Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV.
Whether thoſe children of Iſrael, Numb. 8. 10. who laid hands on the Levites, were Elders by Office, and as ſo conſidered, did lay on their hands. And whether this Scripture do not prove that where there are no Elders to be had, there ſome principall members, though not Elders by Office, may impoſe hands on Church Officers.
THe children of Iſrael which were not the Church officers laid hands on the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. therefore when a Church hath no Elders, the people may conferre Ordination, and it is not to be tyed to the Presbyters only: And for this be alledgeth the anſwer. pag. 46. And then he addeth, that other of our brethren ſay, Ordination is but accidentall to a Miniſters calling, and may be wanting if the people ſhall chuſe, in defect of Elders, pag. 491.
Anſw. This latter clauſe ſhould not have been added, as deſerving a confutation, except our brother would confute himſelf: for as we heard afore, himſelf doth plainly affirm pag. 186, 187. That both are true Paſtors, thoſe who have no call, but the peoples election, and thoſe who have Ordination by Paſtors; and that election by the people only may ſtand for Ordination, where there be no Paſtors at all: which if it be ſo; why ſhould the ſame thing in effect when it is holden by others, be here inſerted in an objection as worthy to be ſpoken againſt, when himſelf doth caſt the very ſame?
It is marvell that our reverend brother ſhould thus go on in repreſenting our words and mind amiſſe: for as here he ſets down the objection under our name, ſome of our words are changed and altered, others being ſubſtituted in their place, ſome are wholly ſuppreſſed as if there had been none ſuch, and others are added as … which never came from us: Of the firſt ſort, are thoſe of the peoples conferring Ordination; wheras our words are not ſo, but that the people may impoſe or lay on hands. Now between theſe two himſelf pag. 492. doth make a great difference, even as much as between the authoritative calling of a Miniſter, and a rite annexed to that calling: and further ſaith, that though he think impoſition of hand… not ſo eſſentiall perhaps, at that a Miniſter can be no Miniſter without it, yet of Ordination he thinks otherwiſe, And if he make ſo great a difference between Impoſition of hand… and Ordination, why ſhould our words be forſaken which import the leſſer matter in his judgement, and thoſe other which he accounts do import much more, be ſubſtituted in the room? was this to burden our opinion or apprehenſion with a greater odium then our words in his own judgement will beare? or was it to make his confutation of us more eaſie, then it would have been, if our own words had been retained and kept? what ever was the cauſe hereof, we cannot but think it had been better if it had been otherwiſe.
For omitting and ſuppreſſing ſome words of ours (which was the ſecond particular) I alledge thoſe of the time and places where Elders cannot co…veniently be borrowed from any other Church: the whole paſſage is this: viz. by which, ſcripture, (to wit Num. 8. 10.) thus much is manifeſt, that when a Ch…rch hath no Elders, But the firſt Elders themſelves are to be ordained, and this at ſuch times and in ſuch places, where Elders cannot conveniently be borrowed from any other Churches, in ſuch caſe Impoſition of hands may lawfully be performed by ſome principall men of the Congregation, although they be not Elders by Office: In which place, theſe words, at ſuch times …nd in ſuch places, &c. though they contain a great part of the caſe, wherein we think Impoſition of hands may be performed by non-Elders, yet they are wholy concealed by Mr. Rutherford, as if there had been none ſuch; for what purpoſe, himſelfe beſt knows. But this is apparent, that by his concealment or omiſſion, the way is made more eaſie and the ground more rati…n…ll for that paſſage of his in the following page, where he ſaith, What if there be no Elders in a ſingle Congregation? it will not follow therefore the people are to lay on hands, except ſaith he, there were no Elders in the land, or nationall Church to lay on hands. Now had our words been delivered and ſet down by him as they came from us, this ſpeech and paſſage of his would have been uſeleſſe, and apparently brought in without cauſe: For to what purpoſe ſhould he bring in this exception, ſaying, Except there be no Elders in the land &c. when our ſelves had prevented him in this, by putting ſuch an exception expreſly into the prohibition, which we deduce and gather from that ſcripture of Numb. 8. 