Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
THE third and last question is this, Whether ordination may be done by the people? Wherein I shall need to say little, because indeed they say little to the purpose, and what they do say, is for the most part, either nothing else but a repetition of their disproved principles, or so infirme, that I may safely leave things to any ingenuous reader, who shall compare our arguments and their Answers.
Neverthelesse I will not wholly omit this task also, but, where I can pick up any thing that requires an answer, and hath not been already dispatched, I shall here take notice of it:
They offer divers arguments to prove this proposition: That in a Church which wants officers, some beleevers may lawfully ordaine without officers.
1. Else ordination were unattainable, for there is neither precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in ordination out of the particular Church he is over. In the places which speak of ordination, to wit Acts 6. and 13. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. the persons ordaining were all extraordinary, and so no president for ordinary officers: And for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we see nothing to convince us that it was an ordinary Presbytery.
Answer. 1. There are divers practises lawfully used (even in our brethrens judgment) which yet we find no president for, but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in: I will instance but in one, and that is excommunication, which we never read practised but by the authority and concurrence of an extraordinary Officer. Paul practiseth it; I have delivered him to Satan. And the Church of Corinth practiseth it, but not without Pauls expresse command, and positive warrant and concurrence, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4. For I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit having judged already, &c.—when ye are gathered together, and my spirit: And yet our Brethren allow, and inferre this as a president for the practise of excommunication by ordinary Churches, and ordinary persons: And therefore good reason they should allow us the same liberty.
2. And the rather, because this makes against our Brethren as well as us; It is their own grant, that Ordination is an Institution of Christ now in force, and that it is to be managed by the Officers of the Church, where there are such: So that both they and we are thus farre agreed, that ordinary Officers may ordaine. Now if what they say be true, then there is neither precept nor president for the Ordaining of Officers, and so it followes from hence, not onelyonly that none but Officers may ordaine (which we assert) but also that Officers may not ordaine at all (unlesse they will say Officers may do that for which they have neither precept nor president) so that our brethrens argument, either doth not praejudice us, or else it enervates their own principles.
3. The true way therefore to discern what acts of extraordinary Officers are presidentiall to ordinary, and what not, is this: Those actions which were proper to those times, those actions which were the results of extraordinary gifts, those actions which were appendants to an extraordinary jurisdiction; those are no presidents for us. The Apostles healing the sick by anouncing with oyl, their preaching without study, their ordering of the Church affaires by their single jurisdiction, these things are unimitable by us. But now on the otherside; Those actions of extraordinary Officers which are common to all the ages of the Church, those, which may be transacted by ordinary gifts, and ordinary jurisdiction, those are presidents for us: The Apostles publick praying, and preaching, administring the Sacraments, authoritative rebuking, ruling, censuring, &c. I say, their acting of those things, is and was ever by the Church taken to be a president for ordinary Officers acting the same things. Now forasmuch as Ordination is allowed by our Brethren, to be one of those New Testament practises yet to be continued, by virtue of these instances, &c. It followes that the practice of the Apostles therein (though they were extraordinary Officers) is a president for us, onelyonly here is the difference (wherein I am willing any indifferent man should be umpire) whether it is a president for the peoples ordaining, (who, though in things belonging to them, they did act distinctly from, and concurrently with the Apostles, as in the businesse of Election, yet never do we find them ordaining or joyning with the Apostles in the work of Ordination) or whether it be not rather a president for Ministers Ordaining, who are the undoubted successors of the Apostels, and who did act with them in such works.
4. And Lastly, for that 1 Tim. 4. 14. how faintly and impertinently do they speak? What if you meet with nothing that convinceth you, that this was an ordinary Presbytery? sure I am you meet with nothing that convinceth you they were extraordinary: And it is a great deal more rationall for us to think they were ordinary persons (of whom we read nothing which was extraordinary) then to fancy them to be extraordinary, (of which we have no evidence at all) the proof lies upon their side. I need no positive proof to perswade me to take a man for an ordinary person, he is justly presumed so to be, till some indicia, or discoveries of an extraordinary state break forth: But now, if one will assert, that another is an extraordinary person, he must have positive proof for it, which if our brethren can bring, to prove this Presbytery to be extraordinary, we shall submit to them, but, till then, they must not take it ill, if we believe them to be ordinary. Thus much for their first and principall Argument.
