Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 25
CHAP. XXV.
Whether a Miniſters calling conſiſt in Election or in Impoſition of hands, and whether of thoſe is greater, and whether is prior or poſterior. Whether, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. do prove that the Miniſters calling conſiſts in impoſition of hands by the Presbytery, and that ſuch impoſition of hands is not a conſumatory rite, or benedictory ſigne. Alſo whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Miniſter except ſome Presbytery ordain him afore the People chuſe him, and whether otherwiſe the people doe ſend a Minſter to themſelves: and whether the people of God may not aſwell diſcern a mans fitnes to be ordained as his fitnes to be elected.
PAg. 493. If the people may elect Officers, then in ſome caſes they may ordaine them alſo, becauſe Ordination is leſſe then election, and dependeth upon it as a neceſſary antecedent, and it is nothing but a conſummation of election, or the admiſſion of a perſon into the poſſeſſion of that office, whereto he had right before by election. If then a ſingle Congregation may elect, which is the greater, they may ordain, which is the leſſe. And for this he alledgeth the Anſwer pag. 46, 47. And then gives anſwer thereto in theſe words, Ordination is the more and Election the leſſer; for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. 14.
Anſw. Take Ordination as we take it for Impoſition of hands on a Church officer, and then we think it is leſſe then Election, as being but a Rite or Ceremony uſed at a Miniſters entrance into his Office, but not at all of the eſſence thereof. Nor are we alone, or the firſt that have ſo thought: For to omit others, he that wrote the book, called the unbiſhoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no eſſentiall, but a ceremoniall part of Ordination, which may be ſufficiently made without it, and ſaith that Angelus de Clavaſio, Peter Martyr and others both Papiſts and Proteſtants affirm the ſame. And in pag. 116. he ſaith it is an act of ſervice or Miniſtery, not of Authority, and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony, alledging Dr. Ames & others for the ſame tenent. But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted, Mr. Rutherford himſelf being judge: for in his pag. 496. He tells us, that in the Apoſtolike Churches, a Miniſter was never obtruded upon the people againſt their will, but that they ſtill had the election of their Miniſters, and this he ſaith muſt be our rule, ſo that any election without the peoples conſent muſt be no election, for if it pleaſe not the whole multitude it is not a choiſe. And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chryſoſtome that all Election of Paſtors is null without the conſent of the people. Whereby it ſeems that Election is ſomething eſſentiall; and ſo conſequently more then impoſition of hands, which is but a Rite or Ceremony, which may be abſent, and yet a man have all the eſſentialls of a Miniſter notwithſtanding. As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the impoſition of hands of the Presbytery there ſpoken of, I conceive, could not be any act of ſuperior authority but onelyonly an approbatory ſigne or rite which might be uſed by inferiours towards your ſuperiours. For Timothy being an Evangeliſt, how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him, or give office or authority to him? Beſides it is not ſaid that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but by the Propheſie, and by the laying on of Pauls hands, and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery. Now between thoſe two phraſes, by the laying on of hands, and with the ſame, there is great difference, the one importing ſome cauſe or authority or power, the other importing no more but an approbatory rite, or a ſigne uſed in a ſolemne commending of one to God by Prayers: Altare Damaſcen. pag. 161. of which more is to be ſeen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the ſecond chap. 12. queſt. 2, 4.
For ought I ſee the Authors might argue thus, The people may ordaine: Ergo, they may preach and baptiſe, for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office.
Anſw. We read in Mornay de Eccleſia chap. …. that of old time it was an argument riſe in the Church, he may baptiſe, he may adminiſter the Lords ſupper; Ergo, he may lay on hands; but ſuch arguing as Mr Rutherford uſeth, they may lay on hands, ergo, they may baptiſe; this we remember not that we have read in any authors, except in him: Nor doe we think the conſequence the ſame, inaſmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the leſſe, and in the other from the leſſe to the greater, and yet affirmatively in both. Thus the argument is underſtood by the forenamed author of the unbiſhoping of Timothy and Tytus, who in pag. 100. ſpeaking of theſe words of Mornay layes down the argument thus, He can baptiſe, he can conſecrate and adminiſter the Lords ſupper which are the greater and more honorable actions, Ergo, he may lay on hands which is the leſſe: and this kind of arguing for my part, I think to be good▪ but for that of Mr. Rutherfords, I ſee no more conſequence therein, then if one ſhould ſay, he that may doe the leſſer, may doe the greater alſo▪ in which I ſee, no ſtrength of conſequence at all.