10. Sure this had not needed, but might have been ſpared, if our words had been fully related: But by this omiſſion and concealement, his own ſpeech hath more appearance of ground and reaſon in it, then otherwiſe it would have had, and our apprehenſion doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is, nor as himſelf received it from us in that our anſwer. Which we have reaſon to take ſomwhat unkindly from him, and the rather becauſe it is not only once, but twiſe at the leaſt, that we have thus expreſſed our ſelves in that anſwer: once in the words which I have here above repeated and tranſcribed, and again in pag. 49. where ſpeaking again of this ſame ſcripture, Numb. 8. v. 10. We ſay thus, that we have ſhewed from that ſcripture, that if there be no Elders as at the firſt, nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches, then impoſition of hands may lawfully be performed by others: Nevertheleſſe though we have thus expreſſed our ſelves, once and a ſecond time, yet M. Rutherford doth not once give notice hereof unto his reader, for ought that I can find; but ſtill paſſing by theſe words of borrowing Elders from other Churches, doth take advantage of the want thereof, which indeed are not wanting in our Churches, which he deals againſt, but twiſe at the leaſt are plainly expreſſed therein, and would not have been wanting in this paſſage, which here he ſets down as ours, if himſelf had not concealed and ſuppreſſed the ſame. Now to leave out thoſe words of ours, which we have plainly expreſſed two ſeverall times at the leaſt, and then to make advantage for himſelfe againſt us for want thereof, whether this be not ſuch meaſure as we have cauſe to take unkindly, let himſelf and others conſider. The third particular of adding words which never came from us, I will briefly paſſe over, becauſe it is of leſſe moment, as not ſo much miſrepreſenting our meaning; yet I conceive thoſe words, it (by Ordination) is not to be tyed to the Presbytery alone, which here are preſented to the Reader as ours, are not at all to be found in our writing: but I will not inſiſt on this, but come to conſider of his anſwer.
There is not, ſaith he, a place in all the word of God, where people conſer…e Ordination to the Paſtors of the New Teſtament, therefore our brethren flee to the Old Teſtament to prove it from the Levites, who received Impoſition of bands from the Children of Iſrael.
Anſw. We have given a reaſon, why no ſuch ſcripture can be expected in the New Teſtament, viz. becauſe in thoſe times Elders were not wanting; for there were the Apoſtles and Apoſtolike men, who were Elders in all Churches: and ſay we, we do willingly grant, that where Elders are not wanting, Impoſition of hands is to be performed by the Elders: Anſ. p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Impoſition of hands performed without Elders in the Apoſtles times, in which times there were Elders to be had, this we think to be unreaſonable, firſt it is our opinion, that when Elders are to be had, Impoſition of hands is not to be performed without thoſe Elders, but by them.
Moreover, if it be ſuch a diſparagement to our cauſe, that the ſcripture of the New Teſtament affords no example of Impoſition of hands by the people, how will Mr. Rutherford free his own way from another objection, which we think as ſore and weighty againſt the ſame, as this which they think of ſo much weight againſt us? The objection I mean is this, that there is not any place in all the ſcripture of the New Teſtament, where ordinary Paſtors or Elders Impoſed hands on ordinary Paſtors or Elders; but all the examples in ſcripture concerning this matter are ſuch, where either the perſons Impoſing, or the perſons on whom hands were Impoſed, or both, were officers of extraordinary note and degree, ſuch as now are not extant in the Church, but are ceaſed long again: Not that I deny, but an argument may be taken from thoſe examples for Impoſition of hands in theſe dayes: but the thing I ſtand upon is this, that no example can be given from ſcripture directly parallel, to the way which our brethren in theſe dayes do practiſe and allow, but ſome diſſonancy will be found therein: from their way as well (and perhaps as much) as from the way of Impoſition of hands performed by the people in ſome caſes: let them tell us of Act. 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and 1. Tim. 5. 22. and we anſwer the perſons impoſing hands in thoſe places were Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, ſuch as our brethren are not, nor do ſo account themſelves. Let them name Act. 13. 3. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. and we anſwer, the perſons on whom hands were there laid were the like, even Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, whatever the impoſers were, and therefore neither will theſe places perfectly ſuit the caſe▪ So that if we could give no example in the New Teſtament of Impoſition of hands performed in ſome caſes by the people, we think Mr. Rutherford and out brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own ſake.
