Warrantableness of the Preaching of Unordained Persons, Religious tract · Response to chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII.
THE Assembly urged 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. They answer, 1. It is questionable whether laying on of hands be here meant of ordination, for that ceremony was used in the collation of gifts also.
Reply. But forasmuch as this laying on of hands was done by an ordinary Presbytery, which had not such a power of conferring gifts by the laying on of hands (that being the peculiar priviledge of extraordinary officers) therefore it cannot here be rationally supposed to be so used in this place, but onelyonly for ordination: And therefore this foreign here said to be conveyed, must needs be rather concluded to be an office (which we often read to have been conferred by ordinary officers) then a gift (which we never read that an ordinary officer was intrusted to convey) But that our brethren will not beare with: For,
2. They say this foreign is not an office, and here they repeat Mr. Hookers reasons, so that in answering one I shall answer both, and I must needs acknowledge that what is spoken upon this place is said very plausibly.
1. foreign most commonly signifies gift, not office.
2. A man is not said to forget the office that is in him (he is in his office, rather then his office in him) a man is said to stirre up his grace, not his office.
3. An extraordinary office (such as this was) could not be collated by ordinary officers.
Lastly, they observe that this gift is said to be given, not foreign by the laying on of their hands as the cause, but onelyonly foreign with, noting onelyonly the concurrence and connexion.
To all which I reply, 1. That both foreign and foreign are used in scripture for office as well as gift, our brethren themselves will grant, so that the word being indifferent, we must see which way other considerations will determine it.
For the second (where most difficulty lies) I reply.
1. A man may properly be said to neglect his office, or to disregard foreign, to be carelesse in his office, or in the execution of his office: I know no absurdity in it, either in the English, or in the Greeke Tongue: If a Magistrate be slothfull, carelesse, &c. we may properly say he neglects that Office that God hath put him in, he neglects his place. And as a man is said to neglect himselfe, when he neglects those things, and those actions which concerne himself; so a man neglects his office, that neglects the works of his office: So for the word foreign, strip it of the metaphor, and it is no more but this, put forth, actuate, exercise thine office. Pauls bidding him stirre up his Ministry, is no more then what elsewhere he bids him, fulfill thy Ministry, do the work of an Evangelist. He that neglects the work of his Ministry, invalidates his office, disuseth, neglects his office, and he that fulfils the works of his Ministry, stirres up his office: For that other criticisme, that a man is in his office, not his office in him, the office is ad…oyned to him, not inhaerent in him: that is hardly worth taking notice of, because the preposition foreign is used so variously, sometimes for one preposition, sometimes for another, sometimes for that which is inherent in him, sometime for that which is adjoyning to him (as all know that are not wholly strangers to the Greek Tongue) that it is a vanity to lay any stresse upon it: Sometimes it is taken for foreign, sometimes for foreign, sometimes for foreign, &c. and sometimes in for apud, foreign, is for a man to be apud se, for a man not to be besides himself; so here the Office, foreign, for foreign, apudte, with thee, which is committed to thee: And as men are said to be in sin, though indeed it is sin that is in them; and they are said to enter into their masters joy, though to speak properly their masters joy enters into them, and a man is said to be in drinke, though drinke be in him: So it cannot seeme strange if an office be said to be in a man, though in propriety of speech he be in his office.
For the third branch: 1. An extraordinary office might be conveyed in this case by ordinary officers: For 1. It is commonly thought that Paul did concurre in this ordination with that Presbytery.
2. They ordained him by divine direction: And as it was no dishonour to Paul and Barnabas that they were ordained to that work Acts 13. 1, 2. by persons inferiour to them, seeing those persons did it by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, so neither is it any prejudice to the extraordinarinesse of Timothies office, that it was conferred by ordinary officers, seeing they conferred it by the conduct of propheticall designation.
3. What more ordinary both in state and Church, then for a person to have an office conveyed to him, viz. Ministerially, by such as are inferiour to him, as the King by some of his subjects, the Arch-Bishop, by Bishops, the officers of a Church in our brethrens way by the people, whom I hope they will allow to be inferiour to their officers, at lest they professe that they do so.
