Of Schism, Part 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. A Plea for Ordination.To. 4. Diſp. 9. q. 1. p. 1. I own no Church Officer which is not ordained. Nemo ad ordinariam in eccleſiâ functionem, ſive ad Diaconatum ſive ad Presbyteratum, &c. admitti debet niſi legitimè electus & ordinatus. Zanch. 4. praec. p. …77.
ALthough I am far from Valentia's judgment, making Ordination a Sacrament [ſtrictly ſo called;] yet in this I think he ſaith true, when he would have the word Ordination to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance, Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo eccleſiaſticae dignitatis conſtitutiur. Thus ſome are Paſtors, ſome ruling Elders, ſome are Deacons, they are in ſuch an Order in the Church when they are Ordained. This hath been the judgement, and accordingly the practice of the Church for many hundred years; till yeſterday Ordination was made but an Adjunct of a Miniſters call [popular election being made the eſſential cauſe:] and to day Ordination is thrown out; no wonder, for Adjunctum poteſt abeſſe, &c.
This cloathing of God's things with our Logical notions, (though I know Logick is a general Art) and by them to raiſe one thing above another, one muſt be cried up, the other ſlighted, when both have the ſame Divine ſtamp upon them, I utterly miſlike, and think it too much boldneſs. Hath the Scripture made ſuch compariſon between theſe, as between Ceremonial and Moral worſhip? We blame the Socinians becauſe they adhere not to Divine Teſtimony, but will try all things at the bar of their reaſon, and ſo approve or diſapprove: and are they blameleſs, who when they have Divine Teſtimony and reaſon alſo for two things, yet they will call this but an Adjunct, (when as that Adjunct hath more and clearer Scriptures for to prove it) and the other an eſſential cauſe (which hath fewer Scriptures, and thoſe not ſo clear to ſpeak for it) and ſo neglect the Adjunct? what are theſe notions to our practiſe? to which God's Adjuncts (if you call them ſo) are eſſential.
A few words then for Ordination (my chief aim being at Impoſition of hands in Ordination, and ſo I will make the more haſte over this.)
Q. Whether gifts and popular election be ſufficient to conſtitute a Miniſter without Ordination?
Where, firſt, by a Miniſter I underſtand not one who exerciſeth for the trial of his gifts, before he be ordained; for if Timothy muſt commit the things, &c. to faithful men, 2 Tim. 2.2. 1 Tim. 5.22.and ſuch as are able to teach others. If he muſt lay hands on no man ſuddenly, then good proof muſt be had of mens lives, Chryſoſt. in loc.and ſo of their abilities. foreign. But by a Miniſter I underſtand one who doth Officially and Authoritatively Preach, adminiſter Sacraments, govern the Church, ordain others, (though the latter ſeems to be a begging of the queſtion.)
2. Neither is the queſtion what may be done in a caſe extraordinary when Ordination cannot be had, this our Divines have ſpoken to ſufficiently; Loc. com. p. 748. Synop. pur. Theol. Diſ. 42. S. 39, 43, 44.I could quote divers, but I will mention only Peter Martyr, who ſhall ſpeak for all the reſt. Quando adhuc extructa non eſt eccleſia, & homines Chriſtianae religionis ignari ſunt, quicunque ibi fortè fortunâ fuerint qui Chriſtum probe norint, illum tenentur annunciare, neque ordinatio eſt expectanda ubi haberi non poteſt: quod eſt intelligendum, ſi omnino ei deſit copia Ordinantium; nam ſi aliquos poſſit accedere qui ſe uſitato more ordinent Manus imponendo, non debet Ordinationem negligere. Then adds a little after, Quae a Deo fiunt extra ordinem, admirari debemus, non ſemper imitari. But this is none of our caſe. Theſe things being premiſſed, I undertake the Negative.
1. Gifts are not ſufficient. A perſon gifted is the material cauſe of a Miniſter, the formal as yet is wanting. Heb. 5.It was ſaid of old, No man taketh this honour to himſelf, but he that is called of God. But if he be gifted he may take it, may he not? No; the Text allows it not. I let the Socinians alone to thoſe who have anſwered them: I only add, it was the office not the honour that did look to Chriſt. Our happineſs lies in this, that he is our High Prieſt, performs that office in our behalf, not in the honour that attends the office (at leaſt not primarily.) Chriſt hath his call, Iſa. 42.6. Paul hath his call, Rom. 1.1. A Miniſter muſt be able to ſay he was called to the office. Sur. ch. diſ. p. 3. p. 9. p. 2. p. 42, 45.Reverend Hooker calls it an Anabaptiſtical Frenſy to meddle with the Acts of a Church Officer without a call: and in another place he ſaith, All ſuch Acts are void, and of none effect, though men have gifts.
I know Ames is much againſt the the common Interpretation of that text, Rom. 10.15. upon which I perceive generally our Divines have grounded that Miſſio poteſtativa, which they make the ſubſtance, eſſence, and formal act of Ordination. But Ames ſaith, Bell. ener. To. 2. p. 82.Miſſio nuſquam in Scriptura ſignificat vocationem ordinariam, qua per homines in aliquem derivatur: neque ſua ſignificatione notat actum aliquem hominum vocantium hominem ordinaria ratione vocandum. Supple, a Deo, ſaith Cajetan. I intend not to meddle with what the Doctor hath ſaid (though to me the Apoſtle plainly intimates, there can be no preaching without ſending, but then I would ask, How ſhall I know whether my ſelf or another be ſent of God?) but I will rather examine what the Author of the foreign &c. (who makes Ordination not eſſential to the call of a Miniſter) hath commented upon it. The ſending which the Apoſtle means is not a Miniſterial or Eccleſiaſtical ſending, but a providential ſending by giving men gifts, and working with them in their uſe and exerciſe. He gives reaſons, of which afterwards.
1. Then it ſeems Eccleſiaſtical ſending is not providential ſending. Hath God no act of providence in the ſending of a Miniſter, when he is ſent by Miniſters? I thought providential ſending (as the more general) had comprehended under it Miniſterial ſending, but this Author oppoſeth them not this but that.
2. I thought God's preſence working with men in the exerciſe of their gifts, let them be ſent providentially or eccleſiaſtially had been a diſtinct thing from his ſending them; that to ſend is one thing, and to work with a perſon ſent is another. So to give gifts is one thing, but to ſend a gifted man another: if not, but gifting be ſending, then Election is as needleſs as Ordination; for why? I am ſent providentially becauſe I am gifted: but that Author is ſtiff for popular Election.
3. But what if God doth not pleaſe to work in the exerciſe of gifts to breed faith? are not therefore ſuch perſons ſent? it muſt not be ſo by this Interpretation. The Prophets of God did little or no good that we read of, yet 2 Chron. 36.15. God ſaith he ſent them: till they found the Lord working they were not fent. It's poſſible they might preach half a year or more before they did convert one; it ſeems all that time they were not ſent becauſe God did not work with their gifts. Iſa. 6. the Prophet had a commiſſion not to breed faith, yet ſent; this will trouble ſome good Miniſters. Some mens gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home, are they not therefore ſent?
4. Then it ſeems if God make me an inſtrument to beget faith in any, I muſt not look at it as the fruit of God's ſending me Eccleſiaſtically (as he hath appointed Paſtors and Teachers for the gathering and building up his Church) but only as I was ſent providentially, and ſo have no comfort quatenus an Officer.
5. Doth God's ſending by giving gifts, and Miniſterial ſending oppoſe each other? in one ſenſe indeed he may make gifts and Ordination oppoſites, for they do differre re & ratione: but if he conſider them in their affection to a Miniſter, they are eſſential cauſes conſtituting the ſame effect, the Miniſterial fending following God's gifting.
His Reaſons. 1. Elſe none can be an inſtrument of converſion but a Preacher ſent.
A. The great ſtanding Ordinance which God hath appointed to breed faith inſtrumentally, is the Miniſtry Eccleſiaſtically fent: and I think Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. will prove it; though God hath not tied up himſelf ſo as to uſe no other means, but this is his common way. Fox Mart. Vol. 1 p. 299.Waldus when his neighbour that was walking with him fell down dead, began to live ſpiritually; here was no body ſent providentially with gifts. I have heard of ſome perſons who were adult, that could neither hear nor ſpeak, yet ſo far as in charity we might judge by ſome of their outward geſtures in reference to holy things, they might have grace; yet faith ordinarily comes by hearing. I knew a good Chriſtian, in conference with a ſick perſon, another ſtanding by the beds-ſide and hearing the conference, he who was now ſeventy years old began to live; the Chriſtians gifts not fit for a Miniſter; but what then? doth not God ordinarily convert by gifted men? Divers inſtances might be given which would make as much againſt providential ſending by gifts, as Eccleſiaſtical ſending.
