Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	church_n	revelation_n	2,546	5	9.7999	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80164	Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici revindicatæ: or The preacher (pretendedly) sent, sent back again, to bring a better account who sent him, and learn his errand: by way of reply, to a late book (in the defence of gifted brethrens preaching) published by Mr. John Martin of Edgefield in Norfolk, Mr. Samuel Petto of Sandcroft in Suffolk, Mr. Frederick Woodale of Woodbridge in Suffolk: so far as any thing in their book pretends to answer a book published, 1651. called Vindiciæ ministerii evangelici; with a reply also to the epistle prefixed to the said book, called, The preacher sent. By John Collinges B.D. and pastor of the church in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1658 (1658)	Wing C5348; Thomason E946_4; ESTC R207611	103,260	172

understanding I will therefore tell them we know our Brethren are not to learn that Relations are of two sorts The first Logicians call Relata secundum esse real relations Such whose whole being as relations lye in their relation such are the Relations of Father and Son Husband and Wife Master and Servant The Father as a Father hath no other being but in his relation to a Son and so of the rest this is called Relatio praedicamentalis of these Relations their rule rightly understood is true 2. But secondly there are other Relations too called in Logick Relata secundum dici nominal relations yet such as have a reality of Relation but not such a one that all the being of the Relations as such is wrapt up in their relation this relation they call Relatio transcendentalis As now Scibile Scientia A thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing are relations and instanced in as such by most Logicians Yet neither the one nor the other of these relations have all their being in their relations Of these Relations we say and all say the Rule is false and reason will enforce it For example This 20th of Jan. there is a knowledge existent of the nature of an Eclypse but the Eclypse which is the thing to be known is not existent The knowledge of the nature of thunder is existent But it doth not thunder So that our Brethrens Argument runs upon a supposition that we say the office and the work are Relata secundum esse Relations of the first sort but we are not of that mind for we think the whole essence of office lyeth not in its Relation But in that authority wherewith the person is clothed by his ordination which holds when his person is restrained from the exercise of it 2. In eodem entitalis gradu vel ut Ens in actu vel ut Ens in potestate Zabarel Secondly saith Zabarel the Rule is true that Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an Officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines in him so long as there is a possibility that he may one day do it The Mayor of Norwich is my Lord Protectors Officer for the Government of the City and none in their sober mind but will say he is Mayor and the government of the City are related each to other Suppose the Mayor now sick or in prison is he not an officer because at present he cannot execute his Office According to the first answer we deny the major and by vertue of the second we deny the minor And we hope our Brethren will deny the Conclusion Hence Christian Reader thou mayest see our Brethren deal not kindly with thee when they tell thee As well may you affirm a man to be a Father who hath no Son nor child or a man to be an husband who hath no wife as you may affirm a man to be a Minister who hath no employment For these are relations that widely differ from the Relation betwixt an officer and his work A Father as he is a Father is a thing hath no being without a child and so cannot be but an officer if at present he hath no work yet hath as an officer an authority and power to do such a work when he hath opportunity I would fain know of our Brethren whether a man may not be in the office of a Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the government of them It is his Commission makes him an Officer and authorizeth him to gather a Regiment and execute his authority as soon as he hath opportunity Neither do we say a man can be no officer who hath no employment but we say a man may be an officer who at present may want opportunity to do what is his employment and he is by his office authorized unto And now I suppose every Reader will understand the weakness of our Brethrens first Argument which Logicians call a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Their second Argument is in sum this Relations and Correlations exist together but the office Arg. 2 must necessarily be before the work because it is a means in order to the end Therefore the office of the Ministry and the work cannot be Correlates The Reader will easily see the bottom of this Argument is the same Canon in Logick which was the foundation of the other Argument We grant that the office is a means in order to the work as its end and we say that the office must be before the work But we say these are no such relations as must necessarily be Simul Naturâ and exist together except they mean in eodem entitatis gradu and so sunt simul they are together though they do not exist together consider them as Entia in potestate they are Simul Natura and so it is not necessary that the means should be before the End In short the very same answer serveth as before Arg. 3 Our Brethrens third Argument lyeth thus That which the Gospel owneth as the Correlate to the Ministers office that is the Correlate But