For the last clause, I say two things.
1. That foreign is used for foreign in other places besides this; Acts 13. 7. God brought Israel out of Egypt, foreign, with, i. e. foreign by an high hand, as it is elsewhere phrased: So Acts 19. 27. They told what things God had done foreign with them, i. e. by them; especially seeing the foreign here, is expounded by foreign in the other place, which our Brethren suppose to be parallel, that puts it out of doubt: And the reason wherefore the Apostle rather useth the word foreign then foreign, was onelyonly for better sound sake, (which the Apostles were not neglective of) it had been unhandsome to have said, foreign, and therefore he elegantly varies the word, and puts in foreign in stead of foreign: But if you will needs have the word foreign to be taken in another sense then foreign, viz. for with, and the word foreign to be understood of a gift, then why may we not acquiesce in this sense, (which will both fully take off all your objections, and yet no way praejudice our cause) neglect not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands: i. e. neglect not the gift, &c. nor the laying on of hands used in ordination, whereby thou wast solemnely set apart for, and obliged to the discharge of thy Ministeriall gifts, and office; Do not slight, forget, disregard that injunction &c. And this sense I am sure the Greeke will beare very well, and the English doth not exclude it.
Againe, if this satisfie not, it may be further added, that the word foreign may be understood of the gift in 2 Tim. 1. 6. (forasmuch as the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary Officers) and the same word 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be understood of the office, the conveyance of which did fall within the verge of the ordinary Presbyters: And if you take it thus, then you may groundedly suppose, that the laying on of Pauls hands, was not done at the same time, nor to the same end, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but that this latter did convey the office at one time (which is said most properly to be neglected 1 Tim. 4. 14.) and the former did convey a gift at another time, which he is called upon to stirre up, 2 Tim. 1. 6. And this fully takes off all the difficulty. Nor can any wonder at the different sense of the same word, and same phrase, for that is so common a thing, not onelyonly in divers Epistles, but in the same Epistle, yea the same Chapter, yea the same Verse sometimes, that one and the same word or phrase is differently to be understood, that none can justly stumble at it here. But lastly, it must be remembred that (if this place were to be understood in their sense, and did not contribute any thing to our cause) the truth we assert doth not so depend upon this place, that it must needs fall, if this place do not uphold it, forasmuch as it is founded upon divers other important places, as hath bin shewed.
The Assembly argued further: The persons ordaining, were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Presbyters, whom it is not likely that Christ would appoint to convey onelyonly the adjunct of the Ministeriall call, and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power to the people.
To this they say two things. 1. In stead of giving an answer, they offer an argument; that because one relate gives being to another, therefore the people must needs give being to the Minister.
Reply. This is a meer fallacy: Relata, are considerable two wayes, as I may say, in esse constituendo, & in esse constitute, either as they are to be constituted, or as they are compleatly constituted: It is true, Relata considered in esse constitute, do give being one to another, the Father is not a Father unlesse he have a son. But then consider, relations in esse constituendo, as they are to be constituted, and so somewhat else gives being to them, when they are relata, the one gives being to the other, but there must be some other person or thing, which puts them into that relation, and it is that which we speak off: For instance, The husband gives being to the wife, and the wife to the husband: But there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation, to wit the Act of the Justice, or the Minister: A Vice Chancellour is the Correlate of the University, yet the Chancellours act doth constitute him in the relation, and gives him the essence of his call.
2. They say, Though Ordination be but an adjunct, yet, it consisting chiefly, if not onelyonly, in prayer, Christ might imploy the Elders in adding such an adjunct.
Reply. But what sober man can imagine, that if this were all, The Apostles should take so many journeyes about Ordination; and should leave Titus, (who could ill be spared) in Crete to ordain elders: What, would he leave him onelyonly to pray for a blessing upon persons to be constituted by others? It is strange he should leave him to a worke no way peculiar to his office, and a worke which a brother might performe as effectually as an officer?
And this shall suffice for the second Question.