Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
I Shall confine my self to one Argument, which I shall desire our Brethren to chew upon, which is this.
The essence of the call to the Ministry, must lie in the act of those only, who by divine appointment are and ought to be in a capacity to give it: But the people neither are, nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry: Ergo, The essence of the call doth not lie in the act of the people, i. e. not in Election.
For the Major, it is a plain case: Wherever God puts a man upon a work, he requires that he be fit for it. God will have no man to undertake any work, of Magistracy, Ministry, &c. for which he is not fit. The Teacher must be apt to teach, &c. And if it be one of the works of a Minister to send forth other Ministers, then God requires this of him, that he be in a capacity to do it. And so doubtlesse, if Election be the priviledge of the members of the Church, as such, and the Essence of the Ministeriall Call lies in it, then by divine appointment this is a necessary qualification for every Church-member to be in a capacity to give it.
For the Minor which is this, That the people neither are, nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry: This I shall prove from those things which are requisite to put men into such a capacity. And thus I argue: Authority and ability to judge of the fitnesse of a Minister, are necessary to make a man capable of giving the essence of the Ministers call: But people neither have, nor is it necessarily required that they should have these: Ergo they are not capable of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call: I shall prove both propositions.
1. For the Major, there are two ingredients, &c. of both I shall speak in order. 1. I say, to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call is an act of authority, I think this is unquestionable in all other cases; wheresoever the power of calling to any office lies, there is an authority in relation thereunto: For instance, in a Corporation, If it belongs to the Court of Aldermen to give the Essence of such an Office, it is an act of authority in them: So if it belong to the Court of Common councel to do it, it is an act of authority in them. Et sic in caeteris. It is true a man may give an Office to another, which he himself hath not. But if he have it not formally, he must have it virtually. In democraticall governments, where the officers are chosen by the body of the people, there, I say, the authority resides, and upon that very ground, the people taken collectively, are superiour in authority unto the Officers to whom they give the Call. And as the Apostle saith, The lesse is blessed of the greater, so may I say, the lesse is called of the greater. And as it is in civil respects, in some Parishes where the People are Patrons of the place, and give the Essence of the civil call to a Minister, to be the Minister of the place, as to all legall rights, &c. there, I say, the People are, eo nomine, invested with authority, for that worke, and their collation of this place upon that Minister, is an act of authority: So in like manner, if it belong to the people to give the essence of the Ecclesiasticall call unto a Minister, then the people hereby are impowred with an authority, and their act is an act of authority. And this is the first branch. Authority is necessary, &c. The use of this we shall see when we come to the Minor; In the mean time we must prove the other branch of the Major, or rather, that is proved already, that ability to Judge of a Ministers fitnesse is necessary to put a man into a regular capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry. And therefore I now come to the proof of the Minor, where I must shew;
1. That people have no authority, &c.
2. That they neither have nor by divine appointment are required to have ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry.
1. That people have no authority nor can do any act of authority in the Church, is plain from hence, because they are by Gods appointment placed in a state of subjection, at lest it is a cleare case concerning women, who are forbidden to do an act of authority (i. e. to preach publickly) because they are in a state of subjection: And this is the more considerable, because in that instance which our brethren so much insist upon, Acts 1. in that election of an Apostle, not only the men, but women also did concurre, which they could not have done, if election were an act of authority, or if it were that act which gives the essence to an Officer.
2. As they want authority, so they want ability. And here there are two branches.
1. They have not 2. they are not required to have ability to judge, &c.
1. The people have not ability to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry; This we have proved before, and thither I refer the reader; and indeed, if our brethrens principles did not oblige them to the contrary, it would be out of doubt that for the body of almost all the congregations in the world, they are exceeding unable to judge of divers of those abilities which are required to the Ministry.
It is little lesse then a contradiction to say, that unlearned men should be fit judges of another mans learning (and that learning is of necessary use to a Minister, neither will our brethren deny, nor can any one doubt, but he that is wholly a stranger to it) and it is no lesse absurd to think, that those persons who are unacquainted with the stratagems and subtilties of gainsayers and hereticks, should be competent judges of a mans ability to convince gainsayers.
If it be said, it is true, the people are not able to judge of these things themselves, but they should and may call in the help of neighbouring Pastors. I answer. They may do it, and they may forbear it: According to our Brethrens mind, this is not necessary to the being, but to the well being of it: It is the people that have the whole and sole power of giving the Essence of the Ministeriall Call; So that if they will perversly or proudly refuse the help of Pastors, (as some of our brethrens mind have experienced the giddinesse and unrulinesse of Congregations, even when they have had Ministers to guide them, and much more when they have been left to themselves) they may do it: Or what if a Congregation be in an Island, or where there are no Pastors to help them? in that case they want ability to judge.
