A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
Concerning Election as Eſſential to a Call to Office.
THe ſecond queſtion is, whether the Eſſence of a Call to Office lie in Election or Ordination? We prove it to be in Election; our firſt Argument is grounded upon Act. 14. 23. and is vindicated already.
That the Eſſence of the Call lies not in Ordination, we prove divers wayes.
Argu. 1. Ordination doth not ſet a man over a Church, Ergo,
Object. 1. This is but a begging the queſtion, pag. 131.
Anſ. There is not a word of ſetting over a Church by Ordination in the queſtion. Its an apt medium, that which giveth the Eſſence of the Call doth ſet over a Church. Ordination doth not ſet over a Church, for. 1. A man may be ordained and yet be over no Church at all. 2. If it did, then there muſt be an iteration of Ordination, both theſe we proved, Preacher Sent, pag. 246. 247. &c. Ergo, Ordination doth not give the Eſſence o… the Call.
Obj. 2. Election may be neceſſary as the cauſa ſine q…a non, and yet Ordination may be the cauſa formalis of the Call, pag. 131.
Anſw. 1. That which maketh a Superiour and inferiour is the Cauſa formalis of Office-power; and that which ſetteth over a Church doth ſo, and therefore muſt needs be more then a cauſa ſine qua non, even the cauſe formalis of Office-power.
That which ſetteth a man over a woman, as her head, is the cauſa formalis of the conjugall relation, That which ſetteth over ſervants, is the cauſa formalis of the relation of a Maſter. So here
2. His inſtances cannot help him.
To that of preſentation we ſay, 1. The Magna Charta of Chriſt empowereth a Church to Elect, without ſubmiſſion unto other men.
2. In ſuch a caſe, the eſſence is conveyed in Election, the Gentle-mans approbation or repreſentation is only a cauſa, ſine qua non exercitii.
3. The inſtance is impertinent, becauſe it proveth not a call to office, but a civil call.
As to that of Arch-Biſhops, it is a begging the queſtion, that his call did lye in conſecration; the King did write to certain Biſhops to confirme the Election; now confirmation followeth creation, nor can the eſſence of the call be in it.
Ob. 3. His ordination ſets him over a Church indefinitely, his Election ſets him over this or that particular Church, pag. 132.
Anſw. 1. Three arguments we give againſt this, Preacher Sent. pag. 248, 249. which are unanſwered.
2. We would know which ſetting over giveth the call to exerciſe office-power; that which giveth operari, giveth eſſe, man can challinge neither audience, nor maintenance, untill a call to exerciſe.
It is a ſtrange paradox, that one ſhould be ſet over the Catholike Church, when yet he may juſtly be denyed a liberty to exercrſe office-power in any particular Church.
3. His inſtance of a Dr. of Phyſick is impertinent; Phyſitians are not Rulers, are not over any by a choice or otherwiſe, neither is there a parity between Academical and Eccleſiaſtical preferments.
Arg. 2. Our ſecond argument is from ordination being conſequential to a mans having the eſſence of the call to Office, Acts 13. 2, 3.
Ob. 1. There is an Ordination ad munus, to an Office, and another ad opus to a work; this text ſpeaks of ordination to a work, pag. 132.
Anſw. We believe that the Apoſtles had no ordination to office, but onelyonly to Office-work; and therefore his ordination which came after, did not give his call to Office, no more doth it give it to any Goſpel Officers in a proper ſenſe.
Ob. 2. They …aſsert that the eſſence of the call lyes in election; and to urge this, they urge the Election of an Apoſtle, Acts 1. as in that Election, ſo in this ordination, ſome thing was extraordinary, and peculiar to the Apoſtles, viz. That the eſsence of their call did not lye in this ordination. pag 133.
Anſw. 1. This is a groſſe miſtake, for we do not (as he injuriouſly reporteth) urge the election of an Apoſtle, Act. 1. to prove that the eſſence of the call lyes in Election; we plainly deny it, Preacher Sent. pag. 267, 268. though we improve their objection from that Text againſt themſelves.
