The Preacher Sent, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
Concerning Election, as belonging to a particular Church.
HAving ſhewed, That Office is a Relation to a particular Church, and that ſome men who are not ordained Officers, may preach; we ſhall now proceed to ſpeak ſomething concerning the requiſites to an Officer, about which the opinions of men are various, ſome place the eſſence of the call to Office, in Election, others in Ordination. We ſhall paſs over what our brethren in their Jus Divinum Miniſt. Evang. lay down, concerning an immediate call to the Miniſtery, and ſhall reply onelyonly to what they ſay, about a mediate call. Many Arguments here they level againſt the Congregational way, which we cannot but account a way of Chriſt, and this hath been a great provocation to us, to this undertaking. The main thing they drive at, is to prove,
1. That the eſſence of a call to office, doth not conſiſt in Election, but in Ordination.
2. That it belongeth to a Presbytery to Ordain.
We ſhall proceed to their Propoſitions concerning Election.
Propoſit. 1. That the Election of a Miniſter doth not by Divine right belong wholly and ſolely to the Major part of every Jus Divin. Miniſt. pag. 127.particular Congregation.
To prove this, they undertake to examine the Texts brought for Election, and to ſhew what miſchiefs will (they ſay) inevitably follow from the Aſſertion.
1. The firſt Text for the peoples Election is, Act. 1. 23. from the choice of Mathias into the office of an Apoſtle, by the 120 Diſciples there preſent. Againſt this they have ſeveral Objections.
Object. 1. Thoſe words, and they appointed two, do in all probability relate to the Apoſtles, and not to the diſciples; it is ſaid, verſ 17. he was numbred with us, that is with the Apoſtles, not with the diſciples, and ſo verſ. 21. and verſ. 5. 22. with us Apoſtles, and then followes, And they appointed, that is, the Apoſtles, and not the 120. Diſciples.
Anſw. 1. It was the 120. Diſciples that the exhortation was given to, by Peter about chuſing an Apoſtle, Ergo, It was the 120. Diſciples that did chuſe.
That Peters Sermon, purpoſely to put upon a choice, as the ſcope, end, drift and deſign of it, ſhould be directed to 120. and that but eleven of that number, ſhould be intended to be the chuſers; when no Characters are given in the Sermon, to limit it under the 11. ſcundeth very harſh. The exhortation is not given to the 11. more then to the reſt of the 120. as appears ver. 15. In thoſe dayes Peter standing up in the midſt of the Diſciples, ſaid (and the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty, &c) The perſons ſpoken to were [the Diſciples] and the number of the Diſciples is ſaid to be [about an hundred and twenty.] And that the Holy-Ghoſt would not paſſe over the hiſtory without mentioning the number (though in a parentheſis) is very remarkable to notifie that the 120. were to act in the choice; becauſe, chuſing was but the yielding obedience to Peters admonition; and if all ſpoken to, had not been to act therein, the notification of the number had been needneſs, and why was the ſpeech directed to any more then the eleven? It cannot he gathered from the ſpeech that onelyonly the eleven were to chuſe, it doth not ſignifie or give a knowledge that ſome ſhould chuſe and ſome not, and therefore all the 120. were to concur in it.
2. It is no way improper that [with us, ver. 17. 21, 22] ſhould be underſtood of the Apoſtles onelyonly, and yet the twelve Diſciples to be intended verſ. 23. when it is ſaid [they appointed two] For, the former verſes hold out the words of Peter, the perſon ſpeaking, but the latter holdeth out the practiſe of the perſons ſpoken to upon the exhortation verſ 23. they appointed two, now the perſons ſpoken to, were the 120. ver. 15. if the queſtion be asked, who appointed two? the anſwer is. verſ. 23. [They] i. e. They that Peter Preached to and exhorted to the work, and that was the 120. [They] i. e. the Diſciples, [they] i. e. the 120. for they were ſpoken to ver. 15. about chuſing, and therefore [they] appointed two.
3. The ſame perſons by whoſe common conſent Mathias was numbred among the eleven Apoſtles, were they that appointed or choſe them: for, it is as improper that ver. 26. ſhould relate to the 120. as v. 17. 21, 22. Now, themſelves interpret ver. 26. of the 120. they ſay the word foreign here muſt neceſſarily be taken for the general conſent and approbation of the whole company; and therefore ver. 23. referreth to the whole company alſo.
Object. 2. The whole and ſole power of chuſing was not in the people, for they were guided and directed in their choice by the eleven Apoſtles, verſ. 21, 22. of thoſe men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jeſus went in and out among us, &c.