2. Who ever they are, that are intrusted with a power to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call, they are to see with their own eyes. And surely they that blamed the Bishops, because they delegated the Pastorall work to others, which they ought to have performed personally, cannot excuse the people (if they were indeed intrusted herewith) that they manage it by others care and wisdom. Or else,
3. This great inconvenience will follow, that Christ hath intrusted this great power in such hands, as are unable of themselves to manage it. And thus I have dispatched the first branch, and shewed that the people are not able to judge.
The second branch is this? The people are not necessarily required to be able to judge of a Ministers abilities, as they ought to be, if it did belong to them to give the essence of the Ministeriall Call. I say, if it doth belong to every Church-member, as such, as his priviledge, to have a joint power to give the essence of the Ministeriall call, then it belongs to every Church-member as his duty, and he ought by divine appointment to be fit to judge of a Ministers abilities, and this would be a necessary qualification in every Church-member, not onelyonly that he be pious, but also judicious, and prudent, &c. and in all respects able to judge of a mans fitnesse for the Ministry, so that if a man were never so godly and desirous of Church-membership, &c. if he were apparently unfit to judge of a Ministers abilities (as many hundreds of godly people, unquestionably are) he ought not to be admitted a Church-member, because he wanted one necessary qualification for that relation: Which because it is a grosse and manifest absurdity, therefore it is not necessarily required that Church-members should be able to judge of a Ministers fitnesse, and by consequence, it follows that the people are not intrusted with giving the essence of the Ministeriall Call foreign, which was the thing to be shewn; And thus much might serve for that point.
OnelyOnly, whereas there were divers Arguments urged by the Assembly, to shew, that the Essence of the Call did not lie in Election, which our Brethren here praetend to answer: I am under some necessity of attending their motion: But because, some of them do manifestly refer to such things as have been fully discussed before, I shall not need to follow them foreign, but onelyonly take notice of such things, as have hitherto been omitted, or are now more strongly fortified.
1. It was argued from Acts 6. Where the Apostles are said, foreign i. e. to constitute appoint, Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21.
They answer, If foreign, be taken for the constituting act in some places, so is the word chusing taken for the constituting act, in other places. Luke 6. 13. And of them he chose twelve, whom he named Apostles, and the people here are said to chuse, and that expresseth the putting of a man into office.
Reply. It is true when chusing, is put by it self, it may signifie an appointing, if it be ascribed to one that hath a power to appoint, as it is, Luke 6. But it is far otherwise, where chusing and appointing are distinguished from, and opposed to one another, and the act of chusing, ascribed to the inferiours, the people, and the act of appointing, asscribed to the superiours, the Apostles, in such a case to say chusing is appointing, or to say, that the constituting act, was that which was done by the inferiours, is but one remove from impossible, that I say not ridiculous.
2. It was argued from Tit. 1. 5. I left thee in Creet to ordaine, &c. what was he left there to give an adjunct of their call? It must be considered, in what state the Church then was, and how usefull the paines of Titus might have been in other places, which necessarily called for his help; so that we may rationally conclude, if the people could have given the Essence of the Call without him, and if Ordination had been but an unnecessary Adjunct, it is no way credible that the Apostle would have diverted Titus from so great, essentiall, and excellent a service, for the doing of a businesse, which was but circumstantiall.
The onelyonly answer they give, that signifies any thing is this: That Titus was left in Creet, not onelyonly to ordaine Elders, but also to set in order the things that are wanting.
But that relieves them not, for the setting of things in order (it which concerns onelyonly the well being of the Church) was not to be put in competition with those other glorious services, which Titus might have done in the mean time, (and which concern the very Essence of the Church.)
…2. It was argued from the nature of Election of a people▪ which is not the making of a man a Minister, but their Minister: The people Deut. 1. 13. did look out men, but it was Moses that made them Rulers: If the people have not office power, neither formally nor eminently, they cannot make an Officer, for, nihil dat quod non habet.
They answer many things. 1. That Election makes a man a Minister.
Reply. That is a meer begging of the question.
2. The act of Moses is not parallel either with Ordination or Election, but rather with Christs act in making Church-Officers, because onelyonly Christ is the King of the Church; as onelyonly Moses was the supreme Magistrate.