2. Reaſon. No man can be ſure whether he hath faith or no, till he be ſure his faith was wrought in him by a Miniſter lawfully called.
A. The former anſwer ſerves here; we tie not men to this; the old man I mentioned before, and Waldus, might upon his grounds as much queſtion the truth of their faith, becauſe not wrought by men providentially ſent with gifts.
I could give another anſwer, but I leave this.
2. As gifts alone are not ſufficient, ſo neither are gifts and popular election ſufficient.
Let theſe men bring forth their Scriptures and ſhew us where theſe two have conſtituted a Miniſter. There are but three Texts brought to prove popular election, and none of them will do it. Not Acts 1. for (beſides divers things which might be ſaid) they did not elect an Apoſtle, when they had nominated two, they could not tell which was the Apoſtle till God choſe. Cartw. Reply, p. 204.The Church choſe no Apoſtle, but only chooſe two, of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an Apoſtle. Cartw. So Calvin Inſt. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 13.
Acts 6. will not prove it; there was Ordination beſides election, (though ſome deny here as any officer at all ordained, of which anon.)
Acts 14. I find a Text much inſiſted upon: ſome from hence would gather that a man may be a Miniſter without Ordination, that popular election is ſufficient; which they ground upon the word foreign: others of our Congregationall Brethren here in England, who will allow Ordination as an Adjunct to the call, they find it here in the verſe; which thus they define. Ordination is a recommending a perſon (choſen) to God, by faſting and prayer.
foreign that carries the popular election; then with faſting and prayer they commended them to God; here is Ordination, and that without impoſition of hands. I will examine both theſe heads.
Firſt, for foreign I am confident that thoſe learned Divines, who have made moſt uſe of this word to prove the peoples power to elect their Miniſter, did never think that this popular election did conſtitute a Miniſter without Ordination, when it might be had; their writings prove it. Neither did ever intend to prove and warrant ſuch elections as our people make, namely, that without any dependance upon the judgement and aſſiſtance of godly and learned Divines to help them, to chooſe whom they liſt upon their own heads. Mr. Cartwright hath ſpoken enough, and with heat ſufficient for the peoples priviledge from this word, yet how far he was from approving ſuch elections we may conceive by his words to the Rhemiſts. Rhem. 14. Teſt. Act. 22.It may be underſtood how truly you ſpeak, as if we ſo commended the Churches election, as we ſhut out the Biſhops ordination, which we do not only give unto them, but make them alſo the chief and directors in election, (Scripture Biſhops we mean.) And thus in other place. Thus Ames alſo, Med. The. C. 39. Theſ. 31.
If what our ancient Divines have ſaid will not give content, I will come a little neerer.
1. It's certain the word foreign relates to Paul and Barnabas; thoſe who did foreign and foreign in the 22. v. doe foreign in the 23. v. elſe we muſt go look for our Grammar, which Luke did and could write ſure enough.
If then the word muſt be reſtrained to election, I am ſure Paul and Barnabas did elect; this the Grammar will force, which is a ſurer rule then a Criticiſm to bring the people in.
2. If foreign muſt relate to the people, then let us ſee what ſenſe we ſhall make of it. foreign the people chooſing by lifting up their hands, foreign Elders, foreign: I think it ſhould rather have been foreign, ſurely they chooſe for themſelves not the Apoſtles, then it would have run more ſmoothly for popular election; but it is foreign eſt eligere proprio ſuffragio, non per ſuffragia ab aliis data.
3. It is certain what we call Ordination, the Greeks call foreign, when it is uſed in reference to the conſtitution of an Officer: this is plain enough to him who will read Chryſoſtome, who I ſee in all theſe places where Impoſition of hands is uſed in the Text in the Ordination of a Church-Officer in his Comment upon the Text, uſeth always the word foreign. See him on Acts 13.3, & 4 where three times he uſes this word. I will name no more but Acts 6.6. upon thoſe words foreign, thus he ſpeaks. foreign. Thus I have obſerved Baſil to uſe the word; It's ſtrange theſe Greek Fathers ſhould not underſtand their mother-tongue. Had Chryſoſtom been againſt the peoples Election, I ſhould have ſuſpected ſomething; but I find him contrary. That the word muſt needs imply the peoples Election, Acts 10.41. is well known to oppoſe it.
The Syriack Tranſlation confirms this; for they render the word, Et conſtituerunt. The ſame verb, and in the ſame conjugation which Paul uſeth, 1 Tit. 5. But if it were the peoples foreign, which did conſtitute Officers, certainly Paul needed not to have left Titus there to doe that, which they could doe without him, and did though he were there; to leave Titus onelyonly to contribute an Adjunct when the people have given the Eſſence, I could never receive this conceit.
The Arabick alſo refers the Act to the Apoſtles, Et deſignarunt eis manibus ſuis in ſingulis Eccleſiis Presbyteros. And by this the Impoſition o… hands is plainly implyed.&c.
All things conſidered, I do much more queſtion whether any thing can be brought from this word to prove popular Election, then I doe believe popular Election conſtitutes a Miniſter. To have a Miniſter impoſed upon godly people, or a true Viſible Church without their conſent, I look on it as great tyranny. This was not the primitive practice; Ep. ad Cor. p 57.for Clemens ſaith when the Apoſtles, or other foreign [no mention made of the Fraternity doing it] did conſtitute Elders, he adds foreign, yet I do not think that the people elect tanquam ex authoritate, Electio non cogit.they doe eligere, non per jurisdictionem, ſed per ſubjectionem, ſaith Ames. This power the people have, that no man ſhal have power over them unleſſe they conſent to ſubject unto him; but what is this to their having ſo much power over him, as to make him a Miniſter? To be their Miniſter, and to be a Miniſter are two things. If no Authority be put forth in the peoples Election, there is none put forth in Ordination (ſure:) if it be but an Adjunct, certainly the Adjunct ſhould moſt properly belong to them who give the Eſſence, then Miniſters come into Office without any Authoritative Act put forth; faſting and prayer [common to all Chriſtians] which they make Ordination, is no Act of Authority.
It is ſtrange Doctrine to me, that a Miniſter ſhould be a Miniſter onelyonly in that congregation which elected him. Mr Noyes tells us, That the Elders of one Church have power to act in all Churches upon mtreaty; P 48.and yet tells us the power of the Keyes is originally and eſſentially in the body of the members, that they give the Keys: p. 10. p. 11.that Election is the Eſſence of the Call; which doctrine I cannot yet receive. I queſtion not but every true Miniſter bears relation to the Church Catholick; were now the Catholick Church reduced to ſix particular Churches, if members came to my congregation out of all thoſe ſix, I would not queſtion to adminiſter the Lords Supper to them all at one time, and this our brethren deny not; but why muſt I perform an official act to them to whom I bear no relation? If I ſhould goe with my people into any one of theſe ſix congregations, then I hope I may adminiſter there alſo; this I ſuppoſe may be allowed; for why may not I as well adminiſter there as in my own place? I hope they will not tye up Churches to places, ſo as the place makes the difference. I know what men argue from the Analogy of a Mayor in a Corporation, which is no proof, but only illuſtration; and if our brethren can find out that Chriſt hath one Catholick Civil Common-wealth which makes up his body, as we can find he hath a Catholick Church which is his body, then the Analogy will have more force. But I muſt break off from this diſcourſe, though I had ſomething more to have ſaid to this.
I doubt not but in ſome caſes a man may be Ordained, and Authoritatively ſent forth to preach the Goſpel and baptize without popular election preceding. What Athanaſius did with Frumentius is well known, and ſo others whom I ſpare to name.
If this be true, Loc. Com. p. 199.then popular election gives not the Eſſence. Muſculus, though he had pleaded for that priviledge of the people in the Apoſtolical Primitive Churches, yet again ſhews that that cuſtome cannot be profitable to the Churches now; and therefore in their Churches the people did not elect.
So much for the word foreign, I know no other Texts that can be brought for popular election. Our brethren doe allow Ordination beſides Election; but whether that be Ordination which they call Ordination, is the queſtion: being I am now upon the Text, and think it is that which they build upon (for I know no other) I will briefly examine, and ſo return to this Text no more.
