Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	keep_v	let_v	silence_n	1,652	5	9.6134	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55393	Quo warranto, or, A moderate enquiry into the warrantablenesse of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons where also some other questions are discussed : viz. concerning [brace] ministerial relation, election, ordination : being a vindication of the late Jus divinum ministerii evangeliei ... from the exceptions of Mr. John Martin, Mr. Sam. Pette, Mr. Frederick Woodal ... in their late book, intituled The preacher sent / by Matthew Poole ...	Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.	1659 (1659)	Wing P2850; ESTC R33938	110,108	175

also was the work of Apostles 2. The work indeed was ordinary but the manner of doing it was extraordinary in as much as these did it infallibly and by immediate revelation Arg. 3. But here is no mention of extraordinary work of a gift of praediction which is required to all extraordinary Prophets but the contrary is intimated and this prophesying is here said to be not a sign for them that believe not which praediction of events is but for them that believe Ans. 1. Date non concesso that these Prophets had not the gift of prediction that no way hinders but they might be extraordinary Officers for besides this they had another extraordinary gift to wit a gift of infallible teaching by immediate revelation Divers of the Apostles had not this gift of praediction that we read of and yet I hope our Brethren will give them their passe for extraordinary Officers 2. For my part I am prone to conceive and let our Brethren disprove it that the praediction of future events was rather a priviledge indulged to some New Testament Prophets than common to all Prophets The gift of miracles was a gift bestowed upon Prophets and yet some wanted it for Iohn though a Prophet yet did no miracle Ioh. 10. 41. However the great and principal work of these New Testament Prophets and the old also was preaching c. and therefore although these Prophets 1 Cor. 14 had the gift of praediction yet it is no wonder that the title of prophesying should be appropriated to the most common principal and famous part of the work which is preaching 3. And how poor an evidence is this to prove that these Prophets could not foretell future events because it is not mentioned in this Chapter the rather because he here speaks of the Prophets not in relation to unbeleevers for whose-sake the gift of prediction was given but in relation to beleevers and to the Church and concerning the ordering of the work of prophesying or preaching in and to the Church-assembly 4. We readily grant all which can be proved from this place which is only this that the preaching of these Prophets for it is that act of the Prophets which is here called prophesying is not for them that believe not but for them that beleeve It is not said that these Prophets were given not for a sign to them that beleeve not c. which had been more to the purpose but that that act of their Office there spoken of was not for a signe c. 5. If they had not that particular extraordinary gift of praediction yet had they divers other extraordinary gifts as that of Tongues and the interpretation of them c. and that was sufficient to make the persons extraordinary though they wanted some other extraordinary gift Arg. Publick Prophesying extraordinary was allowed to women Luke 2. 36 38. But this publick Prophesying was not allowed to women v. 34. let your women keep silence Therefore this publick Prophesying was ordinary p. 102. Ans. That extraordinary Prophesying was allowed to women in publick either in the old or new Testament hath been often said and supposed but never yet could I see it proved nor can one instance be given of it that I know of to wit that any woman did preach in a publick Assembly and there lies the stresse Anna might speak to all i. e. severally as they came by turnes to the Temple and so might Priscilla occasionally speak privately as she had opportunity And indeed we read that when she preached she chose to do it privately Act. 18. But neither of them in a publick Assembly But that Argument is so fully handled by others that I shall not need to dilate upon it here And thus we have seen how infirm our Brethrens Arguments are which are brought to prove that this Prophesying was ordinary In the next place I should come to lay down Arguments to prove that it was extraordinary I shall not insist upon all the Arguments used to prove it Some were proposed by Dr. Collings and are by him vindicated in his last piece others I dare venture to stand upon their own legs and refer the comparing of them and the Answers here given to any indifferent Reader And besides Dr. Collings hath eased me of that burden This only I take notice of that this Prophesying was by revelation v. 26. Every one i. e. of you Prophets hath a Psalme a Doctrine a Tongue a revelation an interpretation And v. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace To which our Brethren answer two things 1. They say All these enumerated were not extraordinary A Doctrine is ordinary the ordinary Elders have a Doctrine p. 103. Reply It is true of ordinary Officers they had a Doctrine it is true also of extraordinary Officers they had a Doctrine but not both in the same way in the one it was extraordinary in the other ordinary so that from the bare mention of a Doctrine it can neither be collected that that Doctrine was ordinary nor that it was extraordinary but that must be gathered from the circumstances of the place and for this place whereas the Office here spoken of is extraordinary as we have proved and the word Doctrine is at least ambiguous It is more probable that this Doctrine is meant of an extraordinary kind as the rest are which are there enumerated than that it is meant of an ordinary Doctrine when nothing else here spoken of s ordinary 2. They say that the word revelation is somtimes taken for a revelation in an ordinary way that is by the word c. Ans. That is readily granted and needed no proof but it must be added that somtimes also it is taken in an extraordinary sense so that now we are to enquire which way it is to be taken here and which way the circumstances of the text restrain that common word Now that it is meant of extraordinary revelation four things will procure belief with unbyassed Readers 1. That the word is of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be revealed not if it have been revealed as it should have been for the revelation of the word was past 2. The posture in which it is revealed when he sitteth by 3. The effect of such a revelation that it gives a stop to the others discourse 4. That this revelation was not common to all the Church but peculiar to these Prophets and not common to all the Prophets neither but peculiar to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some one that sitteth by and therefore surely it cannot be the revelation by the Word which is common to all the Prophets yea all the Church Nor is there any weight in what is further objected by our Brethren that if this revelation should command silence to a Prophet speaking by immediate revelation then the same Spirit should clash with it self For though these Prophets did speak