Yet for the juſtification of our way, and for further anſwer to this paſſage of Mr. Rutherford, we have this to ſay further, that an example in the Old Teſtament of a practiſe not aboliſhed in the New as ceremoniall, typicall, or of ſome peculiar reaſon ſpecially concerning thoſe times and peoples, but of morall equity and reaſon; ſuch an example we think a ſufficient warrant unto us, for the like practiſe upon the like occaſion in theſe dayes: This I thinke Mr Rutherford muſt acknowledge, for elſe he ſhall looſe many arguments which he frequently uſeth in this Treatiſe, from the example of Aſa, Hezekiah, Joſiah, and others in the Old Teſtament, for the proving of things to be practiſed in the New: And elſe himſelf and we all ſhall looſe the argument for Pedobaptiſme which is taken from Circumciſion. Yea, and which is more, if it were not thus, the Apoſtles arguing would not be ſtrong, who do frequently argue from the examples of the Old Teſtament to confirm and prove truth and vertue, and to reprove and to condemn the contra…y in the New: to inſtance in no more but 1 Cor. 9. 10. 2. Heb. 3. 24. which examples, together with that ſaying, Rom. 15. 4. Whatſoever was written in former time, was written for our learning; and many more that might be alledged, do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand: And therefore Mr. Rutherford ſhould bear with us, if we ſomtimes argue from examples of the Old Teſtament.
As for that which followeth, where he ſaith, But our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Paſtors of the New Teſtament are different, as the officers and Churches of the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Churches are different; the anſwer is, that I do not remember that we have ſpoken one word of this matter, either one way or other; nor doth he mention any place where we have ſpoken ought of theſe things. And for the thing it ſelfe, though many differences may be aſſigned between the Levites and Paſtors of the New Teſtament, and between the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Churches, yet I know no ſuch difference between them, but that in things which are of generall and common nature concerning them both, in thoſe we may lawfully argue from them and their times, unto our ſelves and our times. If Mr. Rutherford know we have given any ſuch difference as will not ſuffer us thus to argue, when he ſhall expreſſe the ſame, we may conſider further thereof.
Our brethren grant pag. 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Teſtament that the people lay on hands.
Anſw. And we have alſo in the ſame pag. 49. rendred the reaſon hereof, viz. becauſe Elders then were not wanting: Why then did not our brothers ingenuity ſo farre prevaile with him as to mention this, when he mentioned the other? however yet this he may be pleaſed to obſerve, that as we grant the thing he ſpeaks of, ſo themſelves, I think muſt grant alſo, that it wanteth all example in the New Teſtament, where ordinary Elders do Impoſe hands on ordinary Elders: for my part I remember none, nor do I remember that themſelves have yet produced any.
Theſe who laid on hands on the Levites Numb. 8. were Elders, and our brethren ſay it is like they were; but 1. They did not as Elders: 2. But as repreſenting the people; not as Elders Civill, for that belonged to Aaron and his Sonnes, Levit. 8. elſe it will follow that where a Church hath no magiſtrates to lay on hands, there the Church may doe it: Nor did they lay on hands as Eccleſiaſticall Elders, becauſe what theſe which laid on hands did, they did as from the Congregation: For 1. theſe Levites were taken in ſtead of the firſt born of Iſrael, and not inſtead of the firſt born of the Elders only, Numb. 3. 40, 41. 2 They were preſented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Iſrael, not of the Elders onelyonly. 3. When the multitude brought an oblation, the Elders put their hands on the heads of the ſacrifice, Levit. 4. 15. inſtead of all the multitude.
Anſw. In relating this paſſage, our meaning is exceedingly miſtaken, and both our meaning and our words repreſented farre amiſſe unto the reader: the particulars which in this reſpect may be excepted againſt, are ſuch as theſe.