1. It is true, that when a Miniſter is to be ordained, the Church doth ſolemnly ſeek the Lord by faſting and prayer for his grace and bleſſing upon the perſon to be ordained, which ſhews the weight of the office, and of Ordination to it; but commending here doth not relate to their faſting and prayer, but is diſtinct. Faſting and prayer relates to their Ordination. Cor. a Lap. ſaith, here is a Hiſterologia: Oratio enim & jejunium praemiſſum fuit ordinationi presbyterorum, Intex.ut in. Cap. 13. v. 2, 3. Therefore Luke uſeth the Aoriſt foreign, i.e. poſtquam oraſſent q.d. cum poſt orationem & jejunium conſtituiſſent eis Presbyteros. Nor is that the main buſineſs of Ordination, to commend a man to God, this Text will not force it, as in the next I ſhall clear. … ordinationis proprius eſt collatio proteſtatis docendi & ſacramenta adminiſtrandi, ad illum ordinatio per ſe dirigitur, De Miniſ. Eccleſ. p. 182.eundemque perpetuo & infallibiliter conſequitur: ſaith Gerhard, with whom agrees the ſtream of Divines, and the practiſe of the Churches in N. England: For though a man may teach for the trial of his gifts in order to office half a year, a whole year, yet he adminiſters no Sacraments till he be ordained. Sepa. Exa. p. 54, 55.I have ſpoken more to this in my Book againſt the ſeparation.
2. This Text ſerves not our brethrens turns; for if ſo, then All thoſe whom the Apoſtles here commended to God the Apoſtles ordained.
But the Apoſtles did not ordain all thoſe whom they commended to God: ergo, ordination is not a commending, &c.
The major is plain; for Definitio & Definitum reciprocantur. Our brethren will ſay, but the commending of perſons choſen, &c. will be ordination by this Text. No; for the laſt words ſhew whom they commended; The Believing Diſciples. The whole Churches; they commended them to God in whom they had believed. Now believing is not the next cauſe of a perſons being ordained, but they did commend them to God quatenus believers. The method of Ordination is thus, 1. A Believer. 2. A Perſon gifted. 3. A Perſon elected (in conſtituted Churches.) 4. Ordained. Women did believe, and they were commended to God as well as any other. So that foreign anſwers to foreign in the verſe; and foreign relates to foreign, in v. 22. this being the laſt act of Paul and Barnabas, when they had confirmed and exhorted the Diſciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Paſtors and people to God. I ſee Calvin, Piſcator, Cor. a Lap. agree with me, making no queſtion of this Interpretation, for they paſs it over as granted. And Muſculus ſpeaks my mind clearly, Ergo jejunantes & orantes, quod in coetu fidelium fieri ſolebat, ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos (obſerve, he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verſe) & poſt eam ordinationem, commendaverunt eccleſiam Domino & diſceſſerunt.
3. That Text in Acts 20.32. confutes this notion. foreign. Follow foreign in this Text to the 2. Aor. voc. med. and we ſhall find foreign in Acts 14.23. Now the Apoſtle did not ordain theſe, he calls them Elders and Biſhops before, and ſo they were; but now taking his leave of them, he commended them to God; and ſo he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed.
4. I cannot yet be convinced, but that ordination is an act of authoritative power; but commending of a perſon to God in prayer is no act of ſuch power.
5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination, as I ſhall ſhew afterwards, ergo this is not the true definition.
Thus then I have made it clear, that gifts and popular election are not ſufficient to conſtitute a Miniſter, (if the Scripture may be judge) we may make uſe of other civil officers to illuſtrate it more. Keck. pol.The Athenian Senators were ſworn, though the people did foreign. So are our Magiſtrates: take a Conſtable, though the Town hath choſen him to that office, yet if he ſhall act as a Conſtable before he be ſworn, he is a treſpaſſor, and a man may have an Action againſt him for his ſo doing.
There is much reaſon why the popular election ſhould give the eſſence here, but there is no ſuch reaſon why it ſhould to a Miniſter; yet here we find in civil officers more then election before they can act. I pray let us have order in the Church as well.
This being diſpatched, now it will neceſſarily follow that Ordination is neceſſary to the conſtitution of a Miniſter, though I ſhould ſay no more: it is but little I intend to ſay, (or need to ſay) for the reaſon I gave before.
Arg. 1. Firſt, Conformity to the rules of God's houſe in things pertaining to his houſe is neceſſary.
Ordination of Miniſters, Stewards (pertaining to the houſe) is conformity to the rules of the houſe of God: ergo Ordination of Miniſters is neceſſary.
The major, if any deny, they muſt take away the authority of the Scriptures, leave men to their own phantaſies, which no holy man ever dare ſay, ſo that I doubt not but that will ſtand. The minor, if any deny, it muſt be upon one of theſe two grounds. 1. Either denying that we have any poſitive rules, becauſe we have none but examples, which ſhews how Miniſters came in to office. But if thoſe examples of Apoſtles commiſſioned by Chriſt to order his houſe, having ſuch a promiſe of his preſence with them, be not rules to us, then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his houſe, which were ſtrange defect of wiſedom to impute to Chriſt, that he ſhould have a houſe and no order in it; and contrary to the old Church, which had rules exactly for their officers coming in. Nor muſt popular election be ever more pleaded for. Or
2. They muſt deny it, becauſe officers were made without any ordination, which is the thing. I deſire to ſee proved from Scripture. If we obſerve the practiſe of the Apoſtles after they had received the promiſe of the Spirit, and were now fitted and ſent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them, we find that thus they did ſet Deacons in the houſe of God, Acts 6.6.
Obj. But it is objected, That here was no ordination to any office at all; there were perſons before who did this work that we ſuppoſe the Deacons ſhould; theſe men were appointed only for that foreign, neceſſity, in v. 3. that is, to end that difference which aroſe in v. 1.
1. A. It is true, there were ſome who did diſtribute the goods of the Church to the poor, &c. who thoſe were I think Chap. 4. v. ult. will tell us: They laid the money at the Apoſtles feet. Whence it is clear to me that the Apoſtles had this burden upon them alſo; compare the verſe with chap. 6.2. and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work ſo that both they could not tend; whence by the Spirit they were guided to Inſtitute the Deacon. Upon ſearch I find other men of my mind. aInſt. l. 4. c. 3.9.Calvin. bExam. Con. Trid. p. 217.Chemnitius. cIn 4. praec. p. 766.Zanch. with more whom I could mention.
2. The Apoſtles do not ſay v. 2. to leave the word of God & decide differences, but ſerve Tables, which they ſaw hindered them, and one they ſaw they muſt neglect, or perform not well, as we ſee complaint made; whence foreign in v. 3. muſt anſwer to that which the Apoſtles could not attend to in v. 2. which was foreign.
3. As the Church-Members conſiſt of bodies as well as ſouls, which bodies muſt be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them; and ſince God hath given in charge that collections ſhould be made for the poor. Since alſo there are divers things which belong to the worſhip of God, and things about the Church, which muſt have money to buy them, and to anſwer for them; hence it ſtands with right reaſon that an Officer be choſen and authorized to be the Church-Treaſurer, to take in theſe collections and moneys, and by theſe to ſerve the poors Table, the Lord's Table, (I conceive they had their Love-feaſts at that time alſo) and why they ſhould not attend upon the Miniſter at the Adminiſtration of the Lord's Supper I know not. In N. England the Deacons alſo bring in to the Elders Table, they are not troubled as we are here to ſend to every bodies houſe in particular for our due.
4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1. there was ſuch an Officer as a Deacon, and that diſtinct from the Biſhop. I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer, not the Biſhops I am ſure, then he ſhould not have been diſtinguiſh'd from the Biſhop; neither are the ſame qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Biſhop. When or where had this Officer his original? I think in this Chapter we may be ſatisfied, but no where elſe that I know of.
Theſe things ſatisfie me, with the judgement of the Church, which conſtantly hath maintained that here were Officers ordained. I know much diſpute there hath been and is whether this Deacon might not preach and baptize: but that is none of my queſtion; if here were the ordination of an Officer it ſerves my turn. When I had done, caſting my eye accidentally upon Bucanus. P. 494.Loc. Com. I found him ſpeaking my thoughts, and ſomething more, who gave me much content in opening the Deacons Office.
Thus then Deacons come into their office.
Thus Timothy alſo came into his office, 1 Tim. 4.14. ſo it is generally underſtood. Out of his Epiſtles I ſhall gather more in the next argument.