It is to prove another propoſition that we urge Acts 1. viz. That the power of Election belongeth to a Church, Preacher Sent. pag. 216. and therefore Mr. Pools argument, (pag. 133) is nothing to us.
2. That it can be no good plea in this caſe to ſay, it was extraordinory in that particular, we proved, Preacher Sent. pag. 252. &c. 255, 256. and that it ſhould be a compleat ordination in all the Acts and requiſites belonging to it, and yet not attain the main end, which (…e ſuppoſeth) is, the giving the eſſence of a call to Office, who will believe it? The Apoſtle needeth not ordination, if the uſe of that had been to give the eſſence of a call.
3. This clearly proveth that a call to Office and Ordination are ſeparable: a call may be (as here) before, and yet a compleat ordination in all its Acts come afterward, and therefore the intendment of Ordination, is not to give the eſſence unto a call to Office.
Ob. 5. Peradventure Paul had the eſſence of his call from his ordination; men were uſed as inſtruments, yet to ſpeak properly it was not men but God that was Pauls ordainer, for the Holy Ghost ſaid, ſeparate me, &c. pag. 135.
Anſ. 1. This is groſſe, for Paul was an Apoſtle divers yeares before this Ordination; that was after he had been at Jeruſalem, Acts 12. 25. and 13. v. 2, 3. But God had revealed Chriſt in him, and made him an Apoſtle above three years before that, Gal. 1. ver. 16, 17.
2. The Holy Ghoſt ſaying, ſeperate me, Barnabas and Saul, &c. was a command to men to ordain, and ſo (though the call were immediate, yet) men were as properly ordainers, as they are in theſe daies, Acts 8. ver. 29. The ſpirit ſaid unto Philip, go near, and joyne thy ſelfe to this Charet. He may as well ſay that properly it was not Philip, but God that did go near and Joyned to the Charet, becauſe the ſpirit ſaid go, &c. or as Acts 10. 19. he might ſay, it was God that was to ariſe, & go down, & not Peter properly, becauſe the ſpirit ſaid, ariſe, &c. as he may ſay, That properly God was theordainer of Paul, becauſe the holy Ghoſt ſaid ſeperate me, &c.
Arg. 3. Our third argument is taken from the nature of Ordination, it conſiſts in prayer, &c.
Ob. 1. If the eſsence of the call did conſiſt in Election, and prayer be uſed before Election, how can they pray in faith, &c. pag, 135.
Anſw. Prayer before Election is for the Churches direction into a right choice, and ſo may be in faith, though it be uncertain whether the perſon ſhall be choſen or not: but prayer in ordination is for a bleſſing upon a man in a work, Acts 13.. 2, 3. and ſo a knowledge that a man is called to it (which preſuppoſeth his having the Eſſence of a call) is neceſſary unto praying in faith there.
Ob. 2. In ſuch caſes our prayers have ae facit condition, that God would bleſſe him in the work, if he ſhall be ſet apart for it, pag. 135.
Anſw. Prayer in ordination is the very act by which a perſon is ſet apart, and therefore there can be no ſuch facit condition admitted of here. If he ſhall be ſet apart, implyeth uncertainety whether he ſhall or no, whereas in due Ordination it is alwaies certaine, for the ſetting apart is by prayer.
Ob. 3. Ordination conſiſts not in fasting nor prayer, nor laying on of hands, but in the deſignation of fit perſons by officers unto the work ſignified by impoſition of hands, and introduced with faſting and prayer, p. 135.
Anſ. 1. That there is a ſeparation of an officer to his work in ordination, we granted, (preacher Sent. p. 258.) but the Eſſential act by which that ſeparation is made, is prayer; himſelfe ſaith (pag. 135.) impoſition of hands is ſuch, as ordination is not null without it, and he will ſay as much for faſting; and then prayer is the eſſentiall act, or nothing.