1. That reporting us to ſay, it is like they who laid on hands were Elders, he there breaks off the ſpeech; and ſo ſuppreſſeth that which follows; wherein we firſt of all do give an explication in what reſpect they might be ſaid to be Elders, viz. as being the chiefe and principall members of the Congregation; and next of all we do adde, that nevertheleſſe therein example doth prove the point, if two things be conſidered which there we do expreſſe. But both theſe particulars, I mean, both the explication and the addition or exception, are wholly ſuppreſſed by Mr. Rutherford, and ſo the conceſſion; It is like they were Elders, is left ſtanding alone by it ſelfe.
2. He reports us to ſay, they did it not as Elders civill: for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons; wherein he fathers on us a palpable errour, of accounting Aaron, and his ſonnes to be Elders civill, or magiſtrates, which never came into our thoughts: nay it was ſo farre from us that we plainly ſaid the contrary, in that very place, to wit, that they were Elders Eccleſiaſticall. Our words are theſe, If they, (that is, the children of Iſrael) did it as Elders, then either as Elders and governours eccleſiaſticall, or as civill governours: but not the firſt, for that charge belonged to Aaron and his ſonnes: Levit. 8. and theſe Levites now ordained. In which words we plainly aſcribe to Aaron and his ſonnes the charge of Elders and Governours Eccleſiaſticall, but not of civill governours, as Mr. Rutherford, is pleaſed to report.
3. In theſe words, Elſe it will follow, that where a Church hath no magiſtrates to lay on hands, there the Church may do it; our words are ſo miſerably mangled, that no tolerable ſence can appeare: for here is expreſſed an inference or conſequence, that muſt follow, and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it ſhould follow, which is to repreſent us to the world as men that were loeſi cerebro. For men that were in their right wits, I conceive, would ſcarcely ever argue in this faſhion, as here we are reported to do: But our words are theſe, If the ſecond be ſaid, viz. that the children of Iſrael did lay on hands as civill governours, then it will follow that civill magiſtrates, though no Church-officers may Impoſe hands in Ordination of Church-officers, and ſo the point is gained: (viz. that Church-officers may be ordained by thoſe that are no Church-officers) which we do further manifeſt in the following words in this manner: If the magiſtrate may doe it, then it will follow that a Church that hath no magiſtrate may perform this action by other the fitteſt inſtrument… ſhe hath; For which we there give this ground, for that this is not a work properly tyed to the magiſtrates office, becauſe then the Church in the Apoſtles times wanting magiſtrates, could not have had officers; the contrary whereof we ſay is manifeſt in the Scriptures, Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This is our manner of arguing in the place alledged, which is farre different from that which Mr. Rutherford reporteth as ours.
4. Whereas he reports us to ſay, Nor did they lay on hands as Eccleſiaſticall Elders, becauſe what theſe which lay on hands did, they did as from the Congregation; in this he alſo reports us to ſpeak quite beſides our plain meaning and expreſſe words. For whereas, he ſo ſets down this ſentence, as that the latter clauſe or branch therein is made the reaſon of the former; the truth is this, that theſe clauſes in the anſwer, have no dependance the one upon the other at all; but the former hath another reaſon given for it, which here is not mentioned, and the latter which is here mentioned as the reaſon of the former is not ſo mentioned by us, but for another end and purpoſe.
Touching the former of theſe two, when we ſaid that the children of Iſrael, did not impoſe hands on the Levites as eccleſiaſticall Elders, the reaſon we give for this ſaying is this, becauſe that charge was onelyonly belonging to Aaron and his ſonnes, and thoſe Levites now ordained: which reaſon Mr. Rutherford never mentions, but mentions another ſpeech, as our reaſon, which was delivered by us for another purpoſe. The like meaſure doth he afford to us in the ſecond branch of the ſentence by him expreſſed: For whereas we give two reaſons of the main thing in queſtion, that this example of the children of Iſrael, impoſing hands on the Levites doth prove that in ſome caſes, non-officers may impoſe hands upon Church officers, the one becauſe what theſe children of Iſrael did, they did it not as Elders; the other that what they did, they did it not for themſelves alone, but for all the Congregation, Mr. Rutherford applies not theſe two reaſons to the thing in queſtion as they were applyed by us, but inſtead thereof makes one of them to be a reaſon of the other, which was no part of our meaning, nor could juſtly be gathered from our words.