Whether Paul and Barnabas were ordained in Acts 13.2, 3. is a great queſtion, ſome deny it, many affirm it: if they were, it puts much honour upon that Ordinance, and ſhews more the neceſſity of this ordinance in men coming to the Miniſtry. Let us ſee firſt who they are that own this to be ordination, ſome I have met with, and others may know more; of this judgement I finde Chryſoſtome, foreign [obſerve the word] foreign, &c. with whom agree others of the Greek Fathers. Thus Calvin. Inſt. l. 4. c. 3. ſ. 14. Chemnitius, Zanchy, Polanus, Gualter (Officio divinitus ſimul & ab eccleſiâ commiſlo, ſaith he upon the Text) Aretius (who infiſts upon it largely.) Gerhard, Maccovius, Malcolmus, Waltherus, (who reconciles this with Gal. 1.1.) Ravanel Diodati, Our Engliſh Annotations, Ainſworth (upon Numb. 8.10.) The Synod of N. England, who quote this Text to prove Miniſters ought to be ordained, and that with Impoſition of hands. Of the Popiſh party I could name more, but I ſpare them. Theſe men are ſo worthy, that their judgement is not eaſily to be ſlighted.
But we have harder work in writing in our days then others had heretofore, when the quotation of men was proof ſufficient, but this will not now ſerve the turn. Thus then
Poſitâ definitione, ponitur Definitum.
But here Ponitur Definitio Ordinationis: Ergo. The Papiſts, who make Ordination a Sacrament (properly ſo called) contend about the matter; for the form they are all agreed, that the form Conſiſtit in verbis, quibus ſufficienter ſignificatur traditio poteſtatis, ſaith Valen. To the ſame purpoſe ſpeaks Bellarm. Convenit inter omnes, materiam eſſe aliquod ſignum ſenſibile, formam autem eſſe verba quae dicuntur, dum illud ſignum exhibetur. But whether the calix & patina cum pane & vino be the matter, and thoſe words then ſpoken, Accipe poteſtatem offerendi ſacrificium, &c. be the form, as Valen. and his party, or whether the Impoſition of hands, with theſe words, Accipe poteſtatem remittendi peccata do compleat the Act, ſo as a man is not ordained till this be done, as Bellarm. and his party; here they are divided. Bellarm. will have Impoſition of hands to be eſſential to the Sacrament, becauſe elſe, ſaith he, we cannot convince the Hereticks, that Ordination is a Sacrament properly ſo called, becauſe we cannot demonſtrate in the Scripture any other external ſymbole of this Sacrament. As for the word Sacrament in their ſenſe, their cup, platter, &c. we lay them by; ſo for their words, which they make the form, we lay them by: yet I perceive our Brethren do contend for ſome words which ſhould be uſed at the laying on the hands of the Elderſhip.
For my part I am loth to engage further then I have clear Scripture to back me, or neceſſary conſequence from it. If we take Ordination at large, as this Scripture holds it out, and other agree with it, it may be thus deſcribed. Ordination is the ſeparation of a perſon called to the work of the Miniſtry, by perſons in office with faſting, prayer, and Impoſition of hands: Thus far this Text will warrant us; and it is the fulleſt that any one Text will afford us. Let us ſee how this ſutes with other Scriptures. Rom. 1.1. Paul tells the Romans, he was called to be an Apoſtle, ſeparated unto the Goſpel of God. Here is my Authority, I do not run before I was ſent. But when was this done? and how this done? look to my Text, and I doubt not but theſe Texts anſwer each to other. Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the worke whereunto I have called them, v. 2. I have called, do you then ſeparate: both the words we find here. It ſeems they were not to ſeek what it was to ſeparate, how to go about it, they had been acquainted with that work before. This phraſe ſeparate is the old phraſe the Lord uſed before in his ordaining of old Officers. Numb. 8.14. Thus ſhalt thou ſeparate the Levites, &c. thus, how? among other things; The children of Iſrael ſhall put their hands upon the Levites. It was ſo here with Paul. So Deut. 10.8. At that time the Lord ſeparated the Tribe of Levi. So Numb. 16.9. a full place. The Lord ſeparated Iſrael from other Nations, this was a high favour; but in Iſrael the Lord made another ſeparation, and this was higher honour ſtill. Seemeth it but a ſmall thing unto you that the God of Iſrael hath ſeparated you, &c. Thus we ſee the Lord keeps the old phraſe.
A perſon called. Paul and Barnabas were ſo, by God immediately, and theſe perſons commanded from God immediately to ſeparate to ordain them: whence well might Paul ſay, Gal. 1.1. was no Apoſtle by man. For all is here by immediate command from God; whatever was done about them was by immediate revelation. Whence he ſaith v. 4. So they being ſent forth by the Holy Ghoſt: yet they prayed, faſted, and impoſed hands. Waltherus, Harmo, p. 490. ſpeaks more to the clearing of this doubt. As Paul then and Barnabas were called immediately, ſo in conſtituted Churches Miniſters are elected.
By Perſons in Office. Not every office; no mention made …here of Ruling Elders or Deacons, but Teachers at the loweſt.
If the people ſhould claim this power as ſome do, for the people in Numb. 8. did impoſe hands on the Levites, I have anſwered to this. Sepa. Exam. p. 70, 71. I add but this, The Apoſtles did tranſlate Impoſition of hands from the old Teſtament to the New in the Ordination of Miniſters; but for the peoples impoſition of hands, we find no ſuch thing.
With prayer, faſting, impoſition, &c. Here a queſtion may be moved, Whether faſting and prayer did properly belong to the eſſence of Ordination? or whether as in other Ordinances we pray before the Adminiſtration of the Ordinance, ſo here was praying for the Lord's grace and bleſſing upon the perſon to be ordained, but ordination for the eſſence a diſtinct thing?
Some I ſuppoſe make it the whole eſſence, their Acts declare it, they do nothing elſe (unleſs preach) and others look on impoſition of hands but as a common thing among the Jews, when they would wiſh one well, or pray for them, or bleſs them after their manner, they laid their hands on their heads, and ſo impoſition is now laid aſide.
A. But ſtay a little, 1. Are you certain that theſe prayed while they impoſed hands in ordination? I do not ſee how you will force it out of the Text: nor can you force it from Acts 6.6. the word is foreign, the Aor. 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabick Tranſlations (with which Piſcator and others agree) render the words, and when they had prayed they laid hands, plainly ſignifying that the prayers went before impoſition; nor I am ſure will this Text help them; for what, I pray, Did they impoſe hands all the while they faſted and prayed? ſurely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day; whence it is more probable after that day was well ſpent in faſting and prayer, then they impoſed hands. Then the Jews common cuſtome doth not make impoſition ſo ſilly a thing.
2. In the conſecration of the Levites (and ſo of the Prieſts) where we find Impoſition, we find no mention of prayer at all (that I ſee) much leſs at their Impoſition; if it were, it was not the eſſence of the ordinance, ſo far as I can learn; I know divers of God's things muſt be eſteemed as ſlight things, if our heads muſt be judges. But I think Tertul. ſpake excellently: De paeniten.Audaciam exiſtimo de bono divini praecepti diſputare: neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auſcultare debemus, ſed quia Deus praecepit, &c.
3. Ordination is the authorizing of a perſon to his work: So the word foreign, Acts 6.3. plainly imply. Both H. Stephens, and Scapula, agree that the word ſignifies *Conſtituo, ſic Conſtituere Regem. vel Creare. H. Stephens, Ib.praeficio. [Hinc praefectus] to put in authority, to give rule, to ordain a Ruler. So theſe Texts, Acts 7.10.27. Luc. 12.42. make it clear, with other Texts. H. Stephens, Theſ. To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of theſe Texts, Matth. c. 24. & cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is uſed, ſaith, Quibus in locis, non conſtituere ſolum, ſed & praeficere verti poteſt, Sur. Ch. Diſ. p. 3. p. 9.& quidem aptiùs. To this reverend Hooker agreeth. The Lord Chriſt in his Kingly care conceived it neceſſary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choiſe men and ſolemn Ordination to authorize them to the work, &c. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend: define prayer, and ſee how it ſuits with authorizing, nothing like it; to beg and to authorize are not the ſame. Unleſs we look on Ordination as the conſecration of a man to God, then a prayer may be part of the eſſence.
4. If you ask me what is then? truly I find it hard to anſwer; it is plain to me, it is not that which ſome cry up ſo, and content themſelves with, diſſenting from their brethren. Impoſition of hands I am ſure is in the Text, and muſt come into Ordination. I find that the old Non-conformiſts, ſpeaking firſt of the election of a Miniſter, in which the help of neighbouring Miniſters muſt be required; then add, After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the elderſhip, with theſe words pronounced by the Miniſter thereunto appointed, [According to this lawful calling, agreeable to the word of God, whereby thou art choſen Paſtor, In the name of God, ſtand thou charged with the Paſtoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made thee Overſeer, to govern the flock of God which he hath purchaſed with his blood.]
