that sence as he himselfe sayes but these were Prophets and Teachers that were in the Church that was at Antioch therefore these must needs be Teachers in another sence then the rest of the members there and if so then they were Teachers by office and not by gift onely Pardon me if in using this distinction of Teachers by gift and Teachers by office I hardly speake sence for I must conforme my selfe to his language 2. Is there not in that very Chapter which he brings in one Verse of to prove Sauls Preaching before called to the office of a Minister Acts 9. an expresse history of his call even by a voyce from Heaven If there needed any proofe in this matter I could shew you how verse 6. when Saul cried out what wilt thou have me to doe the Lord sayes Arise and goe into the City and it shall be told thee what thou must do c. He sends him to Ananias what Ananias by Vision tels him though you have it not fully related in the same Chapter yet you have it from Sauls owne mouth in Chap. 22. vers 14 15. viz. That he was to goe to be a witnesse unto the truth which was miraculously given in to him Was not this a sufficient outward call Yea more plain Acts 26.16 17 18 19. where you finde that God himselfe in that heavenly Vision told him that he appeared to him to make him a Minister vers 16. and that he did then send him vers 17. And yet see Ah! how often doth this fellow presume to bring in Saul as Preaching before his call to the office of a Minister to make his matter good although Scripture testimony is so expresse against him Besides Sauls Preaching was not in a constituted Church
followes not that if men speake to edification they are therefore Prophets This is as if one should argue thus If it rained but now the ground is wet therfore if the ground be wet it rained but now a meer non sequitur for the ground may be wet some other way then by raine Even so he because the Prophets did speak to edification he thinks he may conclude that if men speak to edification they are Prophets and so prophecy is ordinary because speaking to edification is so It follow not for though Prophets speak to edification yet 't is not that but the extraordinary spirit by which they speak that denominates them Prophets 2. Whereas he sayes The Prophets under the Law were extraordinary but these not because they did speake to edification 'T is very strange for is it not evident that the Prophets in the old Testament spake to edification also To this he answers two things page 83. for I will not passe over any thing of weight that he speaks 1. The P. G. Routed This is more then the Scripture affirmes Is it not strange that this man should have so much boldnesse as to speak thus Answ He that will question whether Amos Hosea Isaiah and the rest of the Prophets did speak to edification in their Prophecying had need question too whither those Books that go under their names and containe the sum of their Prophecies be indeed theirs or no for is not the matter contained in those Books for edification Else what do we make with them in our Bibles Ah filthy blasphemy See what a bad cause will drive men to But he adds 2. If they did The P. G. Routed they took not their denomination of Prophets from this kinde of Prophecying Well fare a good confidence Answ you may take his word for it if you will If they were not denominated Prophets from this kinde of prophecying from what kind of Prophecying then Did they ever Prophecy except for edification Sure the man hath much forgot himselfe But for his learning They were called Prophets not from the matter of their Prophecies which was diverse but from the manner of receiving the same from God by Inspirations Dreams and Visions See Numb 12.6 If there be a Prophet among you I the Lord will make my selfe knowne unto him in a Vision and will speake unto him in a Dreame Hence 't is that Prophets were called Seers 1 Sam. 9.9 For he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer That is such a one as God reveales himselfe unto by Vision This name is also given unto the latter Prophets in many places as Isa 30.10 Isa 29.10 Amos 7.12 to shew us that they were called Prophets as Seers i. e. men to whom God appeared by Visions and extraordinary inspiration not because they foretold things to come as he doth intimate And this I prove also by the following Argument That which did denominate their sayings Prophecies did denominate them Prophets that I hope will not be denied But the extraordinary way of revelation did denominate their sayings Prophecies Therefore that did denominate them Prophets That the extraordinary way of revelation did denominate their sayings Prophecies not this that they did foretell things to come as he intimates is very evident in that in Prophecying they spake not onely of things to come but sometimes of things past sometimes of things present 'T is true the Prophets often spake of things to come but not alwayes and