2. No Scripture doth evidence that the eſſence of Ordination conſiſteth in any deſignation to work, which is a conſtitutive office-making act, neither hath prayer or any other thing which belongs to ordination a tendency to produce ſuch an effect as our argument proved.
He uſeth one argument to prove that the eſſence of the call doth not lye in the Election of the people.
Ob. The people neither are, nor by divine appointment are neceſsarily required to be in a capacity to give the eſſence of the call to the Miniſtry; for, 1. They have no authority 2. They have not ability to judge of a mans fitneſs. &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 136. to 141.
Anſw. The people are in a capacity to give the eſſence of the call.
1. The people have as much authority as is neceſſary to their giving the eſſence of the call; for, nothing is required thereunto, but a putting themſelves into ſubjection to a perſon duely qualified, it being a voluntary, not a natural relation; and this is done by election with acception, for we proved before, that theſe do ſet a man over a Church. He ſaith they have no authority, becauſe in a ſtate of ſubjection, pag. 139. but he anſwereth himſelfe by his inſtance, pag. 138. For, in Democratical governement, the people are in ſubjection civilly unto thoſe very officers to whom they give a call, yet have authority to call them; are leſſer and yet greater then their Officers though women were preſent, Acts 1. yet it followeth not, that they did give their ſuffrage; they will allow women to be preſent at an Ordination, when they act not.
2. The people have ability to judge of a mans fitneſſe for the Miniſtry: it cannot be denyed that Iohn did write to the people, 1 Ioh. 2. ver. 12. I writ unto you little children, ſo they are called, little children, v. 13. 18 28. and 1 Ioh. 3. ver. 7. and yet theſe little children are commanded to try the ſpirits, 1 Ioh. 4. ver. 1. Beloved, believe not every ſpirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God, becauſe many falſe Prophets are gone out into the world. This neceſſarily ſuppoſeth them in a capacity to judge whether they were falſe Prophets or not; for it had been in vain to bid them try, if they could not draw up a judgement upon the tryal. If they be not fit to judge unto a choice, they are not fit to judge of the doctrine of him that is choſen, and ſo muſt take all upon implicit faith: and ſtill the ſame perſons are written to, ver. 4. and both that appellation, and alſo the matter of the Epiſtle is ſuch as concerneth all believers, and ſo cannot be reſtrained to Officers.
Alſo, the people have ſometimes judged right when the Rulers have condemned them for it, and taken a contrary part, undervaluing and contemning their judgement, Iohn 7. ver. 48. 49.
They grant that the peoples election maketh a man their Miniſter; we ask whether they ſee with their own eyes therein? It is evident that many inſufficient ones are ordained. It is not a careleſs people we plead for, but Bereans; and all that are godly, that are believers, & fit to be admitted Church members, are fit (with the reſt of the Church) to judge of a Miniſters abilities, which anſwereth what he ſaith, p. 141. about its being a neceſſary qualification in every Church-member. If one Church-member could not judge of it, yet all together have ability. Some arguments againſt election, as giving the eſſence of the call, he ſeeketh to vindicate.
Ob. 1. As to Acts 6. the Apoſtles are ſaid foreign, chuſing and appointing are diſtinguiſhed from, and oppoſed to one another, and the act of appointing is aſcribed to the ſuperiours, &c. Mr. Pool, pag. 142.
Anſw. 1. Chuſing and appointing are not there oppoſed: Chuſing is unto office, appointing is unto work, Acts 6. ver. 3. whom we may appoint, but to what? it is not ſaid [unto this office] but [foreign to this buſineſſe] And himſelfe ſuppoſeth (pag. 132.) that there may be ordination to a work, and yet the eſſence of a call not conſiſt therein: & its evident that ordination to a work is ſubſequent to (and ſodoth not give the eſſence of) a call to office, Acts 13. 2. & ſo neither of theſe places can prove in the leaſt their poſition.