When I read theſe words, it made me call to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about ſixteen years fince, which was the laſt ordination I ſaw, or can remember any thing of; my memory may fail me in ſome circumſtance, but as I do remember it was very little different from this.
The Paſtor and the Teacher Impoſed hands, and then ſaid, We do in the name of Chriſt ordain thee N.N. Mat. 10.5. Mark 3.14. Luc. 9.2. Chriſt called, ordained, ſent his Diſciples forth to preach with power and authority, he in his own name, we in his name, ſurely Chriſt uſed words ſuitable.(naming the perſon) Deacon of this Church, &c. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handſome form; when they had ſo done, a ſhort prayer they made, their hands being ſtill upon the Deacons head.
According to the form of the Non-conformiſts and the Church in N. England, there is ſomething appears like authorizing of a perſon to his work. Now if the queſtion be whether this be lawful or not? where have we warrant for this? that words were thus uſed in the primitive times, is plain enough to thoſe who read Hierom, Ambroſe, Auſtin. For Scripture this is plain, though ſome of theſe words be not ſet down in the Scripture, yet if there be an authorizing, appointing, Acts 6.3. a ſeparating, ſetting apart, Acts 13. Some words muſt be ſpoken that muſt ſignifie ſo much, and what breach of rule it is to ſay, we ordain, or ſet apart, being the perſon is now ſetting apart, the thing is doing? For uſing the name of Chriſt, I hope it is he who hath given Paſtors and Teachers to his Church, and from him doth the perſon now ordaining receive his power immediately, (It was not the Kingdom of Heaven gave Peter the keys, I do not ſay the form of Ordination lies in theſe words, I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance, which I have not expreſſe Scripture for, I would not give my adverſary ſo much advantage; yet Reaſon tells that prayer alone, or impoſition of hands alone, or both without words ſuitable cannot make an Ordination.but Chriſt gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven) under his authority, in his name they muſt act. For the other words applying to the perſon ordaining, what duties the Scriptures do charge ſuch an office withal; I hope this ought to be, elſe it were a raw buſineſs. So that by neceſſary conſequence from Scripture I cannot well ſee how theſe things can be denied; who can prove the Apoſtles did not uſe ſome ſuch words, though they be not ſet down. A ſending, Rom. 10. Setting apart, Appointing there muſt be and is; then give us that which ſhew and expreſſe theſe words: they were rational men, and the Spirit purely rational which guided them, whence we may well conceive ſomething was ſpoken which anſwered the Scriptural expreſſions; and ſo long as we hold to them I can ſee no harm, but that rather ought to be. Let others ſpeak more rationally who oppoſe this; and leaving out impoſition of hands, with theſe expreſſions, ſhew what you do, which doth carry in it the authorizing of a man to his work. I am ſure there is more reaſon for this, and Scripture will more look to us in it, then there is for that magiſterial power which congregational Miniſters (not Chriſt, that we can find in Scripture) give to the people to keep men as they pleaſe from being admitted into the Church; and hence againſt their Paſtors, qualified men are kept out.
For the Objections which are made againſt this Text for Ordination, I find theſe.
Obj. 1. Some conceive there is no ordination here, becauſe he doth not ſay, to the office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, v. 2.
A. By the ſame reaſon you may ſay, there was no ordination in Acts 6. becauſe the Apoſtles in v. 3. do not uſe the word office, but foreign. But I am confident thoſe Divines who uſe this argument, do acknowledge there was Ordination.
2. If a perſon be ſeparated to the work of an officer, I think he is ſeparated to the office which that work belongs to.
Q. But what office was it to which they were now ſeparated?
A. To be Apoſtles to the Gentiles: this I conceive was the buſineſs, and if we follow them in this and the next Chapters, we ſhall find what was the office. I think verſe 15. of Chapter 9. is now fulfilled: the Lord told Ananias that Paul was a choſen veſſel to bear his name amongst the Gentiles; and now is Paul ordained to it, and not before. This was a great worke indeed, to have the Gentiles brought into the Church; there was need of ſome ſolemn act to prove their commiſſion. Obſerve verſe 46. of this Chapter, Paul ſays to the Jews, Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Thus Chryſoſtom twice, it was foreign, which I think ſignifies Munus Apoſtolicum. And thus moſt Divines I meet with affirm.
Obj. 2. Paul was made an Apoſtle before, Acts 9.
A. Prove that; the Text holdeth forth no ſuch thing. Aretius ſaith, that in Acts 9. Paul was not ſent to the Gentiles, but to Ananias, a quo diſceret diſcenda. And Mr. Noyes denieth that Paul was an Apoſtle in this Chapter 13. but thinks he was an Evangeliſt.
2. Paul was a Preacher before (and ſo had his authoritative miſſion I doubt not.) Our Divines in their Comments upon the 1. v. reckon up five eminent perſons amongſt thoſe Prophets and Teachers mentioned [and this runs moſt ſmoothly] Saul muſt be one of thoſe, or elſe five will not be found. Had Saul been then an Apoſtle, then it ſhould have been there were in the Church at Antioch an Apoſtle, Prophets, and Teachers: but Luke doth not mention an Apoſtle, which ſure he would, ſince he doth inferiour officers. For my part I conceive Paul was a Prophet; partly becauſe he was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 9.17. [Paul had there an authoritative miſſion to preach] as I conceive the Prophets mentioned were extraordinary perſons, and their gifts ſuch for ought any thing I could ever ſee to the contrary as yet: partly becauſe I find Prophets did go from one Church to another, according as there was cauſe, being men ſo extraordinarily fitted for ſervice. Thus Judas and Silas, chap. 15.32. being Prophets were ſent, &c. thus Chap. 11.27. Prophets came from Jeruſalem to Antioch. Thus we find Paul and Barnabas joyned and ſent together, Chapter 11.30. and 12.25. and theſe two abode together a whole year at Antioch, Chap. 11.26. But that he was an Apoſtle before now, I ſee nothing to force it. Paul then being one of theſe, and now called to an higher office, this doth not prove Re-ordination to the ſame office: any perſon in office, and called to a higher office, ought to be ordained to it, though he was ordained to an inferiour office before. Re-ordination to the ſame office I know no warrant for.
3. After Chriſts Aſcenſion Apoſtles were not choſen in ſuch a private way as that Acts 9. would hold out. We find Matthias, Acts 1. choſen in a publick and ſolemn manner, God declaring his choiſe. So here in Acts 13. in a publick meeting Paul is called and ſeparated in a ſolemn manner.
Obj. 3. If Paul were ordained an Apoſtle, then the greater was bleſſed of the leſſer: his Apoſtolical power and order was given by them who themſelves had not Apoſtolical power, being but Prophets and Teachers.
A. 1. They were not commanded to bleſs, but ſeparate. Ordination and bleſſing differ very much; we might as well ſay, Why ſhould the leſs ſeparate the greater? ſo we find it here, and it is in vain to diſpute againſt it if God will have it ſo; but this was extraordinary.
2. Paul's Apoſtolical power he received from him who commanded him to be ſeparated, that is, the Holy Ghoſt, yet he is pleaſed to command theſe to ſeparate him to it; and ſurely ſuch perſons who ordain others by vertue of an immediate command and revelation from God, though their office be inferiour to the perſons ordained, yet this immediate command and revelation will countervail the act of others who are equal in office. They acted all by an immediate and extraordinary revelation; whence Paul might well ſay it was by the will of God not of man, that he was an Apoſtle; hence the Text ſaith, v. 4. they were ſent forth by the Holy Ghoſt. The call was from the Holy Ghoſt, the command to ſeparate them was from the Holy Ghoſt.
3. That Barnabas was made an Apoſtle now, I think will not be denied: that he was an Apoſtle, Chap. 14. v. 14. tells us, which when the Apoſtles Barnabas and Paul, &c. Thus Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. p. 373, & 375. mentioning ſome of the writings of Barnabas calls him foreign twice. Thus Hierom, Catal. Script. Eccleſ. ſaith of him, Barnabas was ordained Apoſtle of the Gentales with Paul. Others I. could quote, who call him the Apoſtle Barnabas. But that Barnabas was an Apoſtle before now I think none will ſay; for the Text is clear againſt him. Why then Paul ſhould not now be made an Apoſtle alſo, I ſee no reaſon, as well as Barnabas. Hierom ſaith foreign.
4. If Paul were ſeparated before to the office of an Apoſtle, what need he be ſeparated now again: I know no inſtance in Scripture where men were twice ſeparated to the ſame office.
Corn. a Lap. upon the Text, ſpeaks thus, Saulus jam ab initio ſuae converſionis, a Deo deſignatus & auctoratus erat Apoſtolus Gentium. Acts 9.15. Sed in actu primo & ſecretè, hìc in actu ſecundo & publicè deſignatur Apoſtolus.