Anſw. 1. The direction was given before the Election, and therefore the Election might be wholly and ſolely in the particular Congregation not withſtanding that direction: if a Miniſter Preaching before the chuſing of Parliament men ſhall tell the people that they ought to Elect men ſearing God, &c. or if the Magiſtrate telleth the Electors that the Elected muſt be ſo qualified, will any ſay, therefore the Election doth not belong wholly and ſolely to the major part of the people? So, Peters giving a word of direction before the choice, verſ. 21, 22. doth not hinder the Election from the appertaining wholly and ſolely to the major part of the 120. Diſciples; For the Election was in order of time after that direction.
2. This would evidence rather that it was the 120. Diſciples, and not the 11. Apoſtle only, that were the Electers; For, will any ſay that Peter had a Superiority or power over the other Apoſtles to limit and direct them in their choice? did not the other Apoſtles know as well as Peter, that one was to be choſen out of that company? it were too Popiſh an aſſertion to ſay that Peter had ſuch a power over the other Apoſtles as to guide, direct, limit and determine them in their actings; which muſt be in this caſe, if the guidance and direction were ſuch as hindred the perſons guided and directed from having the whole and ſole power of chuſing. For, it is Peter that is the perſon ſpeaking (not the eleven Apoſtles as they ſuggeſt.) verſ. 15. Peter ſtood up and ſaid and if the Apoſtles had been the onelyonly Electors (and not the 120. Diſciples) then Peter had ſuch a power over them; for it is certain, that to whom it did belong to chuſe, them Peter directed, verſ. 21, 22. how to chuſe; whom ſhould he direct elſe? And if the direction were ſuch as hindred their having the whole and ſole power of chuſing who were guided and directed, then Peter was over them; nay, this will deny the other Apoſtles to be the Electors as well as the 120. Diſciples, and then they contradict their firſt objection, from verſ. 17. 21. 22. 23. that ſaith, they appointed, that is, the Apoſtles; now it muſt not be the Apoſtles neither. But, becauſe it was the reſt of the 120. rather then the Apoſtles that needed direction about chuſing; therefore they were the Electors.
Ob. 3. The people cannot (in any good conſtruction) be ſaid to have choſen Mathias any more then Barſabas, for they appointed two, the truth is, Mathias was choſen by God himſelf, and by God onelyonly, ver. 24.
Anſw. It is certain that the Diſciples had a ſtroak in this matter, and went as far as any humane ſuffrages could go, where the office was extraordinary, ver. 23. They i. e. the Diſciples appointed two. The Election of two, was given to the Diſciples, one of which was certainly determined ſhould be the Apoſtle. But the Election of the one, or final determination which of thoſe two ſhould be the Apoſtle, this did belong to God onelyonly, and thence chuſing is attributed to God. verſ. 24. Shew whether of theſe thou haſt choſen.
And if God onelyonly had not thus choſen him, he ſhould have wanted an Immediate call of God, and ſo had not been an Apoſtle. But the Diſciples did chuſe, and then God choſe alſo.
And if the Lord would grant thus much to men in the caſe of an extraordinary Officer, let men beware, of abridging the people of this liberty, in the caſe of ordinary Officers, or of making ſuch a light matter as they do of the peoples Election.
2. The ſecond Text alledged for the peoples Election is, Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons, where the whole and ſole power of chuſing is put into the hands of the people; and therefore the choice of a Miniſter belongs by Divine right wholly & ſolely unto the people. Againſt this they have two objections.
Object. 1. The people had not the whole and the ſole choice of the Deacons, but were herein guided, directed and limited by the holy Apoſtles, they were limited to the number of ſeven, and to the company out of which thoſe ſeven were to be choſen, and to certain qualifications which muſt be in theſe ſeven as we are confident that if the brethren had failed in any of theſe particulars, the Apoſtles would have refuſed to have laid their hands upon them.
Anſ. 1. It is plain that the Apoſtles referred the Election wholly and ſolely here to the people; Ast. 6. v. 2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Diſciples unto them, and ſaid v. 3. Look [ye] out among you ſeven men, v. 5. And the ſaying pleaſed the whole multitude, and (they) choſe Stephen. What can be more evident? [the whole multitude] are ſaid to [chuſe.]
2. The Apoſtles guiding, directing and limiting the choice doth not hinder the peoples having the whole and ſole power of chuſing the Deacons.
1. Becauſe thoſe directions and limitations were antecedaneous to the Election, even in order of time before it, and therefore had no ingrediency into the Election, as any part thereof: a Judge of Aſſize and a Jury have the whole and ſole power of determining caſes, and yet there were Laws and Rules preſcribed before-hand, by which they are to walk, and which they are to obſerve in their determinations.
A Corporation hath the whole and ſole power to chuſe its Officers. Mayor, Bayliffs, &c. and yet there are certain rules and Laws to direct and limit them therein.