2. It is not clear that [we] hath reference to the Apoſtles ſeorſim, as if it were their work only; but conjunctim, with the brethren as we ſhewed, Preacher ſent. p. 326.
As to what he ſaith, (pag. 142) to Tit. 1. 5. we anſwer, We do not call ordination an unneceſſary adjunct. The Apoſtles paines might have been very uſefull in other places, when yet the Lord would have them abide at Jeruſalem; and ſo Titus at Crete.
The ſetting in order things that were wanting, is expreſly and firſtly mentioned as the cauſe of Titus his ſtaying at Crete, and as that concerned but the welbeing of the Church, no more did ordaining of Elders in every City; for Churches have a being before Officers, Acts 14. 23. and if Titus himſelfe had acted in neither of theſe works, but onelyonly had taken the over-ſight of thoſe Churches, and directed them therein, yet it would have been neceſſary enough, (eſpecially in that Infant ſtate of the Church) that Titus ſhould a bide at Crete, but doubtleſſe he had preaching work enough there which was greater then his ordaining Elders.
Ob. 2. From the Nature of Election, Deu. 1. 13. look what Moſes was to the Jewes that are Miniſters unto the Church, &c. Here is no difference at all in the power and authority of Moſes and Miniſters, onelyonly the one is civil, the other Eccleſiaſtical, Mr. Pool, p. 143.
Anſw. 1. The Commonwealth of the Jews was a Thearchy, in reſpect of the Legiſlative part of Government; but it was a Monarchy in reſpect of the executive part, and Moſes the Monarch thereof; the ſpiritual Commonwealth or Miniſters not ſo.
2. The power of Moſes was Supream, all other powers ſubordinate unto him, the power of ſpiritual officers not ſo.
3. Moſes had power to appoint Officers of a new ſpecies under him, Exod. 18. ver. 24. Miniſters not ſo.
4. Chriſt is compared with Moſes, Heb. 3. not ſo with Miniſters of the Goſpel.
5. Moſes was over Babes, and ſuch as were under Tutors and Governours; Miniſters over a free people.
6. Yet Moſes gave to the people thoſe that they gave to him; ſo Chriſt the King D. 1. v. 13. 15.of Saints, giveth unto his Churches thoſe that (according to his directions) they chuſe.
That freemen in a Corporation give the Eſſentials of a Call to their Officers &c. is enough to ſhew that ſuch as have no Office-power, yet frequently do make Officers, which anſwereth the Provinc. Aſſ. eſpecially ſeeing they ground their objection upon a general Rule, nihil dat quod non habet, &c.
That Chriſts free-people may have office-power eminently in them, as well as thoſe inſtanced in, is enough for us here, we being in the defenſive part. But whereas he calleth, (p. 144.) for Divine inſtitution; we reply,
1. Many like inſtances lie giveth, and we have as good reaſon to Call for a Divine inſtitution there, as when he telleth us, pag. 7. of a vaſte number of ſheep, committed to twenty Shepherds, &c and p. 8. of a general relation to the whole Empire, & a ſpecial reſpect to their own Territories; we crave a Divine inſtitution for any ſuch order in the Church: and ſo for his inſtances (pag. 131. 132) about a preſentation, and the Archbiſhop, and a D…. of Phyſick; and 137. 138. of a Corporation, a Court of Aldermen, &c. let him ſhew a Divine inſtitution, that it is ſo in the Church; and why doth he require of us and not give it himſelf.
The uſe of ſuch examples is to clear ſome general rule, to illuſtrate and to ſhew that there are caſes paralel, and ours go thus far.
2. We gave an inſtitution in our Arguments to prove that Election giveth the Eſſence of the Call. As to Miniſters being before the Church, we ſufficiently diſproved it in our former book, pag. 303, 304. It is evident that Churches were before Elders, Act. 14. 23. it concerneth him to prove that any ordinary Elders were before a Church, and that they act as officers to ſuch as are no Church, elſe he ſaith nothing to the purpoſe; that Churches to are be gathered and baptized by them, … anſwered in the place even now quoted.
