A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 9
POSITION IX.
She hath alſo full and free power to chooſe her own Officers without the help of Synod, This, though not ſo fully, is aſſerted by R.M. & W.T. to C. H.Claſsis or Presbyterie, Act. 1.15. Acts. 6.3. & 14.23.
In Church-affairs, Anſwer. of weighty and difficult common concernment, as election and ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, it is ſafe and wholeſome and an boly Ordinance to proceed with conſultation and conſent of the churches, Prov. 11.14.(p)Cottons Keys, p. 55. Reply.
This Poſition ſaith not that a particular Congregation or Church of Brethren have full and free power to chooſe her own Officers without asking or ſeeking the help of advice and direction from Synod, Claſſis, or Presbyterie: nor do we think that there is any ſuch meaning in it; but without authoritative help of a Synod, Claſſis, or Presbyterie; for in all thoſe places of the Acts, the churches had the help of direction: but they were not ſtrengthened by the interpoſition of the authority of the Apoſtles, or of any other.
You will not take upon you haſtily to cenſure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods, Anſwer. who have put forth the Acts of power in ordination and excommunication.(q)Cottons Keys, p. 28. Reply.
1. The grave Author of this ſpeech meddles not with election in that place quoted, but this Poſition runs of election.
2. He keeps himſelf from an haſty and peremptory cenſuring of ancient precedents, who have put forth acts of power in ordination and excommunication; but he declares his opinion againſt it, and we approve as well of his modeſty, as we do agree with him in his judgement.
We hold it a priviledge of the people (eſpecially if they proceed wiſely and piouſly) to elect their Officers, Anſwer. and an injury to obtrude any on them without their conſent.
1. What people are theſe that have this priviledge? Reply. Cottons Keys, pag. 12.the Author whom you make uſe of ſo oft, calls them Church of Brethren; is it a people-priviledge, or a church-priviledge to chooſe Eccleſiaſticall Officers?
2. What if they do not proceed wiſely and piouſly? is their priviledge loſt? muſt it be taken from them? and then it would be no injury to obtrude an Officer on them. It is an Officers priviledge to rule the Church; but what if he do it not wiſely and piouſly? is the privilege then loſt? it is a Maſter of a Families priviledge to rule his own houſe: but what if he do it not wiſely and piouſly, muſt it now be taken from him? or rather muſt he not be directed and exhorted to do it rightly? and the priviledge remain ſtil with him? ſo of the people; we have Junius of our minde herein.(a)Junius Eccleſ. p. 1963 Anſwer.
But let us view your Scriptures.
Seeing that you agree with us in the ſubſtance of the Poſition, Reply. and yet immediatly bring all the Scriptures brought by us to ſtrengthen the ſame into queſtion, and none of them will paſſe for currant with you, it had been convenient, that you ſhould have produced the Scriptures which do ſway you unto the aſſerting of the ſame thing, that it might have appeared to the world, that you have found out ſome better bottome to ſet ſuch a tenet on, then we have produced: For we conceive, that if the Scriptures you oppugn are not pertinent to prove the Poſition, there will be none found in all the new Teſtament, but they will be more liable to exception then theſe; and it is to be noted, that all our modern Writers (that we know of) that grant any liberty to the people of chooſing their own Officers, they do it upon the evidence of theſe Scriptures which are excepted againſt; in ſo much that we know not what ſhould be the reaſon why you grant the thing alledged, and bring no proofes of your own to confirm it; and yet allow not of ours which we bring, except you be reſolved to contradict all that comes from us. But what are your exceptions? let us prove what weight is in them; you ſay,
The Aſſembly, Anſwer. Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politick, but occaſionall only, no part of Church-government being as yet ſet on foot: here were not all, but ſome of the ſounder members of the Jewiſh Church; and they had no commiſſion to ſeparate from the Jewes, before Acts 2.40. the Company was not without Elders: all the Churches and Elder at that time in the world were preſent: if there had been any more Elders they muſt have conveened upon that occaſion; the choice was limited by the Apoſtle Peter; Firſt, to the perſons preſent: Secondly, to thoſe that accompanied the Apoſtles all the time, &c. and was determined by God whoſe it was to chooſe an Apoſtle, by his directing of the lot.