therefore they were not from thence called Prophets I shall make this yet more plaine to you by giving you forth a definition of Prophecy that you may know what it is and whence 't is that men are called Prophets Prophecy is a manifesting by divine inspiration What Prophesie is of hidden or secret things whether past present or to come I say a manifestation of hidden things that is of things that are not or cannot be knowne or manifested any other way 2. By Divine inspiration which is the onely way in which things secret and not revealed can be manifested 3. I add Whether the things be past present or to come because Prophecying is not onely of things future but (a) Nec futura tantum praedicere est prophetare sed praeterita praesentia humanae scientiae industriaeimpossibilia câ—gnitu Fl. Illyr Cl. Ser. par 1. p. 973. present and past also Moses he Prophecyed of the Creation of things unknowne to others Elisha by a Propheticall spirit discovered Gehazi's theft 2 K. 5.25 26. He disclosed the King of Syria's Counsell and the present posture of his Army 2 Kings 6.8 9. The Prophets often Prophesied of the present wickednesse of the people as in Isai 1.1 2. c. Here you see is Prophecying of things past and present as well as things to come So that the P. G. Routed is much mistaken in the reason he gives why the Prophets in the time of the Law were denominated or called Prophets 'T was not because they foretold things to come as is proved but because they manifested to others by Divine inspiration things that were secret and not knowne whether past present or to come it makes no difference And observe too in this they spake to edification as was proved before even as the Prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are said to do And therefore this reason alledged to prove the Prophets in the Gospel dayes ordinary is very frivolous and weak If there were any difference betweene the Prophets before Christ and those in the Apostles time it lay either in the clearnesse of their Prophecies one above the other or else in this that the inspiration of the one was (b) Afflatus Apostolorum non erat similis afflatui Prophetarum non enim erat ecstaticus sed compositus sedatus c. Cam. Tom. 3. p. 319. Extaticall and violent and the other ordinarily more quiet and sedate viz. the inspiration of the Prophets spoken of in 1 Cor. 14. concerning whom 't is said vers 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets That is (c) So Fl. Illyr in his Cl. Script Part 2. p. 194. And Cam. Tom. 3. p. 76. p. 461. Expound this place the Spirit of Prophecy was not so violent on them but that they had power to containe themselves and to stay one for another and so to speak in order Whereas usually 't was otherwise with the Prophets in the Old Testament in whom the inspiration was many times so violent that they could not take their owne time for Prophecying as these in the New Testament ordinarily could But both had an extraordinary inspiration of things secret and not revealed and manifested from the which both the one and the other were denominated Prophets Now if the P. G. Routed can bring me any in our dayes that are extraordinarily or immediatly inspired by God unto the manifestation of things not revealed already I will own them to be
give an account he is then examined concerning his skill in the Originall Languages his knowledge in the doctrine of the Gospel c. which is proved by a disputation on some controversie in Divinity that it may be knowne whether he can maintaine the truth against Gainayers Then is he to Preach publiquely for the tryall of his gifts And is here no proving of our knowledge of the Lord and his wayes 'T is strange a man should venture to publish to the world things so apparently untrue The Sixth Argument Those Ministers that are diametrically opposite to the Priests and shavelings of Antichrist Arg. 6. cannot be Antichristian But the Ministers of England are so Therefore c. To this he answers You are so in some circumstantialls not in the substance for you owne their Ministry true The P. G. Routed their Ordinances true c. 1. What doe we differ from them Reply only in circumstantialls Ah poor man that can shift no better to helpe his bad cause Are Justification by works worshipping of Images praying to Saints the Masse c. but circumstantialls Sure hee 'l prove himselfe the best Advocate for Rome if he can make this good that the things we differ from them in be onely circumstantialls But 2. Is it not notoriously false that we acknowledge their Church Ministry Ordinances as true What if Mr Hall in his second Argument doe acknowledge that they were so so does that famous worthy Mr Burton who lost his ears under the Arch-Episcopall Tyranny for the truth of Christ in his answer to Mr Chomley's defence of the Church of Rome He grants they had the essence of a Church untill the Councell of Trent but not afterward when they were compleatly