Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
THus we have dispatched our main work, now it onelyonly remains that somewhat be spoken as to the businesse of Election and Ordination; and here a threefold question should be ventilated.
1. Whether Election by divine right belong to the people.
2. Whether the essence of the Ministerial call consists in Election or Ordination.
3. Whether Ordination may be done by the people.
For the First, Whether Election by divine right belong to the people, there is no need to say any thing about it, because it hath been so fully ventilated by others; only for those three places alledged in favour of this Election, and answered by the Provincial Assembly, which they have here undertaken to vindicate, it will be convenient to say something, as also of the absurdities objected by the Assembly to the Affirmative.
The first place is Acts 1. 23. It was answered:
1. These words, they appointed two, do in all probability relate to the Apostles, v. 5, 17, 21, 22. To this our Brethren reply, The exhortation about chusing was given to the 120 brethren and therefore they did chuse.
Reply. It was not an exhortation to chuse, nor a direction in chusing (here is not a word of the knowledge, piety, prudence, &c. of the person to be chosen, which useth to be the subject of the Apostles discourse, when he exhorts to, or directs in chusing) but onelyonly a declaration that one must be chosen, which was very congruous and convenient, whether the Apostles or people did appoint; and however the Apostles might and did appoint, yet it was fit the People should consent and be satisfied.
I forbear other things as to this place, because they will recur in the next place, whither I refer them; only this I leave to the consideration of ingenuous men, that it is at least doubtful who it was that are here said to appoint two; the Grammatical construction and Logical connexion possibly will bear either; I am sure it will beat the Apostles, and therefore great stresse cannot be laid upon this place.
The next alledged Text is that, Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons.
To which it was said, That the people were guided and limited in their choice by the Apostles; so that if they had swerved from the Apostles directions, the Apostles would not have ordained them.
To this they Answer, That Lawes and Rules directing in the choice, hinders not the entireness of the choice: A Corporation have entire power of chusing and yet are limited by Lawes.
Reply. It is true, Regulation by dead Lawes and Rules is no prejudice to the peoples sole power in election, but a regulation by living Judges doth destroy it, to wit, the regulation being such, as here it is, wherein the Apostles (or their vicegerents the Ministers) have not only a bare vote in the election, but a negative voice, whereby it is in their power either to chuse or refuse: So it was here, and therefore surely the Apostles had a share, yea, the great share in the choice, and therefore the people had not the whole and sole power in the choosing of Deacons, which was to be proved: This case is not unlike our Colledges, when the Fellowes have a power to chuse, &c. yet under the direction and regulation of the Master, who hath a power to chuse or refuse the person chosen by the Fellowes: Can any sober man in this case say that the sole power of choosing is in the Fellowes? Is it not in the Master also? And so it was in the Apostles.
3. Our Brethren forget the maine thing that was driven at which by their own acknowledgement was this, that, The essence of the call consists not in Election, and that plainly appeares from this place: For if the Apostles had refused any of those chosen by the people upon just grounds, I desire our Brethren to Answer whether they think they would have been Deacons notwithstanding, whether the Apostles would or not. If they say, yea, that is so injurious to the Apostles, and their jurisdiction, that they will have few followers; if they say no, then the essence of the call to the office of the Deacon (and so of the Minister by their own Argument) consists not in Election, unlesse they will say, that a man can be a Deacon and yet want the essence of a Deacon.
Excep. If this Election had been frustraneous it had not been for want of Ordination but for the neglect of observation of Gospel-Rules in chusing.
Ans. Nay, on the contrary, it had been the want of Ordination▪ For suppose the people had proceeded according to Go…pel-Rules, in the Election and choosing a person visibly fit, and the Apostles by the spirit of discerning, seeing something in him which renders him unfit, had denied Ordination; In this case, the Election had been null, though according to Rule, Ergo, The want of Ordination makes it null, efficiently, or rather deficiently, though the want of fit qualification makes it null meritoriously.