The meaning is, Reply. they were not a Chriſtian Church, but ſome of the ſounder members of the Jewiſh Church; and not yet ſeparated from the Jewiſh Church; and then,
1. There is a contradiction unto ſome other of the exceptions which follow: If they were no Chriſtian Church, how were the Apoſtles Elders of it? and how was it an Oecumenicall councell, all the Churches and Elders in the world being at it?
2. Is there not ſome miſtake in point of truth? For thoſe perſons who were commanded to ſeparate, Acts 2.40. were they added unto ſuch which were not ſeparated? The Text ſaith, there were added to them, three thouſand fouls: (to them) to whom? to thoſe who are yet members of the Jewiſh church? then theſe ſeparated ones, who were added, were members of the Jewiſh church by their addition; for they came into their ſtate to whom they were added; and ſo they were ſeparated, and not ſeparated; which yet agrees not to verſ. 47. where they are all together called a Church.
3. It is impertinently alledged that the company was not without Elders, the Apoſtles were preſent: For was the company ſtraitned in their liberty by the preſence of theſe Elders? or rather were they not acquainted with their priviledge in this matter by theſe Elders? When as elſe they might not have known it: but you ſay a little after they were limited; but what is this limiting? nothing elſe but neceſſary direction: and the limitation is but in one thing, though you would have it in two; the words are theſe, Wherefore of theſe that have accompanied us, &c. For ought that appears, all that had accompanied them were preſent; and who could be ſo ſit to be an Apoſtle, as one of thoſe who had accompanied them, 1 Joh. 1.1.
4. If the election of an Apoſtle did belong to God, in reference to the particular perſon; yet they proceeded as far as they could therein, and agreed in the denomination of two, and when the lot determined whether of the two ſhould be the man, the Text ſaith, verſ. 26. by the common ſuffrage of them all, Matthias was numbred among the eleven Apoſtles.
5. If all Elders and Churches muſt conveen upon occaſion of electing of an Apoſtle, becauſe he is Paſtor of all Churches, why muſt they not be gathered together upon occaſion of ordaining an Apoſtle? But we reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof preſent at the onlaining of Paul, Acts 13.2.3.23. whereupon Paul calls himſelf, foreign, Rom. 1.1.
As for the Deacons and Overſeers for the power, Anſwer. though people may better diſcern of mens ſitneſſe and ability for that Office then for the Miniſtry.
Why are Deacons and Overſeers for the poor made Synonymies and confounded? Reply. is this the reaſon, to make the world believe that we have had Deacons amongſt us, becauſe we have had Over-ſeers for the poor? but if we have had Deacons, when were they ordained? who ever put their hands upon them according to the pattern, Acts 6.6. or are they called ſo, becauſe their work is only to overſee the poor? we conceive their office extends further: But of that in its own place.
It is added, Anſwer. The people can better diſcern, &c.
1. They had direction to inable them to diſcern aright in chooſing Deacons, Reply. and by direction they will be able to diſcern aright in chooſing other Officers.
2. A godly people or church rightly conſtituted for the matter, will be able to diſcern of wholeſome and powerfull Doctrine: and if they want skill to judge of humane learning, they may with little ado be informed.
3. If your meaning be, that upon this ground the people may chooſe Deacons, but not other Officers; you might have done well to have limited what you before granted, and in ſtead of ſaying, We hold it the priviledge of the people, to chooſe their own Officers, you would have ſaid; We hold it the priviledge of the people to choaſe their own Deacons, but no Officers elſe.
And their liberty of chooſing was a good means at that time to abate their diſcontentments becauſe of former neglect. Anſwer.