apostatized and the faithfull had withdrawne from them So doe we acknowledge also not that their Church and Ministry is true now There is yet one rub more which he labours to take out of his way 'T is urged that our ministers doe convert souls and therefore appear to be sent of God in that their Embassage is made succesfull by God To this he answers If conversion be a proof of a Minister in office The P. G. Routed then women may be Ministers in office or any man by whom God converts c. Who but one of a womanish spirit and brain would have given such an answer Reply No man sayes that converting soules proves all ministers in office that do convert but 't is a proofe of the ministry of those that doe officiate as ministers and in so doing convert This is most evident by what Paul speaks 1 Cor. 9.2 If a private Christian making use of his Talents in his place and within his sphere doe convert souls this is a seal of Gods approving such pious means as he uses in order to the same Even so if a man officiate as a minister in office and God blesse his endeavours with the conversion of souls 't is a seal of his mission And the reason is because God will not ordinarily concur with such as he sends not Such as pretend unto an office from God when he never gave them any use not to have successe given them by God in dispensing the same God will not seal to a false and pretended ministry by his blessing the same as is plaine Jer. 23.21 22. wherefore it is evident that seing the Lord hath continually blessed the labours of our Ministers with the conversion of many souls our ministers are the true ministers of Christ But he sayes page 71. In this likewise hath the Lord manifested his approving and calling the Preaching Brethren The P. G. Routed the great number of converts from Antichristian and Babilonish ignorance and confusion c. Converts Answ he means Anabaptisticall Proselytes whom they have drawne away from holding any communion with the people of God in this Nation or in any of the Churches of Christ in the world A fine piece of Conversion indeed Let him shew me any that have been brought off from a carnall sensuall living unto a reall and serious profession of the power of godlinesse by such Preachers ministring as they do without being appointed unto the office according to the rules of Christ and he will shew more then ever I could find in all mine experience I do not doubt but men really gifted ministring their gifts in a peaceable and orderly manner as becomes men in a private capacity may have their endeavours blest with the Conversion of souls but as for such as goe beyond their line and contentiously usurp the ministeriall function as the P. G. Routed and such like travelling Preachers doe well may they pervert many I never found they converted any That which he adds That the conversion our Ministers boast of is not a conversion from sin to God but onely from sin to resting in duty It is such a palpable untruth and so big of envy and pride that I shall say nothing to it Let Saints experiences speak You have seen the invalidity and weaknesse of his answers to those six Arguments that prove our Ministers free from Antichristianisme notwithstanding what he alledges they firmely prove that which they are brought for therefore I shall not add any more Onely in a word or two I shall examine the strength of his Arguments to prove the affirmative that they are Antimristian His Arguments as six in number but onely one in weight and that the first which is as followes Those Ministers whose Ordination by succession came from the authority of the Pope The P. G. Routed are Antichristian But your Ordination by succession came from the authority of the Pope Ergo c. This is his Vnum magnum which if I can answer Answ the controversie will be at an end I shall first distinguish as to his first Proposition and so answer I would faine know what he means by An Ordination comming by succession from the Authority of the Pope the expression is equivocall Whether doth he meane such an Ordination as came by succession from the Popes authority as the first Originall of it or else such an Ordination as came from the Pope onely by being conveyed downe to us through his hands If he meane the former then I deny his second Proposition The ministers of England have not such an Ordination as came by succession from the Popes authority as the first Originall of it For that Ordination which they have as to its substance was appointed by Jesus Christ and grounded on the Scriptures 1 Tim. 3.10.4.14 Tit. 1.5 Acts 14.23 c. If he meane the latter then I deny his first Proposition For all ministers are not Antichristian that have such an Ordination as descending from Christ ha's sometime past through the Popes hand for if so then all that ha's past through his hands must be Antichristian which if we grant then not onely our ministry and baptisme but the Scriptures also must be Antichristian