the Gospel owns the Church not the work as Correlate to the office Ergo. The major we confess but say there wants a word in it That which alone the Gospel owns is the only Correlate The minor we deny we confess that the Gospel owns the Church as a Correlate to the office of the Ministry Acts 20.27 But we say it owns the work too Eph. 4.11 12. he gave some Apostles some Pastors and Teachers For the work of the Ministry and I hope Eph. 4. is as much Gospel as Acts 20.17 Our Brethren say here again That Officers are not related to the Employment of the Ministry Christian Reader it must surely offend thy Eares surely we would not much desire such Officers The truth is they do Dividere componenda which is a fallacy in Logick Officers are related to Church and work too and except our Brethren had been guilty of too overweening a desire to make the world believe our Brethren at London were no Logicians they would have acknowledged it with half this stir Arg. 4 Our Brethrens fourth Argument in form lyes thus If the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture be such as proclume them relates to the Church not to the work then they are so related But the names and titles given to Ministers in Scripture as do aloud proclame that officer and Church are relates not officer and imployment Ergo. To prove the minor they instance in the titles of Pastors Teachers c. 1. To all which we answer 1. That it is a feeble argumentation which is drawn from names and titles definitio nominis doth onely terminate the question quid nominis not the question quid rei the definition of a name is not alwayes adequate to the definition of a

gifts though every one had not more than one yet some might as Paul had the word of knowledge and wisdom and tongues and miracles and interpretation of tongues So I see nothing to hinder but he that had the special gift of prophecie might besides have the word of wisdom and knowledge 3. Supposing prophecie to have been a gift of foretelling things to come or explication of Scripture by an infallible Spirit without use of means yet they might speak edification exhortation and comfort which is all mentioned 1 Cor. 14.3 the Prophets of old Isaiah Jeremiah c. did all but the nature of their gift and the specifical difference of it did not lye in the thing spoken or the End but in the principle enabling them so to speak 4. Our Brethren therefore shall never prove that exhortation c. was the distinctive act of the Prophet as they would insinuate for they themselves must grant that common to Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers with them and this is an answer to their third thing For what they say before that prophecie Rom. 12.6 7 8. is distinguished from exhortation it signifies nothing because exhortation was not the act of Prophets as Prophets It was told our Brethren that 1 Cor. 13.8 the Apostle saith Whether there be prophecies they shall fail whether there be tongues they shall cease whether there be knowledge that shall vanish away Our Brethren answer ver 9 10. it shall be Page 114. when that which is in part is done away 2. Not till the ceasing of knowledge in part 1. We may as well maintain tongues not to be ceased for they also are mentioned ver 8. as things which should fail and we know they are failed and so we judge are prophecies too nor will it help our Brethren which they say that ver 9. it is not said tongues are in part for the reason is because they were perfect in their kinde and so need not be done away when that which is perfect should come but if we take perfect in a true sense for a perfection of the Saints in glory then indeed they were imperfect things serving only as means in order to that end Neither doth the Apostle speak of the coming of that which is perfect as the moving cause or reason of that ceasing of things that were in part he doth not say that which is in part shall be done away by the coming of that which is perfect but he speaks of it as a consequent The true sense is this Both ordinary and extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church shall cease when we come in heaven we conceive by tongues and prophecy he means gifts extraordinary By knowledge ordinary gifts and offices these shall all fail at that day but some of these shall fail before others We lay no great stress upon this Text I have only said thus much to prevent our Brethrens using of it as they here do though without any just ground for the truth is it will serve neither party It was told our Brethren that prophecying 1 Cor. 14. is said not to serve for those that believed not and therefore our Brethren must keep their Gifted men to their Churches If any thing can be clear in Scripture surely this is from that Text 1 Cor. 14.22 To this our Brethren Answer 1. That it will warrant their preaching in Church Assemblies 2. That the Apostles intent seemeth to be but to deny prophecy to be a sign to unbelievers and to serve onely for Believers to edifie them but they say the Apostle acknowledgeth it to be usefull to unbelievers to convert them To which I answer 1. If there were any Prophets indeed this would warrant the exercise of their gifts to Church Assemblies but our Brethren cannot prove any such Prophets now existent But Secondly It is well our Brethren say no more than this seemeth to be the Apostles intent for the Letter of Scripture is express against them in these words Wherefore tongues are for a sign 1 Cor. 14.22 not to them that believe but to them that believe not but prophecying not for them that believe not but for them that believe Our Brethren would make us believe that the sense is only that