This being ſaid for clearing this paſſage of ours from his manifold miſtakes, let us now heare his anſwer.
Pag. 49…. Theſe who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders, becauſe the Elders were a part of the firſt borne, who by office were Elders, and in whoſe ſtead the Levites were aſſumed, Numb. 3. 40, 41.
Anſw. If the Elders were but a part of the firſt born, then how could all the firſt born be Elders by office? or if all the firſt born were by office Elders, then how could the Elders be but a part of the firſt born? Theſe things ſeem not to be here. But be it ſo, that the Elders were a part of the firſt born as here is affirmed, how doth this prove that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders? Is there any neceſſary or clear conſequence in ſuch a propoſition? For my part, I ſee it not: but on the contrary, I ſuppoſe it is certaine, that the Elders might be part or all of the firſt born, and yet they who did the work of impoſing hands might neither impoſe as Elders, nor of neceſſity be Elders. Though in the ſenſe expreſſed in the anſwer, I will not deny but there might be Elders, that is chiefe and principall members of the Congregation. But if this were granted in the ſenſe expreſſed, muſt it needs follow that they impoſed hands as Elders, and as Elders by office too? Can a man ſuſtain no relation, but all his actions muſt be actions of that relation? Cannot a man be an husband, or a parent, &c. but his actions of plowing ſowing, &c. muſt needs be performed by him, as he is a husband, or parent? Cannot a miniſter pray in his family, inſtruct his children, or receive the bread and wine in the Lords ſupper in the Congregation, but all theſe things muſt be performed by him as a Miniſter? I ſuppoſe that none will ſay that this doth follow: and if not, then ſuppoſe that theſe who impoſed hands were Elders, how doth it follow, that when they impoſed hands, they did impoſe as Elders?
Elſe the Church of Iſrael being a conſtituted Church before this time wanted officers, which is againſt all truth.
Anſw. Elſe, elſe what? let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from the words preceding, or from any of them (and whence elſe to take it I cannot tell) and no neceſſity of conſequence I think will appear. The words preceding are no more but theſe, Theſe who laid on hands, did it as a worke peculiar to the Elders, becauſe the Elders were a part of the firſt born, who by office were Elders, and in whoſe ſteed the Levites were aſſumed, and then comes in this inference, elſe the Church of Iſrael wanted officers. Now how this muſt needs follow upon any or all of thoſe preceding, I ſee not. Not that I deny the truth of all thoſe preceding words, for of ſome of them I think otherwiſe, but ſuppoſing that were all true, which is more then doth yet appeare, yet here is that which I am doubtfull in, whether this inference muſt needs follow upon the ſame? For ought I ſee, the Church of Iſrael might have officers, and yet the particulars here mentioned not be all true, but ſome of them falſe notwithſtanding. At leaſt wiſe if they were true, yet the reaſon here uſed would not inferre ſo much. For, to conſider a little of the particulars: The Church of Iſrael had officers, ergo, the Elders were a part of the firſt born (which is one of the particulars) The Church of Iſrael had officers; ergo the firſt born were Elders by office; (which is another) The Church of Iſrael had officers: Ergo, the Levites were aſſumed inſtead of the firſt born (which is another of them) is there any neceſſity of conſequence in any of theſe? For my part I ſee it not: but ſuppoſe they were in themſelves true, yet, the medium here uſed doth not proove them ſo to be. And for that which is the firſt, and as I conceive the cheif, to wit, that theſe who impoſed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders, muſt this needs be granted, if it be granted, that the Church of Iſrael was not without officers? I ſee no neceſſity of granting this neither, but the contrary to me ſeems poſſible enough, that thee might be officers afore this time in that Church; and yet what was now done by them who impoſed hands, not be done by them, as Elders by office, but as prime and principall members of the Congregation.