Reply. 1. To speak strictly, not Moses, but God was the supreme Magistrate of the Iewes, and that policy was not a Monarchy, but a Theocrasy, as Iosephus well calls it, and Moses indeed had no regall nor arbitrary power at all, but was onelyonly Gods Secretary, to write his mind, and Gods instrument, to publish and execute Gods lawes: And look what Moses was to the Iewes, that are Ministers unto the Church: Moses was the publick interpreter of Gods Law, and Gods Vice-gerent, who in Gods Name, and according to Gods Word was to governe the people, and they were to be ruled by him; and albeit in some cases the people might have the power of Election, yet indeed it was Moses his act which was the constituting act in the creation of Officers: Just thus it is in our case, Ministers are the publick interpreters of Christs lawes, and Christs Vicegerents, who in Christs name, and according to Christs word, are to governe the people, and they are to be ruled by them; And albeit the people have a power of Election, yet indeed it is the act of the Ministers, which is the constituting act of an Officer: So that here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moses and Ministers (in both it is depending and limited) onelyonly the one is Civil, the other Ecclesiasticall.
3. That rule (they say) is not universally true, nihil dat quod non habet, for freeholders by chusing, may make Burgesses and Parliament men. The freemen of a Corporation give the essentialls of their call to a Bailiffe, and why may it not be thus with the Church.
Answ. There is dispar ratio, Because all things are to be regulated by law and institution, Civill things by a civill institution, and Ecclesiasticall things by a divine institution: Now what such freemen, &c. do, they have a charter, and a warrant for, whereby they are quantum ad hoc authorized for the work. If our brethren can shew a parallel divine institution, for the peoples being authorized to give the Essentials of the call to a Minister, then they do their businesse: But that they have not been able to do: In these cases the people have such office-power eminently in them, though not formally: And though each of the people considered distributively, are inferiour to such a Magistrate after he is chosen, yet, all the people taken collectively, are (as to that act) superiour to him who is to be chosen.
Another Argument was this. That if the essence of the call lie in Election, then it will follow, that a Minister is onelyonly a Minister to his particular charge, and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place, which is a strange and false assertion.
And this the Assembly prove by diverse considerations and Arguments, to which our brethren answer. But because all that is here said doth more properly belong to that former question i. e. whether a Minister be a Minister onelyonly to his own particular Church, &c. I thought it more meet to bring it in there, and thither I refer the reader for a reply to all that here they say, which hath any sinews or substance in it.
Againe the Provinc. urged this: That thence it will follow that there must be Churches before Ministers, which cannot be, for every Church must consist of persons baptized, and baptize them none can, but he that is a Minister. Christ therefore chose Apostles before Churches, and the Apostles ordained elders to gather Churches.
To this they answer, 1. A Church must needs be before an officer, because he that is an officer is made an officer onelyonly to a Church, and therefore the Church is presupposed.
Reply. This is a meer begging of the question▪ and we have already at large confuted it, and shewen, that a Minister is an officer, and acts as an officer even to such as are no Church.
2. The Apostles were extraordinary officers, and therefore that instance proves not that ordinary officers must be before Churches.
Reply. Our brethren must take heed of denying the exemplarinesse of the Apostles to ordinary Ministers in the administration of Church affaires. They themselves do oft make use of it: And it cannot be denyed by any rationall, or ingenious man, that the Apostles, as in some things they did act as extraordinary officers, and are no president for us, (as in single, and absolute, jurisdiction, &c.) so in other things, their acts were ordinary, and there examples binding as to us, as their preaching, baptizing, &c. And that this case is of the same nature, may appeare from hence because the same reason which made it necessary fo… Apostles to be before Churches, made it also necessary for other Ministers to be before them: For the reason why the Apostles were to be before Churches, was this, because, by them Churches were to be gathered and baptized▪ And thus it was with the ordinary Ministers of those times, they also were instituted then, and are so now (by that lasting institution Eph 4▪ 11. &c.) not onelyonly for the building up of Churches already constituted, but also for the bringing in of those who are not yet gathered, and therefore it was and is necessary still that Ministers be before Churches.
3. They say, Acts 14. 23. When they had chosen them elders in every Church, the Churches therefore were before the chusing of elders.
Reply. 1. That instance doth not at all enervate our assertion, for although some Churches may be before some elders, (which we never denyed) yet in the generall, a Minister must needs be before a Church. And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of those arguments which the Assembly used to shew that the essence of the call doth not lie in election. It now remaines that I undertake the defence of those arguments which they used to shew that the essence of the Ministeriall call doth consist in ordination: Wherein I must still crave the continuance of the liberty I have used, i. e. not put my self or the reader to unnecessary trouble in animadverting upon every passage, but onelyonly to observe such things as are argumentative and have not yet falne within our cognizance.