Mr. Noyes, who writes againſt impoſtion of hands, finding it uſed in this place, ſaith, Paul was indeed called out of courſe, and therefore God may by this ſign with many other commend Paul to the Church as an Apoſtle of Chriſt. Yet but an Evangeliſt as yet with him. See Waltherus Harmon. p. 490. Alſo Aretius upon the Text.
Arg. 2. If Chriſt hath committed power to Miniſters to ordain Miniſters, then Ordination is neceſſary to a Miniſter. But the Antecedent is true; ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for to what end was the power committed if it need not be executed; it is to accuſe Chriſt of want of wiſedom to give a needleſs power to officers, to command them to do a thing, and order them ſtrictly in doing of it, if men may come into office without it. If I have a power committed to me to preach, and baptize, then ſome are bound to hear and to be baptized. So in this.
1. For the Antecedent, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands on no man ſuddenly. p. 2. p. 50.In quo praecepto non ſolum exemplum ſed mandatum continetur, ſaith Walaeus. That Ordination is here meant, there is ſuch a unanimous conſent of the Church, that I think there is no queſtion of it. Thus the Fathers, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Epiſcopal, *Synod. N. E. platf. ch. p. 11. M. Hooker Sur Ch. Diſp. p. 2. p. 74.Claſſical, and Congregational: yea, though divers of the Papiſts do underſtand their Sacrament of Pennance, yet Anſelm, Cajetan, Cor. a Lap. Juſtin, Salmeron, underſtand it rather of Ordination. But I muſt meet with this Text again, and then I will prove it muſt be meant of Ordination.
2. 2 Tim. 2.2. few Interpreters that I ſee touch that which I aim at, i.e. How did Timothy commit? or what was it for him to commit? &c. The things which we had heard [not Traditions, as the Papiſts hence gather, for Quae Apoſtolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit, Gerh. in loc.ſunt eadem cum illis quae ſcriptis conſignavit] he muſt commit: To whom? They muſt be faithful mon, and foreign able to teaach others. foreign, &c. Chryſoſtom upon this Text, and Cartwright in his Comment upon the ſpeech of Chriſt to Nicodemus, would make us believe it is not ſo eaſie a matter to be a Miniſter as our vain heads in theſe days take it to be. But ſtill how did Timothy commit theſe? was it by teaching or preaching to them? ſo he did commit them to weak men and women as well as able men: was it by writing theſe? ſo the whole Church had them committed. This is clear, the men muſt be able before the things be committed: his teaching might help them to be able; but being qualified and able, how doth he commit them? Surely by laying on of hands, i.e. ordaining of them, and thus ſeparating them to the work of the Miniſtry, he doth indeed commit them. If this Interpretation do not pleaſe, give me a better. After much ſearching I found one or two go my way. Non ſolum fideliter eos doceas, ſed etiam poteſtatem alios docendi ipſis conferas; this is Commenting in Gerh. opinion. Magna cura eligendus eſt Doctor, ſaith Ambroſe in loc. If you lay hold of eligendus, pray take it in a large ſenſe as Ambroſe doth, and it was Timothy's election. Anſelm, and Bullinger incline alſo this way.
The 3 Titus 5. Titus is left in Crete to Conſtitute or Ordain Elders. I doe not remember that Clemens uſes any other word, but either foreign, or foreign, [ſignifying the ſame] in his Epiſt. ad Corin. when he ſpeaks of the Apoſtles ordaining of Officers. Doubtleſs [ſaith Muſculus] as Paul left Titus to ordain, Loc. Com. p. 198.ſo Titus kept the method Paul uſed, i. e. election, prayer, and impoſition of hands. Thoſe then that come into the Miniſtry in Crete, they muſt be ordained. In vain were thoſe words to Timothy and Titus, if ordination were ſuch a needleſs thing: Timothy and Titus alſo being Churchofficers, where is this popular election that is ſo much cried up to give the Eſſence? One would think the Apoſtle ſhould have given ſtrict command to the people to look to their Election, becauſe it gave the Eſſence; but not be ſo exact with Timothy and Titus, who gave but an adjunct; who can deny the adjunct, or of what force is it when the eſſence is given before? Timothy and Titus might well ſay, nay Paul, We are clear, we muſt not ordain whom we will, See ſepar, exam. p. 55. ad 59.but whom the people will, to whom they give the eſſence; if an unworthy fellow be choſen, let the fault lie where it doth, it cannot on us; if we gave the eſſence it were true indeed: whether we will ordain them or not, that hinders not, for they have the eſſence; then act they may ſure enough without us.
Arg. 3. It is neceſſary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Miniſter, ſhould ſhew true Authority by which he doth them.
But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Miniſter without Ordination, cannot ſhew true Authority by which he doth them.
Ergo Ordination is neceſſary to a Miniſter.
The Major is plain, it holds in all Acts of Authority, elſe a man is an uſurper. By what authority doſt thou theſe things? ſaid they to Chriſt; the queſtion was rational: if Chriſt had not Authority, he would not have done them.
Minor. He who ſhews true Authority for his Miniſterial Acts, muſt ſhew Scripture-authority.
But he that performs Miniſterial Acts without Ordination, cannot ſhew Scripture-authority. Ergo.
The major is plain. The minor, if any deny, let them produce their Scripture-authorities. He who is ſufficiently qualified, elected [ſuppoſing there is a Church already] and ordained, this man I am ſure may ſhew his Authority: But he that is not Ordained, cannot ſhew it, I know no Scripture to warrant it. Let our queſtion be attended.
I have heard it affirmed, and that ſtrongly, from a perſon of no ſmall abilities, that the Fraternity may Preach, Baptize, adminiſten the Supper as well as the Paſtor; the common Scriptures urged by this wilde generation, and Acts 10.48. were alledged. I never heard that the Papiſts, or our Biſhops, would allow any private man to baptize in a Church where there were Miniſters preſent; this text would force it, if theſe men argue right, provided they can prove that theſe brethren were private men, and Peter not extraordinarily guided; which yet they have not done. But a little further.
1. It was granted there are Church-Officers, and ſhall be till the body be perfected, Eph. 4. If ſo, then theſe Officers have ſome things ſo proper to them, that they are not common to others: But if all men may preach, baptize, adminiſter the Supper, there is nothing proper to the Officers: if any thing, it muſt be government; which firſt is by many denied: But if it be yielded, why may they not take this alſo as well as the reſt? but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them, how are they officers? That officers have ſomething proper to them, I think none can deuy, the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers: If all can make warrants, &c. where is the office of a Juſtice? and thus in other offices, what is common to all, is proper to none: how are officers known but by their actions?
To ſay, That though the brethren doe the ſame things, yet they doe them not as their Officers, is to ſay nothing. How ſhall we know that? If any man may make a warrant, and that warrant is as valid as the Juſtices, how ſhall a man know who is Juſtice? the name may differ, but not the power, Ergo, not the office.
2. We finde divers promiſes made to the Church of Gods giving Officers, Jer. 3.15. & 23.4. Ezek. 34.25. Iſa. 30.20. But if every body may do the officers acts, then God ſeems to make promiſes of good to his Church, which are needleſſe; a great ſhew of mercy, but no mercy indeed. There is no need, no uſe of the things promiſed, what would this impute to God?
3. Our Divines have maintained againſt the Papiſts that Matth. 28.19. was ſpoken to the Apoſtles, and the Miniſters of the word their ſucceſſors, and the context will force it, I think, if he ſpoke to the eleven Apoſtles, v. 16. And though the Lords Supper is not there mentioned, yet ſurely it was there included, there is par ratio. Let any man bring a proof from Scripture or antiquity, that ever any but an officer did adminiſter the Lords Supper. Docete, baptizate, Matth. 28.19. Haec dicuntur ſolis Apoſtolis & Miniſtris verbi; certum eſt haec non fuiſſe dicta hominibus privatis. Bell. ener. co. 3. p. 342In Actis Apoſtolorum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Chriſtianis abſque ſpeciali revelatione baptizantibus, ſaith Learned Ames.
4. The Church-officers under the Old Teſtament had ſuch acts peculiar to them, as none but they could doe: It were ſtrange that Chriſt ſhould inſtitute Officers under the New Teſtament, and they ſhould have nothing proper to them.
5. If this be true, then all the body is an Eye. The foot may ſay to the eye, though you are placed above, and I below, yet I doe the ſame acts you doe; and it is not the place, but the organ and the action which makes an eye. It is not the place, but the actions ſhew the Officer; that member which ſeeth is the eye, place it where you will; if all ſee, then all are eyes. But the Apoſtle denieth the whole body to be an eye, 1 Cor. 12.