Pag. 493, 494. Whereas ſome ſay Act. 6. 3, 4, 5. Election of ſeven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Impoſition of hands, v. 6. Anſw. Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the relation of Luke, true; Ergo, Election is prior by order of nature, it followeth not.
Anſw. The place cannot be ſo ſatisfied; for the text is very plain, that theſe ſeven were elected by the multitude afore the Apoſtles laid their hands on them; yea, and not onelyonly afore in reſpect of priority of nature, but alſo in reſpect of time; for otherwiſe, how could the Apoſtles ſay as they doe unto the multitude; brethren look out ſeven men among you whom we may appoint over this buſines? Can any man imagine they would thus have ſpoken, if themſelves had already found out the men, and likewiſe had impoſed hands upon them? for my part, I ſee no reaſon for ſuch an apprehenſion; but think it is undenyably plain in the text, that the election of theſe ſeven by the people was prior to their Ordination, by Impoſition of the Apoſtles hands, not onelyonly in the relation of Luke as Mr. Rutherford would have it, but alſo in nature and time, and that the contrary cannot be ſaid without violence to the text, and injury and wrong unto the Apoſtles, who by Mr. Rutherfords expoſition are made to have bidden the multitude to look out for the men amongſt them of honeſt report, &c. with a profeſſion that when the multitude had ſo done they would then appoint the men to the buſineſſe, when as by this expoſition they had already appointed them thereunto, and had impoſed their hands on them, which kinde of dealing had been ſuch, that I think that Apoſtles were farre from it.
It cannot be that Election of the people is the whol calling of a man to the Miniſtery, and Ordination only a ſupplement & a conſummatory rite, or a benedictory ſign, which may be ſpared.
Anſw. Take Ordination as we do, and why cannot this be? himſelf told us p. 492. That he thinks not Impoſition of hands ſo eſſentiall, but that a Miniſter may be a Miniſter without it, and that to him it is but a rite annexed to the calling: which is juſt the ſame that we hold, and yet when it comes from us it cannot be accepted. Again, he told us pag. 186, 187. That there are true and lawfull paſtors, who have no call but peoples election: Which if it be ſo, doth it not then follow, that the election of the people with the mans acceptance thereof is his whole calling? For if …ey be true and lawfull paſtors, who have no more but this election, it ſeems it muſt needs be that this is the whole, and yet here this is denyed. But let us hear the reaſons of this denyall.
1. Becauſe by the Impoſition of the hands of the Presbytery Timothy was made a Miniſter, 1 Timothy 4. 14.
Anſw. The text is not by the Impoſition of their hands, but with it, not foreign but, foreign, as was noted afore out of Didoclavius Altare Damaſcen. p. 161. who alſo ſheweth in the ſame place at large, that this Impoſition of hands upon Timothy was onelyonly for a teſtimonall of the approbation of his calling, and for a ceremony uſed in commending him to God in their Prayers. And in aſmuch as the office of Timothy was the office of an Evangeliſt, how could an ordinary Presbytery giving him either the gifts or the power belonging thereto? When Mr. Rutherford hath ſatisfied Mr. Calderwood in theſe things (a man of his own nation) for I ſuppoſe Mr. Calderwood to be the authour of that treatiſe of Altare Damaſcen. then if we require more may be ſaid of this place. In the mean time I proceed to the next.
By this Impoſition of hands Paul and Sylas were ſeparated to preach to the Gentiles, Acts 13. 1, 2, 3.