2. They argue thus; Those that may act in making Decrees in a Synod, they may Ordaine; But Believers (who are not Officers) may act in a Synod, &c. Acts 15. 2, 22, 23.
I answer to both Propositions.
1. The Major may be questioned, because all those things are to be regulated by Scripture, now if we have Scripture precept or example for the one, i. e. for acting in a Synod (which they say here is) and not for the other, which we have proved there is not, then believers may do the one and not the other.
2. For the Minor, I deny, that the brethren may act in making Decrees in a Synod, I deny they did so in this place, we read not a word of it: All that we read is, that the whole Church consented to the decrees, and resolved upon the execution of them, which they might do, though they neither acted nor were present at the making of the Decrees: Even as thousands consent to Acts of Parliament, that have no hand in the making of them. And if our brethren think to prove this, they must bring better Arguments then any they have yet brought.
Another Argument they urge is this; That Ordination consisteth in such Acts is may be done by the people; The people may fast and pray, and (which may seem to be most doubtful) they may impose hands if that be a rite still to continue, as appeares from Numb. 8 10. where the children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levities.
To this Instance, the Assembly gives such satisfying Answers, that I wonder how our Brethren could resist the evidence of them; and indeed their Replies are so inconsiderable, that I count it but lost time to make a rejoynder, and all that I shall desire of the Reader is this; That he would but use his reason, and lay aside his passion and prejudice, and compare what is said on both hands together, and I doubt not he will see, that all their assaults against them, are but like the dashings of the waves against a rock, whereby they break themselves to pieces.
But if all that satisfie not, I shall adde two Answers more.
1. Extraordinary instances are no presidents for ordinary cases. This was apparently an extraordinary case. The Levites and Church-Officers were not yet instituted: and to argue thus, that, because the people did lay on hands before those Church-Officers were created (who were afterwards to do it) therefore they might do it when such Officers were created and appointed for that work; It were as if a man should argue, Gifted men may preach where there are no Apostles nor Ministers to be had, therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers: Or thus, David might eat the shew-bread when he could get no other, therefore any man may eat it when his table was spread with other bread.
2. Forasmuch as it is ridiculous to think that all Israel did lay their hands upon the heads of the Levites, therefore this was onelyonly some of them, and those some (no doubt) were the first-born. Now it must be remembred, that as the Levites were taken instead of the first-born, Num. 8. 16, 17. so the first-born till then were in stead of the Levites, and till God instituted the Ecclesiasticall Offices and Officers in Israel, the first-born were Officers; and so it concerns not the people at all, nor proves any right in them to do the same thing.
In the next place they come to answer some Arguments which are urged by the Assembly, to prove that Ordination did not belong to the people.
Their Answers to the two first, are nothing else but repetitions of what hath been already discussed, and therefore I here wave them.
For the third, the Assembly observed; That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the party ordained, is mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, who were Church-Officers; not in those Epistles which are written to the Churches.
They answer. 1. Charges may be directed to Officers, and yet the people required to concurre, as Rev. 2. and 3. If Timothy and Titus were to act these alone as Evangelists, then they are no presidents for us, if, with others, why not with the people as well as the Officers?
Reply. They were to act alone in Ordination as Evangelists, and yet are a president for us. For, here are two things to be considered.
1. The work, viz. of Ordination, which was common and ordinary, and this is imitable.
2. The manner of doing it which was extraordinary; i. e. by their single power, and this is inimitable.
You will say, If the manner of this Ordination was extraordinary, then Timothy's practice in Ordination is no more a president for ordinary Officers Ordaining, then for the people Ordaining.