And againe, let us suppose that both the people and the Apostles had not exactly kept to the Rule in choosing (for the Apostles might erre in matters of fact though not in matters of doctrine) and the people had chosen, and the Apostles ordained a man not fit for the office according to rule, in that case, to say that this call had been null, would be a venturous assertion: It is harsh to say, of every man chosen to the office of a Deacon who is not full of the holy Ghost and wisdome, (for those are the required qualifications) that his choice is null. I am confident our brethren have too much modesty to affirme it, and if they do not affirme it, then that which in this case had made the election null, had not been the not observing of Gospel-Rules, but the want of Ordination.
2. It was said, that, though the people might have the sole power of chusing Deacons, yet not of Ministers. A minore ad majus non valet argumentum affirmativè.
To this they Answer, That we use that kind of arguing, when we argue thus; We use Ordination in the choice of Deacons; Ergo, of Ministers much more, so Christ argues from the lesse to the greater; God takes care of Lillies, Ravens, &c. Ergo, he will much more take care of you. Mat. 6.
Reply. Our Brethrens answer runs upon a grosse mistake, for they inconsideratly confound two Canons which vastly differ (though both of them belong to the same Topick.)
1. Their Argument is fetcht from this Canon: Cui competit minus, competit majus: If a power of choosing Deacons, which is the lesse, belongs to the people, then a power of choosing Ministers, which is the greater, belongs to them.
To this the Assembly well answered: A minori ad majus, non valet affirmativè. It is very false to argue thus: The power of choosing a Captaine belongs to the Colonel, Ergo, the power of chusing a Generall belongs to him: Or thus, The members of such a Company have a power to chuse their own Officers (which is the lesse) and therefore they have a power to chuse the City Officers, which is the greater. It is a true Rule, A majori ad minus, valet affirmativè. i. e. Cui competit majus, competit minus: But it is false to argue, A minori ad majus affirmativè, or thus, Cui competit minus, competit majus.
2. But there is another Canon, much differing from the former, and that is this; Quod competit minori, competit etiam majori: If Ordination was required to the meaner and lesse considerable Office, which is that of the Deacons, much more is it required to that which is the greater and weightier Office. And this was the Argument used by the Assembly. And to this belongs the Argument, Mat. 6. 26. If the care of Gods Providence reacheth to lillies (which are the lesse) much more will it reach to you, which are the greater.
The third Text alledged for the peoples election, was Act. 14. 23. When they had created them elders by suffrages, (for so they say the word, foreign, is generally used) in every City: And this they say, may have reference to the disciples, as well as to Paul and Barnabas, for they were spoken of before.
Reply. One would think nothing more can be said, or desired by any sober man for the elucidation and vindication of this Text, then the making out of these two things.
1. That the word foreign, is frequently used for a simple chusing or appointing, though without suffrages.
2. That it cannot be taken here for chusing by suffrages.
From these two, it followes most evidently, and irrefragably, that this place, (which is alledged as a pillar to prove the peoples election, &c.) doth no wayes inforce it, but rather overthrow it.
For the first, that the word foreign, are not alwayes used for a chusing by suffrages, but oft times, for a simple chusing, or appointing, &c. is most plaine, from Acts 10. 41. and may be made good by a multitude of instances, for which the Provinciall Assembly, referred you to other Authors, and especially Selden de Synedriis, it being needlesse to transcribe.
3. How oft the use of words varies from the etymologie, no man can be ignorant, that is not wholly a stranger to the Greek tongue.
But our Brethren say, it is strange, that Luke should use the word in such a sense as was different from the custome of all that writ before him.
I answer. 1. It is so used by others, as was now said.
2. It is no new thing, to find a word, used in Scripture in a different sense, from that which it hath in other Authors. And if our Brethren acknowledge that Luke useth the word, foreign, Acts 10. 41. in a sense, never used in any Author before him; Why may we not expect the same favour for foreign?