Tim. 3. 2. as to say that it was designed for the work of prayer because they especially must give themselves to prayer 2. For the Deacons work that is not barely the distribution of worldly goods but the distribution of the Churches goods which our Brethren here do either subtilly or unwarily which I rather think confound and this latter none but the Deacon may do so that this may be retorted upon them that as the appointment of the Deacon for that work of distributing the Churches almes is a sufficient reason to prove that no private man ought to do it so also is the appointment of a Minister for the work of preaching a sufficient intimation that other persons may not undertake that work 3. For that work of reproving and exhorting they may do it but privatly not publickly Against this our Brethren object two things 1. If an Officer rebuketh a member in private this he doth as an Officer so that the publicknesse of an act is not necessary to make it an act of Office Reply This depends upon a meer mistake It is one thing to say the publicknesse of the act of exhorting c. makes it an act of Office or that a publick act is an act of Office that we affirm It is another thing to say that no act but a publick act is an act of Office as our Brethren mistake it this we affirm not nor is it for our purpose to assert it nay we assert that an Officers private rebuke is an act of Office 2. They say If it be the different way and manner of acting that maketh an act to be an act of Office then their Argument concerns not the work it self but the manner of working and so all which it proves is this that none ought to do the Officers work in the same manner as he doth it i. e. not officially and this we readily grant Reply Our Argument concerns the work but then it must be the work in question and that our Brethren well know was not exhorting in general but publick exhorting But of this more hereafter It must now be remembred that the Provincial Assembly confirmed the major by three Arguments The first was this Because God hath severely punished such as have done those works for which he hath appointed special Officers as Saul Uzzah To this our Brethren Answer two things 1. That these were cases of necessity and so if they prove any thing they prove that gifted men may not preach no not in a case of necessity which is allowed by your selves Reply The case is not parallel nor is the necessity alike of Preaching and Sacrificing Preaching as our Brethren will grant is absolutely necessary to salvation so is not Sacrificing nor was Sacrificing necessary in that case for Israels deliverance if God had denied an opportunity of sacrificing I conceive the paralell will lie right between their sacrifices and our Sacraments neither of which are necessary to salvation necessitate medii And hereby the Argument will receive further light and strength i. e. Because God hath appointed peculiar Officers for the administration of our Sacraments as well as their Sacrifices therefore they ought not to be administred by persons out of Office no not in any case of a pretended necessity forasmuch as there is no absolute and real necessity of either Sacrifices or Sacraments to salvation And thus far our Brethren must consent with us unlesse they will turn grosse separatists and allow a liberty also for gifted men to administer the Sacraments which I am confident they will not 2. They say the case is not alike for there was an express prohibition of these acts to any except Officers Num. 4. 15. 16. 40. Numb 1. 5. Numb 18. 22 23. The preaching of gifted men is not thus forbidden And besides not only the manner but the matter of these workes were forbidden to others Reply A thing may be prohibited two waies either in expresse terms or by solid consequence I suppose our Brethren are far from that dotage which divers Anabaptists and Socinians run into that we are not to be satisfied with Scripture consequences but to look for express Scripture as if men must not beleeve what God saith unlesse he speak it in their way There are many things confessedly unlawful which are not prohibited in express terms but only by some general rules and Scripture consequences What if I should keep to the instance of Uzzah who was punished not principally at least not solely because he did touch the Ark with his hands but because he did not bear it upon his shoulders which the Levites were to do Now I say as in this case Gods command that the Ark should be carried upon the Levites shoulders was a command that it should be carried so only and it was a prohibition to the Levites or any other to carry it any other way so in our case Gods appointment of Officers to preach is a prohibition to others to invade that work Again let me make this supposition which no ingenuous man can disallow of Suppose that Paul had not expresly prohibited women to preach I desire our Brethren to answer me whether in that case it had been lawfull for gifted women to preach publickly or no If they say yea then I argue thus against them that Paul doth not establish a new Law but revives and interprets an old Law 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as saith the Law So that it was forbidden by the Law before that time and had been unlawful though Paul had never prohibited it If they say no then I argue thus that an expresse prohibition is not necessary for such there had not been in the case supposed nor had women been prohibited any other way but thus Preaching was committed unto certain men in authority commissionated for that work Ergo it was prohibited to persons under authority and because all women are under authority therefore are they universally excluded from this work I add further that it is a granted case in the businesse of the Sacraments the administration whereof is prohibited to all un-officed persons our brethren themselves being Judges and how prohibited There is no more an expresse prohibition to restrain men from administring the Sacraments then from preaching but only it is therefore judged prohibited because God had appointed Officers for the doing of that work and therefore implicitly prohibited the doing of it by others and surely the prohibition doth equally concern both preaching and administring the Sacraments by others forasmuch as both the manner of prohibition is the same in both and the reason of the prohibition to wit because Officers were appointed by God for those works And thus I have vindicated the first proof of the major wherein I have been the larger because it is a principal point and because what our Brethren