6. Church-officers are called Stewards, … verſeers, Preachers, Ambaſſadors, Rulers. We would think it ſtrange, men would not bear it in civil acts, to have every body doe the acts which belong to theſe Relations; as much order I hope in Gods houſe, as in other houſes or States. He is every where a God of order, but this was ſpoken in reference to his Houſe eſpecially.
I intend to add no more arguments to prove the neceſſity of Ordinantion: I have onelyonly two objections to anſwer, which two eminent Divines made againſt me, maintaining the neceſſity of Ordination.
Obj. 1. We read of no Ordination but it was performed either by extraordinary perſons, or at leaſt ſome ſuch were preſent when they died who know where they left the power. The Biſhop, Presbyter, Fraternity, each of theſe challenge the power, but who knows to whom it belongs?
Anſw. The firſt part of the objection cutts off Ordination wholly [and that is chiefly aimed at:] The ſecond part doth ſeem to yield it, could we but finde who ſhould Adminiſter it.
To the firſt part I anſwer.
1. It's no wonder though we finde extraordinary perſons in the adminiſtration of this Ordinance when they were in Being. In the firſt beginnings theſe muſt ordain, or none: we have but the hiſtories of planting of Churches in the New Teſtament, where none were before; and this was done by perſons extraordinary.
2. All that extraordinary perſons did, I hope did not die with them. What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in Preaching? why muſt not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching? The action is no more then may be performed by ordinary Miniſters.
If it be ſaid (as I know it is) they conveyed gifts in Ordination, I ſhall anſwer this when I come to Mr. Noyes.
3. How ſhall we prove that there were Miniſters elected without the preſence, acting, guidance, and conſent of extraordinary officers? I think no man can prove there were any ſo choſen, by the examples we have of the peoples choiſe; for extraordinary perſons were ever preſent, and we finde they acted. By the ſame reaſon throw away Election, which this Divine would hardly doe, Walaeus To. 2. p. 51.Nullum etiam occurret exemplum in toto Novo Teſtamento, nec in primitiva Eccleſia quae Apoſtolorum aetatem excepit, ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Eccleſia peractam fuiſſe, ſine conſenſu & conſilio aliquorum ſaltem Doctroum. This pincheth.
4. Were the Churches ſo blinde, that they could not ſee this to be an extraordinary thing, and that to die with theſe officers? Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Presbyters to joyn with them in that work which was proper to them as extraordinary officers. But that they did ſo, the Epiſt. to Timo. doth plainly carry it, and was, no doubt, the ground of that Canon. 3. in Concil. Carth. 4. where Presbyters were to impoſe hands with the Biſhop.
5. Were the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus writ to them as extraordinary officers? I know when Timothy is called upon to do the work of an Evangeliſt, this was proper to him as ſuch an officer; but I think, laying aſide that which was proper to them as Evangeliſts [which did not conſiſt in the adminiſtration of any Ordinance] thoſe Epiſtles were written to Miniſters. They muſt preach the Word, be inſtant in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, &c. as well as Timothy; and why not I pray commit the things, 2 Tim. 2.2.&c. 2 Tim. 2.2. lay hands on none ſuddenly, as well as Timothy? What extraordinary matter is in this above the other?
6. Shall perſons come into the Miniſtry untried whether they be fit or unfit, ſound or heretical? No, by no meanes, this is judged a dangerous thing. Men muſt be tried, and that by thoſe who are able to judge [as now we have Commiſſioners.] But what Scripturerule have you for this? If you leave out the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, 1 Tim. 3.10. I doubt you will hardly finde any in Scripture: but Timothy and Titus were extraordinary perſons, and what have we to doe with their Epiſtles? but if you will make uſe of thoſe Epiſtles to mainain your trial of men [it was a Commiſſioner that made this objection againſt me] give us leave to make uſe of the ſame Epiſtles to prove our Ordination of Miniſters; thoſe who are able to do the one, I hope are as able to do the other.
For the ſecond part of the Objection, I little regard that. As for the Fraternty, let the people bring forth their Charter, and ſhew us where the great Lord gave them this power. Againſt this I have argued a little [I intended but a little] in my book againſt the Separatiſts, p. 70, &c.
For the Biſhop and the Presbyter it muſt firſt be proved that theſe are diſtinct officers jure divino, or elſe the conteſt is vain: this is not a queſtion for me to handle in this place, but I can ſafely ſay this, there muſt be more brought from Divine writ then I ſee is yet brought to prove it, or elſe I can acknowledge no ſuch thing. I ſuppoſe Biſhop Davenant in his Determination upon the queſtion, hath ſummed up what can be brought from Scripture, but that will not doe: yet he there in ſome caſes will allow Presbyters to ordain, and I think our caſe is as weighty as any. Anſelm, the Popiſh Canterburian Arch-Biſhop, in his Comment upon Titus 1. [Though I ſee much of it is taken out of Jerom] gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this queſtion; ſuch lines from his pen took much with me conſidering the Scriptures he brought. I am ſure he that made the objection did not own any ſuch diſtinction. I think no ſober Biſhop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French, Dutch, and Scottiſh Churches to be valid.
The ſecond Objection was made by another reverend Divine, when I paſſed the Commiſſioners; He put this queſtion to me, Whether I judged Ordination neceſſary to the Conſtitution of a Miniſter? I anſwered, Yes, if it could be had. He asked me to which command I would refer Ordination? I anſwered, to the ſecond. To which he aſſenting added, Cultus naturalis could not, nor muſt be laid aſide; but Cultus Inſtitutus might rather then Cultus naturalis ſhould: God will have mercy, not ſacrifice in ſuch a caſe; but if I would ſay Ordination was neceſſary and might now be had, then I muſt own it by ſucceſſion, and conſequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church. Some words then paſſed, but time cut us off.
To this reverend Divine I ſhall now give a further anſwer:
A. The firſt part of the ſpeech ſaith no more then we allow, onelyonly when Ordination cannot be had, I think it is not then properly laid aſide.
2. Preaching, take the word ſtrictly, as it is the act foreign is not to be referred to the firſt Commandment (I conceive) but to the ſecond; nor do I ſee our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis.
3. This notion will cut off popular election, as well as Ordination, if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis, for that muſt not be laid aſide, ſaith this Divine; I hope popular election doth not belong to the firſt Commandment; then election is as unneceſſary, and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we ſhall have brave work. [Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances] where then is the eſſence of a Miniſter according to his owne notion?
But the laſt part of his ſpeech was that where he put the moſt ſtrength, which yet hath been often anſwered, that I might well ſpare my pains: ſomething I anſwered then, and now will add more.
1. Divers of our Congregational Divines [of which this reverend Divine is one] conceive [and practiſe accordingly] the Fraternity to have power of Ordination; and if ſo, then if election may be had, Ordination may be had; ſo ſhall it not need be laid aſide, nor ſhall we need trouble our ſelves about Rome, that diſpute rather may be laid aſide. I deſired an Anſwer of him what he thought of it, but he would give me none.
2. But ſuppoſe his judgement be contrary: According to this argument Ordination, which we are ſure was once an Ordinance of God, [and I have before proved it] muſt be utterly loſt, [unleſs with the Seekers we gape for ſome Apoſtles again] For this argument of Succeſſion may ever be urged, and will be as ſtrong to the worlds end as now. But why muſt the Church loſe an Ordinance? If the argument be ſo ſtrong againſt Ordination, is it not as ſtrong againſt any thing elſe that came through Rome?
Rome is no true Church, ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid. What will be next? Mr. Ainſw. and other Separatiſts zealous enough againſt Rome, would not ſay ſo of Baptiſm, therefore admitted of no re-baptizing. Nor would Mr. Johnſon upon the ſame ground admit of re-ordination; one was as valid as the other.
3. If God hath ſo far owned the Miniſtry of England, as to work with it to the converſion of many ſoundly, and others viſibly, whence there are numbers to elect Miniſters, I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Miniſters by them, though they had ſome accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination [for the ſubſtance true.] If he hath not owned the Miniſtry, how came our Brethren to gather Churches here ſome few years ſince, thoſe who elected them to office, I believe very few of them [if any in ſome places] were converted by Miniſters who were not ordained, becauſe they muſt have their Ordination by ſucceſſion, &c. I pray where is there a Miniſtry in the world which God hath more owned?