To prove that the Eſſence of the Cal I doth conſiſt in Ordination, they uſed five arguments, he pleadeth for two of them. The former is taken from 2 Tim. 1. 6. stir up the gift of God which is in thee, 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee, &c.
Object. He ſaith, 1. It was an ordinary Presbytery 2. foreign are uſed for Office as well as gift. 3. That a man may be ſaid to ſtir up his Office, and office may be ſaid to be in a man. 4. That an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary officers who were inferiour to him. 5. That foreign is uſed for foreign in other places. 6. That foreign may be underſtood of the gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and of the office, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Mr. Pool, from pag. 146. to 151.
Anſw. 1. That it was an ordinary Presbytery, is not proved; extraordinary Officers were Presbyters.
2. foreign commonly ſignifieth an abſolute gift, & its queſtionable whether it be uſed any where for office.
3. It is a ſtirring up as fire, and its very improper to ſay that office is ſo ſtirred up, eſpecially ſeeing the gift is ſaid to be in him, which is not true of office. Though a man may be ſaid to be in that which is in him, as being ſwallowed up or overcome thereby, as a man in ſin, in bear or drink, in joy, &c. Yet it cannot (with any propriety of ſpeech) be ſaid, that is in a man which is but upon him: office is onelyonly adherent to a man, not inherent or in him; it were very improper to ſay to a Major, Bayliffe, Juſtice, Conſtable, &c. ſtir up the Office that is [in you.]
4. If an extraordinary Office might be conveyed by ordinary Officers (which is not proved) yet their Argument is of no force, unleſs he can prove, that it was done here; what he addeth (pag. 149) of its being ordinary in ſtate and Church for a Perſon to have an Office conveyed to him Miniſterially, by ſuch as are inferiour to him, &c. doth plainly contradict what himſelf ſaid, p. 138. 160. That the leſs is called of the greater; and by this Rule, though the people be inferiour to their Officers, yet they may convey their Office to them. His inſtance of a King whoſe Office is conveyed by ſome of his Subjects (if true) proveth that thoſe who are placed in a ſtate of ſubjection, yet may have authority enough to give the Eſſence to their Officers, and ſo anſwereth what he ſaith, pag. 139.
5. It is ſeldom that foreign is uſed for foreign and there is no evidence that it muſt be ſo taken here.
6. That foreign is uſed for gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and for Office, 1 Tim. 4. 14. is altogether without proof, or probility of truth; For, as the phraſe were improper, neglect not the Office that is in thee; So it would follow, that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift, when not the Office, or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it.
It is a feeble Argument that cannot ſtand unleſs there be a receding from the uſual ſignification of divers words, and a plain ſenſe of the Texts alleadged for it.
And himſelf can find their argument to amount but to an [it may be] and ſo we may retort upon him, what he groundleſly ſaith to us, pag. 126. all the anſwer it deſerves is [it may not be;] he ſhould not onelyonly have ſhewed, that foreign may be taken for Office, and foreign for foreign &c. but that they muſt be ſo taken here, elſe their Argument is invalid. We ſaid one relate gives being to another.
Object. It is true in eſſe conſtituto; but conſider relations in eſſe conſtituendo, as they are to be conſtituted, and ſo ſomewhat elſe gives being to them; the husband gives being to the wife, and the wife to the husband, but there is ſomething elſe which legally conſtitutes them in that relation, to wit the act of the Juſtice or Minister, pag. 151.
Anſw. Relata give being one to another in eſſe conſtituendo, eſpecially if they be voluntary Relations, as this between Officer and a Church is; thus a mutual Covenant or agreement conſtitutes one a maſter, and another a ſervant; and ſo for husband and wife, the act of the Magiſtrate is not conſtitutive of the relation between man and wife, but Declarative. What he addeth about Titus, was anſwered before, he was not left in Crete to ordain only, but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office.