I answer, Yes; There is a different reason, because Timothy was one of the Officers or Persons ruling; and an extraordinary one, who alone might stand in the room of all other Officers; it may be there were no Officers present when Timothy did ordaine; however his acting in this as an Officer, though extraordinary, may well be president for his successors, such as are Officers for the doing of the work (which is ordinary) though not for the doing of it by his single jurisdiction, which was extraordinary.
But now on the other side, for the people or the persons rulled, Timothy was not one of them, but sustained a distinct person from them, and there were people at that time unquestionably present, when ever Timothy and Titus Ordained; and the people even in the dayes of those extraordinary Officers, did retain their distinct liberties, and exercise those things, which did belong to them as people, as is plain in the case of Election, which they injoyned and practised.
And had Ordination belonged to the people as well as Election, certainly (notwithstanding the agency and presence of the Apostles therein, yet) we should have heard somewhat, at least, concerning the peoples concurrence; which because we hear not a syllable of, we therefore justly conclude, that Election did, and doth, belong to the people, but Ordination doth not.
I adde onelyonly this; That look what reasons our Brethren have to look on the Apostles, &c. Baptizing, &c. to be a president for Ministers Baptizing, and not for the peoples baptizing; the very same reasons have we to conclude, that their Ordaining is a president for Officers Ordaining, not for the Ordination of the people.
2. They say, All may be written to Timothy and Titus, because they were to direct others how to act in them. And therefore the Apostle writes to them about other things (which yet were not to be acted by them alone, but by the people) as the making of prayers for Kings, clothing of women in modest aparrel, &c.
Reply. By this Rule, all things should have been written onelyonly in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, for they were to direct the people in all other things. But it is not simply the putting of a thing in this Epistle, which makes that act peculiar to Officers; But this is it which is justly insisted on, and which our Brethren should do well againe to consider, that, Paul, who was so carefull to order the affaires in every Church; yet in all his Epistles to those Churches, speakes not a word about the businesse of Ordination. Surely the Scriptures silence is argumentative as well as its speech, and it is oft urged in Scripture: Melchisedek is said to be without Father, &c because the Scriture is silent as to his geniallogie, so Heb. 6.—our Lord sprang of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Preisthood.
And surely, it is not to no purpose that the Scripture is so silent, as to the point of direction about the mission of Ministers, in all those Epistles to people, but insinuates thus much to impartiall Readers, that the Holy Ghost looked upon the people, as persons not intrusted with that work.
The last thing urged by the Assembly was this; That Ordination is an authoritative mission, an act of jurisdiction, an act which gives the essentialls of the Call. Private persons can no more conveigh power to another to administer Sacraments, then they can do it themselves.
They answer. That Ordination is no act of jurisdiction, nor would it be so though it did convey the Office-power: Freemen do convey Office-power to their Bailiffs, &c. yet do no act of jurisdiction.
Reply. 1. This hath been answered before, to wit, Freemen have that power by a Constitution, but there is not any Constitution for the peoples conveying the Office-power to Ministers.
2. If the word jurisdiction be taken strictly, there is a difference made between Ordination and Jurisdiction, but if by an act of Iurisdiction they mean nothing else but an act of Authority (for that is the thing in question) then we have before proved that it is an act of Authority, and it were easie to make it good by Arguments.
We never find Ordination practised either in the Old or New Testament, but by persons in authority towards their inferiours. Moses Ordained Aaron; Aaron his sons, Christ his Apostles, the Apostles other Ministers: And if in all these it be granted to be an act of Authority, surely to deny it to be so in other Ministers, carrying on the same work, is an assertion neither true nor probable.
Again, Ordination is that act which constitutes a man in Office, and therefore must be an act of authority: But I must remember my work is not now to prove, but to answer, and therefore I forbear, and shall give my self and the Reader a writ of ease.