For the clearing whereof a little further, we may obſerve that they who impoſed hands on the Levites are not here called Elders, nor rulers, nor officers, nor firſt born, nor any ſuch like, but the term whereby they are expreſſed is this, the children of Iſrael; The children of Iſrael, ſaith the Lord, ſhall put their hands upon the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. Now this term being uſed in the 9. verſe imediately preceding, and in the 11. verſ. imediately following, yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone, but in both verſes is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation: and therefore if the context and circumſtances of the place be regarded, theſe children of Iſrael, who impoſed hands on the Levites, v. 10. cannot in that act be conſidered under the not…on of officers. Sure it is when the verſe before tells us that the whole aſſembly of the children of Iſrael muſt be gathered together, and the verſe following tells us that Aaron muſt offer the Levites for an offering of the children of Iſrael; in neither of theſe can the children of Iſrael be underſtand of the officers alone, but the whole Congregation is meant hereby in both verſes: reaſon therefore requires that this tenth verſe ſtanding in the midſt between the other two, the word children of Iſrael, being uſed therein ſhould be taken in the ſame ſenſe in this verſe, in which it is taken in the verſe before, and in the verſe that comes after.
Nay and further, he that ſhall peruſe this chapter Numb. 8. may eaſily finde that this word, the children of Iſrael is uſed therein no leſſe then fifteen or ſixteen ſeverall times; and ſometimes foure or five times in one verſe; and yet of all theſe, I think here is not ſo much as one, where it can be underſtood of the Elders and Officers as ſuch, but is uſed to ſignifie all the Congregation. And therefore to give ſuch a ſingular interpretation of this word, in v. 10. ſo far different from the ſenſe of the ſame word, in all the reſt of the verſes both before and after, and thoſe being not only one or two, but ſo very many; this kind of practiſe and interpretation had need to be builded upon very plain and pregnant, very cleare and cogent reaſon and demonſtration, or elſe our brethren may excuſe us if we be not over haſty and forward to receive it.
Again, the ninth and eleventh verſes tell us plainly, that theſe Levites were to be offered to the Lord for an offering, not of the Elders alone, but of the children of Iſrael, even of all the aſſembly of the children of Iſrael, and other ſcriptures tell us as plainly that all offerings were to be preſented with the impoſition of his hands, whoſe the offering was, Levit. 1. 3, 4, and 4. 24, 29, 33. whereby it ſeems evident, that theſe children of Iſrael, who impoſed hands on theſe Levites, at this time when they were offered for an offering, were the whole Congregation or ſome in your name and ſtead, ſith theſe Levites were an offering of the whole Congregation.
Wee grant the magiſtrates laid not on hands, but they who laid on hands, did it as Eccleſiaſticall Elders.
Reconcile this with that pag. 188 l. 1. where tis ſaid, the Princes and heads of tribes laid hands on them: now what were theſe Princes and heads of tribes, but magiſtrates? and if they were Princes and Magiſtrates how could they be conſidered in this act as Eccleſiaſticall Elders?
The reaſons againſt this conclude not. The firſt reaſon concludeth not.
Anſ. Here again our meaning is preſented amiſſe to the reader; for thoſe three reaſons of ours were given by us to prove another point, and not this to which Mr. Rutherford, applyes therein, as is plainly to be ſeen in anſwer, pag. 46, 47. where the reader may perceive that thoſe reaſons were brought to ſhew, that when the children of Iſrael impoſed hands, if theſe children of Iſrael were not all the Congregation, yet what they performed herein was for the Congregation, and not for themſelves onelyonly: And if thoſe reaſons prove this, as I hope they doe; it is no great diſparagement to them not us, if they prove not another point for which they were never intended. But let us hear the anſwer.
The firſt reaſon concludeth not, becauſe thoſe who laid on hands were the firſt born, who by office were Church-men.
Anſw. How ſhall we be ſure that thoſe who laid on hands were the firſt born? though I deny it not, yet a bare affirmation proves not.
Again, ſuppoſe what here is affirmed were alſo ſufficiently confirmed, how is the point in queſtion proved hereby? for, ſay they were the firſt born, they might notwithſtanding do what they did for all the people, and not for themſelves above.
The other two reaſons proves nothing.