2. Although this (if nothing else could be said) were sufficient to answer their Argument, which is taken from the word foreign, and it be incumbent upon them to shew, that the word must needs be so understood in this place, yet, ex abundanti, we assert; That this word cannot be taken in their sense: And in this case by their own allowance, we may recede, from the native signification of the word, because it is repugnant to the context.
And for proof of this, I shall but desire any candid Reader, diligently to read the whole context, especially in the Greek tongue, And I perswade my self, he will judge it but a few removes from an impossibility to understand it in our Brethrens sense.
1. They are said to ordaine to them, foreign, not to themselves, foreign, as it should have been, if the people had done it. And although it be true, that foreign, is sometimes taken for foreign, yet that is but seldome (and then also it is, for the most part, aspirated, foreign) and the common use of the word, (by which our Brethren will have us guided in the word foreign, and therefore we expect the like from them in the word foreign) I say, the common use of the word is otherwise, and especially this is considerable, if you take notice of other circumstances, which oblige us to this sense, as namely:
2. The same persons are said to ordaine in severall Cities and Churches: Therefore it must needs be meant of them that had an authority over severall Churches.
3. They ordained, &c. who going away, commended the people to the Lord, and surely that was the Apostles: it is a lamentable shift to say, That the disciples are spoken of in the foregoing verse, and therefore it may be understood of them. True, they are spoken of and so are the Apostles spoken of, and, seeing both are spoken of, we must inquire, to whom this must be referred, and for that, the very first rudiments of Grammer will determine, that the reference must be towords of the same case. Now then, in the 22. verse, the disciples are spoken of in the Accusative case, and as passive under the Apostles confirming, foreign and foreign, with which foreign, by no meanes agrees, as being active, and of the Nominative case: But now if you understand it of the Apostles, all things run handsomly. The same persons are brought in as foreign, vers. 21. foreign, v. 22. foreign, v. 23. foreign, v. 24. foreign, v. 25. &c. all of them of the Nominative case, and the active signification: And whoever take out the word foreign, from all the rest, wherewith it is hedged in on both sides, as they offer manifest violence to the Text, so they will be judged by indifferent persons, meerly to take it up in favour of a praeconceived opinion.
And therefore our Brethren, do well take up, and at last come to this faint conclusion; Though this do referre to the Apostles, yet the people may be comprehended in it: So that whereas in the first canvasing of this Text, we had much adoe to get in the Apostles; and this Text hath been often alledged by our Brethren to shew, not that the people may, but that the people must, ordaine and chuse themselves Elders, now all that it amounts to, is a m…y be, they may be included here. All the answer it deserves, and that I shall give is this; The people may not be included here: At lest non liquet, it appears not from the Text at all, that they are comprehended here. However, let the question lie here, between us and our Brethren, whether this Text, and this Ordaining belong to the Apostles (who are here expresly said to do it) or to the people (of whose foreign, not a word is spoken here) and I suppose impartiall Arbitrators will quickly end the difference.
But, (say they, who ever did foreign yet) this foreign cannot be meant of Ordination, seeing it is mentioned as distinct from Ordaining by prayer and fasting, when they had chosen—and had prayed with fasting, and if Ordination were intended, here were a Tautologie.
Reply. I would ask our Brethren this question, whether in case the people were they who are here said foreign, to chuse Elders, whether they did not manage that work with prayer and fasting, and whether this Text doth not sufficiently speak for it self, that this prayer and fasting was used in relation to the choice of Officers: If they assent, then the Tautologie remaines on their part as well as on ours.
2. But indeed, we must take heed of calling it a Tautologie, when ever we find the same thing expressed in divers phrases, which is a familiar practice in Scripture.
3. Albeit the word foreign, when put by it self, did signify, to ordaine by fasting, and prayer, and laying on of hands, yet common reason and frequent use will teach us, that when fasting and prayer are expressed, then, foreign should be understood onelyonly of imposing of hands.