Anſw. Paul and Sylas are not once mentioned in that place, but Paul and Barnabas; But not to inſiſt upon this miſtake, let M. Calderwood anſwer for us concerning this ſcripture: Litigent, ſaith he, inter ſe pontifieii utrum impoſitio iſta manuum fuerit ordinativa, &c. that is, let the Papiſts contend amongſt themſelves whether this impoſition of hands was for Ordination, or onelyonly for Prayer: we hold that it was for Prayer and Comendatory (for they commended them to the grace of God, as its ſaid, Act. 14. 26.) yet as they could not ord…n them and call them to this Miniſtery they being Apoſtles, who were called extraordinarily, ſo neither could they appoint them to any certain imployment or place, for the holy Ghoſt did direct the Apoſtles in their troubles, and here it is expreſly ſaid, that they were ſent forth by the holy Ghoſt Altare Damaſcen. pag. 160. and then ſpeaking of certain words of Spalato, who ſaith, this Impoſition of hands was a pious ceremony, and uſed at that time as a certain part of an efficatious Prayer; he addeth, Rectius diceret fuiſſe, &c. he might more rightly ſay, it was a rite and geſture of one that prayed, ſhewing the perſon for whom he did implore grace, rather then to call it an efficacious part of prayer. Where we plainly ſee that he counts this Impoſition of hands on Paul and Barnabas no ordaining of them to the office, as ſome Papiſts and it ſeems Mr. Rutherford would have it; but onelyonly a rite or geſture uſed when the Presbytery commended Paul and Barnabas to God by Prayer. This authour of Altare Damaſcenam alſo addeth, Cum aſſumendi erant Levitae, &c. That is, when the Levites were to be taken from amongſt the Children of Iſrael, the Lord commands that they ſhould be brought before Jehova…, and that the Children of Iſrael ſhould lay their hands upon the Levites, Numb. 8. 9, 10. Although the Lord had commanded to conſecrate theſe Levites unto the Miniſtery; yet he commands the Iſraelites to lay their hands upon the Levites, as if they had of their own accord in their name given them up to the Miniſtery, as Junius in his Analyſis doth fitly interpret it: Thus far Mr. Calderwood whoſe judgement of this ſcripture Numb. 8. whether it be not the ſame with ours, which was formerly expreſſed, let Mr. Rutherford himſelf be judge.
Mr. Rutherford addeth that by Impoſition of hands the Deacons were ordained, Act. 6. and that this is enjoyned with the right manner of acting it to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and 2. 2. 2. as a miniſteriall act.
Anſw. Whereas, he ſaith, it cannot be that laying on of hands ſhould be onelyonly a conſummatory rite or benedictory ſigne, and brings the example of theſe Deacons, Acts. 6. for proof, I deſire no more, but that he would accept his own words for anſwer. Now in pag. 169. his words are theſe; It is not ſaid that the Deacons were ordained with Faſting and Prayer, as hands are laid upon Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13. 3, 4. but ſimply that the Apoſtles prayed and laid their hands on them; which ſeems to me to be nothing but a ſigne of praying over theſe Deacons, and no Ceremony or Sacrament conferring on them the holy Ghoſt. Now if it was nothing but a ſigne of Praying over theſe Deacons, then 1 the ſubſtance of their calling conſiſted not in this laying on of hands, but in ſome thing elſe; and what ſhould that be but their election by the people? 2. If it was nothing but a ſigne of praying over then, then why is a conſummatory rite and a benedictory ſigne gainſaid and oppoſed? For what great difference is there between a ſign of prayer and a benedictory ſigne? And how ſhall he be reconciled with himſelf, that ſaith it was nothing but ſuch a ſign of praying, and yet will not yeeld that it was onelyonly a benedictory ſigne?
And for the other particular where he ſaith, this laying on of hands was enjoyed to Timothy as a miniſteriall act, if by miniſteriall act he mean an act that could be lawfully performed by none, but onelyonly by a Miniſter; then I deſire ſome proof that this was ſo enjoyned to Timothy. That it was enjoyned to him I grant, but that it was ſo enjoyned needs ſome better proof then a bare and naked aff…rmation; ſpecially ſith many things were enjoyned to Timothy in thoſe examples, which were and are juſtly applyable to all Chriſtians.