1. Then it was granted to them of courteſie, Reply. and out of policie, and it did no way belong unto them; why then did you ſay before, We hold it the priviledge of the people?
2. Doth any thing appear to make this a reaſon that this liberty was granted to them? Would not they have been as well pleaſed, if the Apoſtles had done it, if it belonged to the Apoſtles and not to them? they all knew the Apoſtles were more able to chooſe then they, and what the Apoſtles did, gave better content; for all magnified the Apoſtles; beſides, is it likely that the Apoſtles would nouriſh a ſinfull humor of diſcontent in the people, by giving them a priviledge that belonged not to them? Good brother, take heed how you attempt to evade the ſtrength of plain Scripturall proofes, by ſuch dangerous gloſſes as theſe.
Yet at their election, Anſwer. there were all the Churches and Elders in the world.
The meaning is, Reply. there was but one Church, and the Elders thereof, at that time in the world, and they were there. It is true, the members were there, for the Brethren were they that elected, and the Apoſtles were there, which were extraordinary Elders, for they were the perſons that directed; but what did they act further? Did they interpoſe their authority in election? Did they take it out of the Brethrens hards? Did they not manifeſtly put it into their hands? in commanding them to look out ſeven men, &c. Acts 6.3.
Anſwer. Your ſelves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Chriſt in ſundry caſes.
Reply. Not the Authority of Synods by way of juriſdiction in any caſe;
Anſwer. Paul and Barnabas ordained Eders by ſuffrages given by lifting up and ſtretching out of hands, (for ſo the Greek word ſignifies) but that the people did ordain Elders by election, without the Apoſtles, it ſaith not, but rather the contrary, (viz.) that they ſtayed from election and ordination of Elders, till the Apoſtles came to adviſe and aſſiſt them therein; the word foreign ſignifieth rather to give, then to gather ſaffrages; as foreign doth imply the election of more Churches then one, and yet it imports the election of no more Churches then thoſe there ſpoken of; ſo the phraſe (Paul and Barnabas, foreign) doth not imply that any Church, or other perſon, beſides Paul and Barnabas, did elect theſe Presbyters.
1. We do not affirm that the people did it without the Apoſtles: Reply. For we conceive the Apoſtles guided them, as at other times they had done other Churches.
2. Concerning their ſtaying from election and ordination, we reade not of it, and therefore dare conclude nothing about it: concerning their adviſing, we grant it; but what other aſſiſtance they aſſorded we underſtand not, unleſſe it be ſaid, that they led the people by their own ſuffrage, and ſo they might give their ſuffrage, as you ſay the word ſignifies, and yet gather the peoples alſo. But that they ſhould give their own ſuffrage, by lifting up their own hands, without the peoples, ſeems unreaſonable: For when hath it ever been known, that two perſons alone, in the preſence of many others have gone to voting, by lifting up of hands? the one muſt gather the vote, and the other muſt give it; that is, the one muſt ſay to the other, Paul to Barnabas, If thou be for ſuch a man to be Elder in this Church, manifeſt it by lifting up thy hand; and Barnabas muſt ſay to Paul, If thou be for him, or for any other, dielare it by lifting up thy hand; a moſt ridiculous courſe: was ever ſuffrages ſo gathered and given, when but one man to gather, and another to give? might not two perſons better have gone apart, and concluded the buſineſſe by counſell betwixt themſelves, then to have gone to it by ſuffrage and ſtretching out of hands, in the preſence of ſo many, except there had been ſome greater plurality of perſons? There is roome enough without abſurdity for Churches, though but two or three to go to voting in a buſineſſe, that is common to them; and therefore foreign is applicative to them; but there is no place with any colour of reaſon, why two perſons ſhould go to voting: when any thing is put to vote, or lifting up of hands, the end of it is, that the buſineſſe may that way be caſt; but two perſons may end it by agreement, when as by vote they cannot, if they be oppoſite to one another.