prophecie was not for a sign to them that believed not but for their conversion it might be Let any indifferent Reader weigh this a little and judge betwixt us 1. It is plain that if prophecying were for any sign it must be for unbelievers for believers needed no sign they had already received the Gospel but the Apostle plainly says it was not for unbelievers 2. Let any Reader judge whether those words But prophecying not for those who believe not do not plainly exclude the Ordinance from any relation to unbelievers if it were a sign at all it must be for them who believed not but say our Brethren it is denied to be a sign for them and the words are plain enough it is not for them Object Oh! But though it be not a sign for them yet it might be to convert them Answ Signs were to help forward the unbelievers convetsion now that prophecy should be for their conversion and not a sign for it seems very harsh considering that the world had no greater sign of the truth of the Gospel than Prophecies For what our Brethren say that ver 25 26. prove that prophecy is usefull for the conversion of unbelievers We grant it but it is When the unbeliever comes in to the Church Assembly not when the Prophet goes out to them ver 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and ver 24. There come in one that believeth not or is unlearned he is convinced or reproved of all i. e. those that prophesie he is judged of all c. Mark the Prophet is tied up to the Assembly of the Church in one place If our Brethrens Brethren be of this sort of Prophets what do they travelling up and down Countreys whom they think unbelievers or intruding upon Congregations that are vacant where there is no Assembly our Brethren will own as a Church these Prophets were not by vertue of this Text to be sent out of the Church only to be heard in it This is all our Brethren say about these Prophets and although I really think their Argument from this Text the most probable of any they have yet I hope an equitable Reader will from what I have said judge it not conclusive in the case I wonder at the reverend opinion our Brethren express of their other Arguments in comparison of this But let the Reader judge Only led me add one text more to prove this prophecying an extraordinary gift not ordinary it is that Acts 19.6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied Let any indifferent Reader weigh this Text and con●ider whether that the Gospel-prophesying were not one

therefore follow he cannot pray in Faith We use to teach our People that our prayers for things not necessary to salvation should be prayed for with submission to Gods will and the prayer is in Faith while he that prays believes God will do that which is most good for him so might every member of the Church of Corinth pray for a gift that he might be able to prophesie but he ought to regulate his desires with a submission to the will and wisdom of God and doing so he might pray in faith though there were no such particular promise Object But say our Brethren this was impossible to be obtained 1 Cor. 12.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be If I should tell our Brethren here To God nothing is impossible they would think I equivocated with them yet it is the coyn they have much used in payment to me but where lyes the impossibility in respect of Gods revealed will they instance in 1 Cor. 22.17 If the whole body were an eye where would hearing be That Text indeed proves that all the Members of a particular Church cannot be officers to that Church and we wish our Brethren would think of that Text who gave leave to any of their members to be tongues to speak the word ears to hear and heads to govern whiles they order all affairs by common suffrage But surely it will not follow but that all those who are members in this particular Church may yet be in time Officers to other Churches there is no impossibility in this at all yea and they ought to labour after such a perfection Besides universal holiness our Brethren know may and ought to be laboured for yet it is not promised nor can be attained We allow also that Text to prove that all the Members of the universal Church should not be ordinary Officers But it doth not prove an impossibility of their being extraordinary officers Much less doth any thing they have said prove that all Christians in that Church might not labour for such gifts as might make them fit to do an act of office when God should set them in such relations Neither can I understand the harshness of the sound which our Brethren hint pag. 92. That it should be the duty of every private Christian to pray for such a proportion of gifts as if God pleased so to imploy him he might also be able to interpret Scriptures by an unerring Spirit and speak with tongues or be able to heal the sick provided his End were right in desiring For these were peculiar favours that God had promised by Joel and was giving out in that Age. Surely what the Apostle might wish for them they might pray for but 1 Cor. 14.5 I would that you all spake with tongues They proceed to the proof of the Minor viz. That the prophecying spoken of ought in duty and might in faith be coveted by every man in the Church of Corinth this they prove from the terms ye and all v. 1. v. 5. To which I answer 1. Having denyed the Major and made good our denial of it I need not trouble my self with denying this 2. Our Brethren also know the term all doth not include every individual always Are all Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Let us hear what they say to our Arguments to prove that these prophets were Officers 1. We argued from two Texts of Scriptures 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. Where they stand distinguished from the people and enumerated amongst officers placed before Evangelists and next to the Apostles To this they answer p. 93 94 95. 