Furthermore ſuppoſe it were true that Impoſition of hands were enjoyned to Timothy as a miniſteriall act, how doth this reach to make good the thing in queſtion? what ſhould hinder but the peoples election might contain the ſubſtance of a Miniſters calling notwithſtanding? or how doth it therfore follow that Impoſition of hands was not a conſummatory rite or benedictory ſigne, but ſomthing more? Is there any ſuch neceſſary conſequence here, that the one of theſe muſt needs follow upon the other? For my part I ſee it not, nor ſee any thing to the contrary, but if Impoſition of hands were ſuch a miniſteriall act, as he ſaith it is, yet it might ſtill be meerly a conſummatory rite or benedictory ſigne, and the ſubſtance of the calling conſiſt ſtill in the peoples Election. Himſelf doth ſay, as we hear even now, that Impoſition of hands Act. 6. though here he call it a miniſteriall act, was nothing but a ſigne of praying over the Deacons. And therefore theſe two, to be a miniſteriall act▪ and yet to be nothing but a ſigne of prayer or benedictory ſign (which to me are the ſame) are not ſo inconſiſtent by his own doctrine, but that they may well ſtand together; And himſelf doth alſo hold that the laying on of hands mentioned Numb. 8. 10. was a miniſteriall act, and that they who did it, performed the ſame as Eccleſiaſticall Elders; and yet I hope, he will not deny that the ſubſtance of the Levites calling was in the immediate deſignement and appointment of the Lord, and not in the performance of this laying on of hands. And therefore it follows, that if laying on of hands were granted to be a miniſteriall act, yet ſtill it may be meerly a benedictory ſigne, and the ſubſtance or eſſence of the Miniſters calling not conſiſt in it, but in ſome thing elſe.
A mini…eriall calling ſtandeth in an authoritative ſending, Rom. 10. 15. and I ſee not well how the people do ſend a Miniſter to themſelves.
Anſw. But it is not eaſie to ſee how they chooſe a man for a Miniſter to themſelves, being ſent unto them by God? And if God doe furniſh a man with gifts, and an holy propenſity of minde to the work in generall, and to ſuch or ſuch a people in particular, and make way by his providence thereto, then who can deny, but ſuch a man is ſent of God unto that people? And then if that people obſerving Gods ſending of him in this ſ…t, do hereupon elect and chooſe him, and promiſe to be obedient to him in the Lord, what is there now wanting to the ſubſtance and offence of ſuch a mans calling to ſuch a people? and yet the man is not ſent by them to themſelves, but ſent by God, and received and choſe by them: Parcus underſtands this ſending, Rom. 10. of Gods ſending▪ and ſo doth Piſcator, and who not? And to underſtand it otherwiſe would be to condemne the Prophets and Apoſtles, who were not ſent by men at all, and yet did truely anſwer this ſcripture, in that they were ſent of God: True it is, ordinary Miniſters are not ſent of God in ſuch an extraordinary way as the Prophets and Apoſtles were, but in an ordinary way, and by ordinary means; which way and means if they doe obſerve, they alſo may be truly ſaid to be ſent of God unto the people.
But peradventure our brother means that the people may not lawfully chooſe a man for miniſter unto themſelves, except he be firſt ſent unto them, in an authoritative way by ſome other men, and that otherwiſe he is not ſent unto them of God; which if it were true, then it would follow, that the Apoſtles and Prophets, as I ſaid, were not ſent of God: for plain it is, that men ſent them not. It would alſo hereupon be requiſite to be cleared, that ſome men beſides the Church have authority to ſend Miniſters to the Church, and who theſe men are that have ſuch authority had need to be cleared alſo; which I for my part think will not be done in haſt. And till this be done, I know no reaſon, but I may ſtill retain this apprehenſion, that men who are qualified according to the rule of the word and duly elected and choſen to ſome office of the Miniſtery by Gods people, are truly ſent of God unto that people.
The people have not either formally or by grant of Chriſt virtually, the keyes committed to them, how then can they give the keyes to Paſtors?
Anſw. Yet in p. 7. He tells us that he denyes not but there is a power virtuall, not formall in the Church of beleevers, to ſupply the want of ordination of Paſtors, or ſome other acts of the keyes ſimply neceſſary, hic & nunc: and this power, ſaith he, is virtuall not formall. Now to ſay they have this power neither formally nor virtually, and yet to ſay they have this power virtually though not formally, what is it but an apparent contradiction?