4. Let it be as this Divine ſaith, becauſe Cultus inſtitutus may be laid aſide, Ordination may be alſo, &c. Let us ſee whither this will go; then official preaching [pardon the expreſſion, for I think all preaching, properly ſo called, is official] Baptiſm, the Lord's Supper, Diſcipline, may be all laid aſide upon the ſame account, for theſe belong to Cultus Inſtitutus, ſo the whole ſecond Commandment loſt; which way ſhall we come to theſe for fear of Rome? will he ſay, that the Churches [and thoſe without Ordinances, it ſeems] may chooſe their Paſtors [ſuppoſe Wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius, men gifted and raiſed extraordinarily] and election giving the eſſence to a Miniſters call, theſe may now preach, baptize, &c. [ſo the ſecond Commandment is ſaved, elſe I know not which way he can ſave it] though they be not ordained; may not the ſame Miniſters as well Ordain other Miniſters, Ordination belonging to the ſame Commandment? ſurely no rational man can oppoſe it; this he muſt yield to, or elſe the whole inſtituted worſhip of God muſt be loſt out of the Church as well as Ordination. But if election will help, then I hope moſt of the godly Miniſtry in England may ordain, for they have been elected by the people, men qualified, and whom God hath bleſſed in their work more or leſs: though they have more then election in their own eſteem, that hinders not; they have that which you think can authorize them to preach, baptize, &c. then to ordain as well; and thoſe who are ordained by ſuch, no doubt but may Ordain again; ſo Rome and Succeſſion trouble us not. Ames grants that Wickliff, Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. ſ. 39.Luther, Zuinglius, may not unfitly be called extraordinary Miniſters, joyning ſome of our famous Martyrs with them, and gives three reaſons for the aſſertion; the laſt is, Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato & collapſo, neceſſe habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem commune. So Syn. Pur. The. D. 42. S. 41, 42, 50.
5. Carry the objection to our firſt Reformers, where it ſhould ſeem to have moſt ſtrength, what godly man is there who calls to mind Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridly, Philpot, Bradford, &c. perſons upon whom this objection would fall, as to their own Miniſtry, and their ordaining of others, that would not be aſhamed of himſelf, ſhould he null their Miniſtry, and as ſome [though this Divine abhors it I believe] whoſe mouths are full of nothing but Antichriſtian, call theſe Antichriſtian Miniſters, becauſe ordained by Popiſh men. Thou who calleſt theſe Antichriſtian Miniſters, riſe up with them in the morning, anſwer them in holineſs, go to the priſons with them, and from thence to the ſtake and burn with them for the ſake of Chriſt: grant it they were ordained as the objection runs, after inlightning they threw off Popery, but their Ordination they held, being no Popiſh Invention, they go on ſtill to preach, baptize, &c. and ordain others; Why not? when theſe men were ordained by ſuch men, they had a Miniſterial charge put upon them, ſet apart to the work of the Miniſtry to diſpenſe the things of Chriſt, not of Mahomet, or ſuch like. While they were in the dark they acted ſuperſtitiouſly, afterwards more purely; the corruptions they reformed, the ſubſtance they kept [and ſo our Divines now] Will not the mercy of God pardon this, and keep his ſacrifice ſtill in his Church? I doubt not but he will. The uſual diſtinctions made 1. Between a perſon and his office. 2. Between the ſubſtance of an ordinance and the accidental corruptions of it. 3. Between what cometh through Rome, [being Chriſt's Inſtitutions] and what cometh from Rome, being their own Inventions; theſe diſtinctions will ſoon anſwer the objection.
6. To. 2. p. 66.Learned Ames in his anſwer to Bellarmin urging this, Eccleſia nullo modo poteſt eſſe ſine Paſtoribus & Epiſcopis: illi ſoli ſunt veri Epiſcopi qui ab Apoſtolis per legitimam ſucceſſionem & Ordinationem deſcendiſſe oſtenduntur, &c. ſpeaks thus, Ab Apoſtolis deſcenderunt ownes illi Paſtores qui ſecundum canones Apoſtolicos in Scripturis traditos ſunt in eccleſia conſtituti. 4. Horum perpetua ſucceſſio ab Apoſtolis & Apoſtolicis viris non eſt neceſſariò oſtendenda ex hiſtoriarum humanarum incertis teſtimoniis, ſed ex promiſſione illa Chriſti, qua ſpoſpondit ſe per omnes aetates excitaturum operarios ad ſalutem electorum procurandam. 5. Ordinandi poteſtas quoad jus cuique eccleſiae particulari eſt a Deo conceſſa. Now for his laſt. 6. Paſtores hunc in modunt deſcendentes, & juſto jure ordinatos habemus nos per Dei gratiam in omnibus eccleſiis ex voto noſtro conſtitutis. If any ſhould take hold of the laſt words, and ſuppoſe the Doctor means, gathered Churches in which the people did ordain, ſurely they wrong the Doctor much. I wonder how many ſuch Churches there were when the Doctor wrote? neither had the Doctor anſwered Bellarmin, who oppoſes all Miniſters not ordained by the Roman power, but had fallen off from Rome: then the Doctor muſt own the ordination of the Reformed Miniſters, elſe he ſaid nothing to the Jeſuit. I wiſh this Divine would anſwer Bellarmin better. Doctor Ames uſes to be eſteemed of amongſt Congregational men.
7. For Rome being a true Church: it is well known that Rome is more corrupt now in Doctrine then it was when our firſt Reformers fell off; what difference there is between the former and latter School-men who knows not? ſo that Rome is not now what it was then, when our men had their Ordination from thence. But may we not ſay as our brethren do of Pariſh-Congregations, they will not deny [the moſt underſtanding and ſober of them] but that in many pariſhes there are true Churches, though they will not ſay the whole pariſh is a true Church, according to the conſtitution. So there is a true Church under the Romiſh juriſdiction, though we do not ſay Rome is a true Church.
But what ſhall we ſay to ſuch a people where the true God, and the Trinity, with the Attributes of God; Jeſus Chriſt in his divine and human nature; the ſatisfaction and price of Chriſt as the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification *See Bellar. de Juſtif. l 1. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 5.and pardon; The Scriptures; All the ordinances of God; The doctrine of the Freegrace of God in oppoſition to mans proud free-will [O excellent Bradwardin, and Alvarez; &c. are owned, defended, believed] where there are perſons who walk according to Scripture rules in a great degree: what ſhall we ſay? is here no Church?
If our State have been rightly guided when they made the Act to Tolerate thoſe who own One God, Chriſt, and Scriptures, then a Church in Rome may be owned, where theſe and many other truths are maintained, more ſoundly then they will be by many of our tolerated perſons: yea, it were well if all the members of Congregated Churches in England were as ſound in thoſe truths [before mentioned] and as holy in their converſations as are divers who live under Rome.
As for the Pope, were it no more but bare government, compared with the carriage of many Church-members, I may ſay as Learned Mr. Norton of N. England, in his Epiſtle to the General Court, Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius, between Papacy and Anarchy, Babylon and Babel? &c. both are naught, the Peoples Anarchy as well as the Popes Tyranny; and his Tyranny will not ſooner deny a Church there [as to Diſcipline] then Anarchy doth in theſe members: we ſee the effect, how many men in England have turned Papiſts, ſince they ſaw theſe carriages in the Churches.
But again, What mean thoſe Texts, Come out of her my people, Rev. 18.4. if there be no Church there? The womans flying into the wilderneſs, Rel. 12.6. take it as Mr. Mead, or as Pareus, yet it will argue a true Church to have been under Rome. The witneſſes propheſied 1260. days, during the time of the womans being in the wilderneſs they were to feed her; this muſt needs fall under the time before the Reformation, begin it when you will.
More I could ſay, but I think this is ſufficient to prove that Ordination may and ought ſtill to be continued notwithſtanding Rome, and that it is neceſſary to a Miniſter. And ſince both theſe objections are made againſt me by Commiſſioners [though I would hope more Diſputandi gratiâ, then being indeed oppoſite to my Theſis, I ſay I would be glad to hope ſo] and ſince this Script may poſſibly fall into ſome of their hands, I wiſh humbly [and I know I could have hundreds of godly Miniſters to joyn with me] they would pleaſe to take off that offence, which I conceive is juſtly given to the moſt part of the godly Miniſtry in England, when they ſee them let into the Miniſtry perſons illiterate, and ſome blame-worthy in their converſations [as I am informed by godly Miniſters who know them] beſides being illiterate, and perſons who neither are ordained, nor will be ordained, nor I think would ſober Miniſters ever ordain them. Theſe things are not ſecret, but more publikely ſpoken off then my Book can publiſh; whence their friends are grieved, their enemies rejoyce, having cauſe they think to open their mouths againſt them, and to vilifie Reformation, beſides the hinderance of union in the Churches.