1. That priority of order is no infallible Argument 2. That some not Officers are enumerated 1 Cor. 12.28 and prophecie is called a gift Rom. 12.6 3. Those texts might be meant of extraordinary Prophets such as Acts 11.27 28. To all which I shall give a short answer 1. We grant priority of order is no infallible Argumen where there is any other Scripture or any sound reason to evince it no intention of the holy Pen-men to express the Order but we say our brethren have no such Text nor reason neither and that the Apostle in that Text Eph. 4.11 12. seems to rank Preaching Officers according to their dignity beginning with Apostles then reckoning Evangelists Thirdly Prophets Fourthly Pastors Fifthly Teachers And verse 12. To distinguish them from ordinary Saints and the common Members of the Body of Christ 2. We say there are none but Officers mentioned Eph. 4.11 12. Nor any 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But such as were either officers or gifted with extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost from whence we conclude That Prophets were either extraordinary officers or ordinary officers or gifted with extraordinary gifts peculiar to that state of the Church Now it is indifferent to us as to the present controversie of which it be understood So our Brethren will grant that one of them must be meant and so much that Text will evince If Gifted men be meant I wonder who are the Church in which they are set ver 29. Our Brethren say prophecie is called a Gift Rom. 12.6 but there is nothing plainer than that by gift is meant office to him that readeth ver 7.8 3. Whereas our Brethren say those Texts 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12. may be meant of extraordinary prophets Pag. 96. we take them at their word and say it is all we have been contending for only then it lies upon our brethren to prove that the prophets spoken of 1 Cor. 14. are not the same spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 we appeal to every judicious Christian to judge in the Case In the next place our Brethren undertake to prove it a gift still continuing in the Church 1. Because there is no Gospel Rule for the ceasing of it So say the Prelates for Arch-bishops and Bishops where is the rule for the ceasing of their Office We say the Apostles giving Rules for the ordaining Pastors and Teachers in Churches and committing government to them was enough and the cessation of their extraordinary Mission was enough So we say for these Prophets the cessation of the Gift manifested by obvious experience is a demonstration to us that prophecie is ceased where is there any now that can without study and meditation infallibly give the sense of Scriptures from revelation or can foretell things to come we have pitifull experience every day that those pleaded for cannot do the first and the year 1657. being come and gone and the Jews not converted proves that John Tillinghast though as famous and able as any our Brethren plead for prove they cannot do the later As we say to the Prelatical party so we say to our Brethren St. Pauls charging Timothy to study and meditate c. was a certain proof that this prophecying is ceased Secondly Our Brethren say it was an ordinary gift and therefore it continues the gift of tongues and healing in those days were ordinary yet

none of them is continuing I hope What else our Brethren mean by ordinary I cannot tell for if they mean it was given by God for a standing Ordinance it is yet to be proved for this they refer us to Mr. Rutherford a man whom I honour but am not of his minde in this thing It was indeed his opinion that the Apostle by prophecying 1 Cor. 14.1 means no other than the ordinary acts of Pastors and Teachers though from an extraordinary principle and faculty so that still he thought the gift was extraordinary which they by their prophecying did exercise For those eight particulars instanced in by Mr. Rutherford recited by our brethren p. 99 100. we say they were no other than rules of order which extraordinary officers as well as ordinary were to be limited by But I wonder our brethren should quote Mr. Rutherford and set down his words too which plainly say he thought the gift extraordinary though their acts were but the acts of ordinary Officers These are his words as quoted by our Brethren Only the internal principle to wit the infused gift of prophecying made them extraordinary prophets in fieri as our prophets become prophets in fieri by ordinary studies and industry but in facto esse and according to the substance of the acts of prophecying these extraordinary Prophets and our ordinary Pastors differ not in specie c. Let any Reader who understands English judge whether Mr. Rutherford thought the Gift of prophecie was ordinary he indeed thought the Act was viz. That God in those days by Revelation immediatly gifted the Ministers of his Gospel in the Church of Corinth but our brethren are to prove the Gift is ordinary if they remember what they undertook pag. 96. to prove which Mr. Rutherford will do them no kindness The faculty of seeing was in an extraordinary manner given to the blind man and the conversion of the water into wine at Cana John 2. which are the two instances Master Rutherford insists upon were both extraordinary though when the blind man had his visive faculty by a Miracle conferred his seeing was but ordinary as other men and when the Wine was made it tasted like other Wine Our Brethren proceed still with their fallacy of arguing from the Act to the Gift or rather of putting in Act where they should have put in Gift pag. 100. 