Anſw. Let them be applyed to the thing, whereto they were intended and applyed by us, and then let the reader judge. The poſition was, that thoſe who impoſed hands on the Levites, did it for the Congregation or in their ſtead. The firſt of the two reaſons is, that the Levites were the Congregations offerings, and all offerings were to be preſented with the impoſition of his hands, whoſe the offering was: The other is this, that it was an uſuall thing when the Congregation were to preſent an offering, that the Elders ſhould impoſe hands on the Congregations offering, in the Congregations ſtead, Levit. 4. verſ. 14, 15. Now let the Prophets judge, whether theſe reaſons prove what they were brought to prove, to wit, that they who impoſed hands on the Levites did it for, or in ſtead of the Congregation: or whether it be as our reverend brother affirms, that theſe two reaſons proves nothing: yet let us hear why they prove nothing.
Becauſe theſe who laid on hands, did lay on hands as repreſenting the whole Congregation. Alas it doth no wayes conclude that they laid not on hands, as it is a worke peculiar to them … Elders.
Anſ. If it doe not, yet if our reaſons do conclude that they did it inſtead of the Congregation, we have our intent: But to follow Mr. Rutherford a little in digreſſing from the point; why, do not our reaſons conclude this other?
The High-prieſt offered ſacrifice, firſt for his own ſins, and then for the peoples; Heb. 7. v. 27. and ſo did repreſent the people; but I hope it followeth not that therefore the Prieſt did not ſacrifice as a Prieſt, and by virtue of a peculiar office, but only as a principall member of the Congregation.
Anſw. Mr. Rutherford himſelf gives us a diſtinction which may be ſufficient for anſwer to this paſſage. A repreſenter, ſaith he, ſtandeth for another either objectively or ſubjectively. The former of theſe is he that doth a buſines for another, or in rem ejus, for his behalf and good, as the eye ſeeth and the eare heareth for the whole body; and thus objectively the Presbytery doth repreſent the people, that is, for your good and ſalvation of the people. The other repreſenting another ſubjectively is when the repreſenter hath its power from that which it repreſenteth, as he who carrieth the room and perſon of a King as an Ambaſſadour: but thus, ſaith he, the Presbytery or Elderſhip doth not repreſent the People. Due right of Presbyt. p. 316, 317. Now as the Presbytery repreſents the people, ſo may it be ſaid of the Prieſt, viz. that he repreſented the people only objectively, for their good, but not ſubjectively in their room and ſtead, and therefore the caſes are not alike; for we think that what was done by thoſe who impoſed hands, Numb. 8. was not only done for the good of the children of Iſrael, but alſo in their room and ſtead, which he will not ſay of the Prieſt ſacrificing for the people, having already ſaid the contrary of the Presbytery.
Pag. 493. You will ſay, in a Church, in an Iland, one may be a Paſtor without any ordination if the people elect him, and there be no Elders to ordain; I anſwer it is true.
Anſw. If this be true, then what becomnes of that which was ſaid in the precedent page, That though impoſition of hands be not ſo eſſentiall, as that a Miniſter can be no Miniſter without it, yet for Ordination it is otherwiſe, this being the authoritative calling of a Miniſter, and the other but a rite annexed to the calling. In which place he counts ordination ſo eſſentiall, as that a Miniſter can be no Miniſter without it, and yet in the very next page confeſſeth, as we ſee, that in ſome caſe one may be a Paſtor without ordination: whereupon it muſt needs follow either that one may be a Paſtor without any authoritative calling or elſe that ordination is in effect, but the ſame with impoſition of hands, and ſo there is no ſuch difference between them as is pretended.
But ſo many Paſtors ſend a Paſtor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never chuſe him.
Anſw. Take your own words for anſwer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apoſtles Church a man was obtruded upon the people againſt their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apoſtolike Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Rev. 2. 1, 2. Act. 20. v. 28. muſt be our rule. Any election without the peoples conſent muſt be no Election, for if it pleaſe not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choiſe. And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chuſe their own rulers and officers, and that Chriſt hath provided the ſame in an eminant manner for his Church. And therefore for this paſſage that many Paſtor may ſend a Paſtor to be Paſtor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never chooſe him, we deſire that he would take his own money for payment.