But ſuppoſe it were true that the people had not this power either formally or virtually, yet Mr. Ball and Mr. Bai…s afore him doe tell us, that miniſterially they may give what they never had, viz. As miniſtring to him who hath power and virtue of deriving its as a man not … a peny of his own may give an 100 l. if the King make him his Almoner. Thus the Church deriveth a… taking the perſon whom Chriſt deſcribeth, and out of power will …ave placed in this or that office in his Church. The power of the imperiall dignity is not in the electo… of the Emperours, nor the power of that office and authority, whereunto a Miniſter is elected, in the Church, who chuſeth him to that office. Ball Tryall of Separat. pag. 239, 240.
Pag. 494, 495. People may as the ſheep of Chriſt diſcern his voice, Joh. 10. and ſo have a power of election of their own Paſtors: nor doth this make good what our brethren ſay, that therefore they may judge of a miniſters fitnes?
Anſw. That which we ſay in this Anſw. pag. 51. There muſt be ſome ability to diſcerne whether men be qualified according to the rule, afore they ought to be elected and choſen into office; and the people of God have ſo much ability as is of neceſſity required afore there be preceeding unto ordination? Wherein it is plain that our arguing is from the peoples ability to diſcern of mens fitnes afore they be elected, to their like ability to diſcern of their fitneſſe afore they be ordained. They who have ſo much as to diſcern who are fit to be ordained: but the people of God may have the former. Ergo, they may have the latter. Now what ſaith Mr. Rutherford hereunto? The aſſumption he denyes not, but in plain words grants it, ſaying, they may as Chriſts ſheep, Joh. 10. diſcern Chriſts voyce, and ſo have a power of election of their own Paſtors. It muſt then be the conſequence that muſt be denyed, or the concluſion muſt be yeelded: what then brings he to overthrow the conſequence? Nothing but this, that there is a two fold knowledge, one of Chriſtians not denyed to women and beleeving children, who cannot lay on hands, nor ordain Mi…iſters, as the Presbytery doth. But what the other knowledge is he doth not plainly tell, except any thing may be gathered from the words following, where he ſaith, But for trying of Miniſters if they be the ſonnes of the Prophets apt to teach, able to convince the ſubtill hereticks, and gainſayers, and to put them to ſilence, there muſt be in a conſtituted Church a Colledge of Paſtors and Prophets to try the Prophets with a Presbyteriall cognizance.
Anſw. But if Mr. Rutherford would have ſpoken to the point, he ſhould have given ſome reaſon why the people may diſcern a mans fitnes for election, and yet not diſcern his fitnes for ordination, for this is the conſequence of our argument which he denyes. But in all that is here ſaid about a two fold knowledge, one of Chriſtians, and the other of ſome body elſe, what is there in all this, that hath ſo much as the leaſt ſhew of overthrowing or weakning the conſeqence? ſu…e nothing at all that I can finde: For as for that which is intimated, that Chriſtians have not ſo much knowledge as to try Miniſters whether they be apt to teach, &c. this makes nothing to the point in hand, that they can diſcern whether a man be fit to be elected, but not diſcern whether he be fit to be ordained; but if it have any ſtrength in it at all, it is as much againſt the ability of the people, which he expreſſely grants, as againſt that which he would deny; as much againſt their ability of diſcerning his fitnes for ordination. And therefore how this ſhould overthrow the one and not the other, I do not know: for to any mans underſtanding it makes no more againſt the one then againſt the other; but either againſt both, which he will not grant, or elſe againſt neither which I conceive is the very truth? To argue in this ſort, they have not ability to convince … Hereticks; Ergo, they may not chuſe their Miniſters, this Mr. Rutherford will not own; for he plainly grants they may chuſe: and therefore how can this arguing be good, they want ab…lity to convince Hereticks; Ergo, they may not impoſe hands in ordination? How the one kinds of reaſoning can be better then the other, I do not know, except we would ſay ſome may be lawfully elected and choſen to the miniſtery, who cannot lawfully be ordained, but this I ſuppoſe cannot be ſaid with truth.