1. And they again tell us the Rules to regulate the work are ordinary what is this to prove the gift is so the Act may be ordinary and yet the Gift not so as in the case of the blind man before mentioned The work of extraordinary officers and gifts were to come under general Rules of order I hope 2. But they tell us the description of the work is ordinary What if it be The question is what the description of the Gift would be the description of the Gift of seeing and the Act of seeing are two things I hope so in this case but where is that description They tell us 1 Cor. 14.3 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort Hete they tell us is the Act Exhortation 2. The Ends of it exhortation and comfort Surely our Brethren presumed that none should ever examine what they say the Text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that prophecyeth speaketh unto men edification and exhortation and comfort 1. So far as it is a description It is a description of the Act not of the gift Secondly Our Brethren if they had pleased might as well have said edification or comfort was the Act as they say exhortation is for the Text proves the one as well as the other The truth is the Apostle by these words only expresseth the end of prophecying and such ends as were common to that with other ordinances duties too If I should say Paul working miracles confirmed the Gospel f r the conversion of unbelievers would it follow that the Act of working miracles was confirming the Gospel In the third place they tell us That one great end of extraordinary prophecying and their main and proper act viz. foretelling future events is denyed to this prophecying This they say but they have not told us where that denial is to be found and I cannot find it All that I can find them saying is this 1 Cor. 14.22 It is said Tongues were for a sign to them that believed not but Prophecy serveth not for them who believe not but for those that believe Hence they observe That the antithesis betwixt Tongues and Prophets that tongues were for a sign but not prophecie proves that prophecy could not be for a sign But this is wofully fallacious 1. The Antithesis lyes not there that Tongues were for a sign but prophecie not so but here That tongues were for a sign to heathens that bel●eved not but prophecying was a sign only for such as believed viz. It was an act only to be performed within the pale of the Church this text only proves that prophecie was no sign to them that believed not 2. Though the foretelling of things to come might bear the nature of a sign yet this was not the only end of it but the faith and holiness of the persons to whom the prophecie was directed neither indeed could the foretelling of things to come confirm any thing to any till they saw them accomplished 3. I conceive the chief act of those Prophetesses 1 Cor. 14. was their infallible interpretation of Scripture by an extraordinary gift which indeed to them that believed not the Scriptures would be of no use but was to such as did believe them Fourthly Our Brethren say Women Prophetesses are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 But women Prophetesses might prophesie things to come Luke 2.38 1. I answer that our Brethren do not find women prophetesses mentioned 1 Cor. 14.34 only women 2. Secondly our Brethren do not finde that Anna Luke 2.36 spake things to come the Text only saith She gave thanks unto the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel She spake of a Christ already born She was called a Prophetess in all probability because of an extraordinary faculty she had from Divine revelation to interpret Seripture So that our Brethren see this kinde of publike prophecying by their own instance belonged to women and therefore by their own Argument was extraordinary But the truth is this Liberty was restrained by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.37 But this is enough to shew the weakness of our Brethrens Argument Our Brethren having spent their shot upon us come at last to receive a volly from us to prove prophecie an extraordinary gift we had told our Brethren 1. That ver 26. it was evident When therefore you come together every one of you hath a Psalm a doctrine a revelation an interpretation I have put in the word doctrine now though I think it will not much serve our Brethrens turn 2. That

proph●●s are mentioned with a note of singularity denying it to be a gift common to all 1 Cor. 12. 29 30. Are all prophets 3. That prophets in all the Old Testament and new too signified extraordinary officers who acted from immediate revelation 4. That prophecie is reckoned up as one of the rarest gifts the Apostles had 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.16 preferred before Tongues 1 Cor. 14.1 2. Paul compared himself with them 1 Cor. 14.37 5. That it is distinguished from the word of wisdom and knowledge 6. That it is said prophecyes shall fail 1 Cor. 13.8 7. That prophecying is said not to serve for those that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 To the first our Brethren answer that we left out the word doctrine 1 Cor. 14.26 The charge falls not on me but now it is put in let us see what our brethren get by it The sense of the text must be Either that every individual member of the Church of Corinth had all these and then they all had extraordinary gifts for surely the gift of composing Psalms and the gift of Revelation