of Authority for if a man preach to Heathens where no Church is How can he usurp authority over the Church Reply True he cannot usurp authority over the Church but authority he useth towards them to whom he preacheth when Paul preached to Heathens it was an authoritative act no lesse than when he preached to the Church He preached as an Ambassadour to one as well as to the other And seeing that Paul or any other Minister preaching to Heathens or such as are yet unreconciled preacheth as in Christs stead it can be no other than an act of authority 2. They say There may be other waies to give authority to men to preach besides Ordination Reply Our Brethren should do well to remember that Golden saying of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in nothing without Scripture evidence Ordination we know and there are clear Scriptures warranting that and much more clear and undoubted for that than for Election as hath been often observed but for a Scripture warrant for another way of authorizing men to the work of the Ministry without Ordination we know none and if our Brethren know any they should do well to inform us 3. For Heb 7. They say Indeed he that blesseth by an original inherent power as Christ doth he is greater than he that is blessed and of such a blessing the Text speaketh but he that blesseth Ministerially and instrumentally is not alwaies greater than he that is blessed Reply This is very grosse and contrary to the Text which evidently speaks of Melchizedek who blessed only Ministerially and not by any original power and yet that kind of blessing the Apostle alledgeth as an evidence of his superiority over Abraham as the party blessed and if this were not spoken of Melchizedek it were wholly impertinent to the present cause which was to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham 4. They say There is a plain difference between teaching and usurping authority over the man so the Text runs But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence 1 Tim. 2. 12. Reply 1. This should not have been said by such as pretend to know any thing which belongs to the interpretation of Scripture wherein it is so familiar a thing to use a conjunction disjunctive or a word disjoyning one thing from another when indeed the one explains the other Shall any who reads Rev. 22. 15. For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers thence infer that these sorcerers c. are not the dogs there intended because they are distinguished from them This would be plainly childish And to give an instance in the very same kind of conjunction Gal. 1. 12. speaking of the Gospel he saith For I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Iesus Christ where the latter is not distinct from but expositive of the former for how could he receive it from man any other way then by being taught it 2. For their phrase in this place the Apostle hath so hem'd it in on both sides with an exegesis that no rational man can doubt of it On the one side of it teaching is forbidden on the other side silence is enjoyned and nothing can be more evident then that he speaks of that usurpation of authority which consisted in teaching and is opposed to silence And for what they adde That the Apostle speaks of her usurping authority over the man i. e. her husband not over the Church Answer This is indeed to seek a knot in a bulrush For the man here is not to be understood singularly for her husband there is nothing in the Text which either commands or warrants such a sense but indefinitely for any man For the Apostle is comparing sex with sex in the general not husband and wife in particular And if this Text concerns such women also as have no husbands which I beleeve our Brethren will not deny then the Apostle speaks of usurping authority over the male kind in the Church not over an husband To which may be added that the authority here spoken of is not an Oeconomicall but a Politicall an Ecclesiasticall authority not an authority in the Family but in the Church not an authority assumed in some Family administration but in a Church affair If it be further said for I shall improve their Argument to the highest that the Apostles forbidding this usurping of authority to the women allows it to the men I Answer It no way follows no more then it follows that the French Laws when they prohibit women from usurping authority or wielding the Scepter do allow it to all men or then it would follow if a Law were made that no woman should usurp authority in a corporation that therefore every man ought to do it which is so far from being true that on the contrary such an act would not only forbid women also but all others untill they were called to it 3. To shut the door to all such cavils and unhandsome wrestings of the Text a parallel place will put an end to it 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your women keep silence it is not permitted for them to speak but to be in subjection as saith the Law Whence the inference is plain and undeniable that to speak i. e. in the Church is unlawful for those who are in a state of subjection And because all unofficed persons are in a state of subjection as well as women therefore by the same reason they are forbidden to preach for my part this is so clear that he that shall resist such evidence I shall despair of ever seeing him convinced by man I shall pass over this only taking notice of two things which concern our present controversie 1. That it is not only constant preaching but even occasionall preaching which is here forbidden them And so by a parity of reason gifted men unless in case of necessity and with order to trial for Ordination which also is necessary as hath been argued may not so much as preach once and their preaching though sparingly is as clearly though not so grossly contrary to this prohibition as to preach constantly 2. That it is the work and not the manner of working which is here forbidden The very work of publick preaching is here forbidden them This I say to prevent a common evasion of our Brethren that gifted men may not and cannot preach in the same manner as ordained persons i. e. they cannot do it authoritatively yet the work they may do And why may not I have the same liberty and apply it to the case of women and say that they may do the work although they cannot do it in the same manner i. e. with authority If I should say so it would be easie to silence me by saying that the very act of preaching is spoken of as an act of authority and that may justly silence them too The sixth Argument was