4. Our Brethren forget the present work, we did not alledge this place, or this word, to prove that Ordination is to be done by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands, nor were we drawing any argument from this Text; But we were upon the defensive part, and our work was onelyonly this to maintaine, that foreign, doth not here signify a creating by the suffrages of the people, which being proved, our Brethrens attempt from this Text is frustrated, and the place sufficiently vindicated.
These three places being cleared, and redeemed from misinterpretation, there is but one thing remains to be done, which is a little to inforce those absurdities objected by the Provinciall Assembly against their opinion. I shall take notice onelyonly of the first, as being most materiall, which is this:
Every one that is to be made a Minister, must first be tried, 1 Tim. 3, 10. whether he be apt to teach▪ able to convince gaine sayers. Now in many Congregations, the major part are very unfit to judge of Ministeriall abilities.
To this they answer: That true Churches are fit to judge of Ministeriall abilities, Christs sheep know his voice, John 10. and the Church could judge of the qualifications of Deacons, Act. 6.
Reply. 1. I dare venture the question upon this point, and although I shall not determine it concerning every congre…ation (whereof possibly some learned men may be members by accident) yet, for the generality of Congregations (including such as are constituted according to our brethrens principles) I say they are not able to judge of a mans soundnesse in the faith, and his ability to convince gaine-sayers. I will onelyonly suppose that (which generally is true) a Congregation to consist of such as are unacquainted with the affaires of learning, and I will suppose a crafty heretick to come before them, I say, he may most easily conceale his heresies, so that they shall never discover it, nor be able to try his soundnesse in the faith.
I might instance in divers cases, suppose a Socinian is to be tried by the people, they ask him whether he believe Christ to be God, he will Answer yes, I believe him to be the true God, to be one with the Father, to be equall with God: How apt would a company of honest soules be to be cheated with such pretenses and how readily would they be his compurgators; whereas, if this man were to be called by Ministers, they know that these are but words, and that though he acknowledge Christ in word, yet in deed he denies him, and allowes him to be God, onelyonly as the Magistrate is a God; so there are many other weighty points, wherein it is impossible for the people to try a mans soundnesse in the faith. How many grosse errors are there about the providence of God, the Person and Natures of Christ, the fall of man; which any learned man may so hide under ambiguous expressions, that it shall be impossible for an ordinary Congregation to discover them, unlesse they plow with the heifer of Ministers or Scholars: So for a mans ability to defend the truth, and convince gain-sayers, how unfit people are to judge of that▪ no man can be ignorant, that considers how sadly, and frequently, the judgements of people of all sorts, and opinions, and waies, are misplaced, applauding some highly for their sufficiency that way, who are known to understanding men, to be miserably defective therein, and vilifying others, who are unquestionably far more sufficient. To convince gain-sayers, is a great part of learning, and that unlearned men should be able to judge of a mans learning, will then be believed, when it will be credited, that a blind man can judge of colours, or, a deaf man of sounds, or an ordinary ignorant man, of the great affaires of State.
2. For that in Iohn, I hope our Brethren will be ashamed to alledge it to this purpose, when they shall consider that it is a character given by Christ to all his sheep, My sheep know my voice. It is true of wise men and weak men, of men, women, and children, which are the sheep of Christ: So that, unlesse they will say, that the silliest woman in a Congregation, who is godly, is able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gain-sayers, (then which nothing can be more highly absurd) they must confesse this Text was impertinently alledged.
3. For the peoples fitnesse to judge of the Deacons abilities it is a strange instance, that because people are able to judge of a mans prudence, faithfullnesse, piety, &c. therefore they are able to judge of his learning, and sufficiency. And you may as well argue thus, that such a man is able to build an house well, therefore he can mold a State.
And thus much shall suffice, to speak of the first Question; which, when a judicious, and candid Reader, hath duely weighed, I may groundedly hope, that he will be thus far convinced, that the necessity of Popular Election is not so clear, as hath been conceived, nor indeed so manifest, as Ordination. And sure I am, if we had no better evidences for Ordination, then such as these, we should have sufficiently heard of it from our Brethren.