c. must be no ordinary gifts If this be the sense the prophecying in the Church of Corinth was by persons extraordinarily gifted infallibly inspired and so the Argument of our Brethren from their example fails because they argue à pari where is no parity in the species of Gifts Or else the sense must be one of you hath a doctrine another a Psalm another a Revelation c. If this be the sense how do our Brethren prove that the Doctrine belonged to the prophets Other Scriptures quoted by our Brethren 1 Tim. 5.17 Tit. 1.9 make labouring in Doctrine the work of Pastors and Teachers if the Doctrine were the Pastors Teachers part either the Psalm or the Revelation must be the Prophets work for the interpretation clearly belonged ●o tongues or at least related to it 1 Cor. 14.13 1 Cron. ●hren take which they will the Gift was extraordinary Our Brethren say that Revelation is distinguished from Prophecy ver 6. but they did not consider that in the same words it is distinguished from Doctrine too What shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by prophecying or by doctrine From whence we easily conclude that the prophecying meant 1 Cor. 14. was not speaking to people by doctrine and yet this is the trade to which our Brethren would pretend a Freedom for their gifted Brethren Object But say our brethren It may be meant of ordinary revelation Eph. 1.16 17 18. Answ Let what revelation will be meant It is not doctrine these Prophets spake not by Doctrine that was another thing ver 6. Now I think preaching is a speaking by Doctrine And that is it to justifie which we say no proof can be produced from this Text. Secondly We grant an ordinary revelation sano sensu that is That the Lord by his Spirit doth ordinarily give his people in the use of due means such a knowledge of his written word as is necessary for their salvation yea as may be for their consolation that they may as to their own souls know the hope of his Calling as in that text Eph. 1.16 17 18. quoted by our brethren and know their own grace and right unto glory 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 12. Phil. 3.15 That they may be resolved in their doubts and come up to perfection in knowledge and holiness But all this as to their own private use Let our Brethren bring us any shadow of Scripture to prove that God hath promised ordinarily to reveal unto his people such a knowledge of the Scriptures as they may publikely and ordinarily communicate it in Church Assemblies Whereas we told them Prophets are mentioned with a note of singularity 1 Cor. 12.29 30. they tell us so was the gift of Teaching yet it is an ordinary office Every Reader will consider that it was enough for us to prove either that these Prophets were Officers or that they had an extraordinary gift It is true the note of singularity affixed or indeed the term of restriction affixed rather will not prove the gift was extraordinary but it will prove that either the Prophets were Officers or the gift was extraordinary for no others are there enumerated but extraordinary or ordinary officers or such as had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost To our third Allegation That the title Prophets and the term prophecying in all the Old Testament is peculiar to persons that were extraordinary Officers and extraordinarily gifted and generally so in the New Testament Our Brethren answer 1. That they have given many Arguments to prove that in 1 Cor. 14. neither Officers nor persons extraordinarily gifted are meant and that chapter speaking chiefly of Prophecie as the subject is most fit to interpret it But their several Reasons being answered no more need be added 2. It is questionable they say whether in some of the places mentioned the word prophecying be taken either for an act of Office or for an exercise of an extraordinary gift and to this purpose they mention Acts 13.1 Rev. 10.11 Mat. 7.22 Mat. 13.57 Luke 4.24 Mat. 10.41 Acts 15.32 To which I answer Indeed our Brethren of London p. 94. and my self from others p. 50. did say that we conceive where ever Prophets or Prophecie are mentioned in Scripture some extraordinary Gift or Office is understood It had been enough for us to have said that generally it is so But being the word is out let it go and let us examine the places our brethren have picked out to prove the contrary 1. For that Text Matth. 7.22 Many shall say to me in that day Lord Lord we have prophesied in thy name and in thy name have we cast out devils and done many miracles We grant that it cannot be from hence demonstratively proved that the prophecying here mentioned was an extraordinary Gift because the other two things mentioned were but we appeal to all the world whether this be not a strong presumption on our side and such as our Brethren can never disprove For that text Acts 13.1 There were certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch These were such Prophets as were joyned with Teachers 2. Preferred before them according to the order also used 1 Cor. 12.28 29. Eph. 4.11 12. 3. Such as the Spirit called to ordain Paul and Barnabas Let any reasonably judge whether these can be thought the ordinary gifted men of that Church for Rev. 10.11 John in a vision took a little Book from the Angel and did eat it And then the Angel said to him Thou mayest prophesie again c. Was this by vertue of ordinary gift think we Their next is Matth. 13.57 A prophet is not without honour but in his own Country this Rule they say is true of all faithfull Teachers Saint Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 commands Timothy to watch in all things to endure afflictions to do the work