2. Becauſe the ſame Rules, directions, and limitations, are left in holy Writ to be obſerved in all Elections to whomſoever the power of chuſing doth appertain; and therefore if the Apoſtles guiding, directing, and limiting the choice of Deacons did hinder the peoples having it, then alſo it doth deny any on Earth to have the whole and ſole power of Election; for any that are Electors, are under the ſame obligation to walk by thoſe rules in all ſubſtantials, as much as the people then were, onelyonly they received the directions immediately from the mouth of the Apoſtles, others in ages ſince, receive them mediately, or by the written Word.
And the people may have recourſe to that word for them now. If they will grant that all other requiſites to Election, belong to the major part of a particular Church, beſides the preſcribing of Rules, and limiting to qualifications, in the choice, it is as much as any that we know of, plead for; Chriſt who is the onelyonly Law giver hath preſcribed theſe in his word already, to whom alone it belongeth; it is a whole and ſole power of Election according to thoſe Rules of Chriſt that is contended for. And it is obſervable that when the Apoſtle writeth to Timothy and Titus he giveth ſuch directions, and limiteth to certain qualifications in the conſtituting of either Elders or Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. ver. 2, 3 &c. A biſhop muſt be blameleſs, the husband of one wife, vigilant, ſober, &c. ver. 8. Likewiſe muſt the Deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, &c. ſo Titus 1. verſ. 6, 7, &c.
And therefore if theſe things were written to Timothy and Titus as Church officers (as our brethren would have it) then, the whole and ſole power of Election belongeth to no body, neither to the people nor the Presbyters, if a being guided, directed and limited can hinder it▪ for, as the people were guided and limited, 1 Act. 6. So then were the Presbyters. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Yea, if thoſe Epiſtles were written unto Timothy and Titus with the reference unto Ordination, then this objection will prove, that the whole and ſole power of Ordination doth not belong to Presbyters as much as that the power of Election doth not belong to the major part of the Church; for, then Timothy and Titus were guided and limited about Ordination as well as the people were, Acts 6. about Election.
3. If the Apoſtles would have refuſed to have laid their hands upon them, if the brethren had failed in any of thoſe particulars; yet at the utmoſt that can prove no more but this, that they ſhould have wanted Ordination, it doth not at all deny that the whole and the ſole power of Election belongeth to the people: Election is antecedent to, and compleat without Ordination, and hence it is diſtinguiſhed from it, Act. 6. v. 5. they choſe Stephen; there is election, v. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them; there is Ordination, and it is diſtinct from, and in order of time conſequential to Election; and therefore if the Apoſtles had refuſed to ordain them, that could not have denyed the people to have the whole and ſole power to Elect them.
But in ſuch a caſe it is ſuppoſable, that by the perſwaſion of the Apoſtles, the people would have revoked their firſt, and have made a ſecond choice, when they were convinced that they had failed in the former, and ſo may Churches do now, by the perſwaſion of others. And in caſe the people had refuſed to make a new choice, and the Apoſtles had refuſed to ordain thoſe that were choſen, what the event would have been, as that Text doth not, ſo it is not appertaining to the preſent queſtion to determine; and how ſuch a refuſal to ordain thoſe that were not qualified according to the word, doth deny the people to have the whole and ſole power to Elect ſuch as are qualified according to the Word, we ſee not.
And where ſuch a failing is, if the Election be rendred fruſtraneous, it ſeemeth to be the want of a due obſervation of Goſpel rules in chuſing, rather then the want of Ordination, that doth make it void. Beſides, whether ſuch an Election be not void without Ordination, and whether Ordination be not fruſtrate without a precedent Election (ſeeing Election is pre-required, Act. 6.) are things equally difficult to determine.
Obj. 2. But ſuppoſe that the people had the whole and ſole choice of the Deacons, yet it will not follow, that therefore they ſhould have the whole and ſole choice of their Ministers, for it is a certain rule, Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirmative. It is no good way of arguing to ſay, that becauſe a man is able to do the leſſer, therefore he is able to do the greater. Now the office of a Deacon is inferior to the office of a Presbyter, &c.
Anſw. 1. Our brethren uſe the ſame Argument from the leſſer to the greater Affirmatively, and take it from this very inſtance of Deacons. Surely they might take ſuch Coyn, as they pay to others.
To Prove Ordination of Miniſters to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, in Jus Divin. Miniſt. p. 1. pag. 158.this very book they uſe this Argument.
[In the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferior office; and ſerving onelyonly for the diſtribution of the temporal eſtates of people, the Apoſtle requires, that they ſhould not only be Elected by the people, but alſo ordained to this Office, much more ought this to be done in the choice of perſons who are called to the work of Preaching and diſpenſing Sacramental myſteries, a ſervice of all others of greateſt weight and worth.]
Theſe are their own words, in which the Reader may ſee that they argue not onelyonly from the leſſer to the greater, but even to the greateſt, and that Affirmatively.
The Argument is the ſame, and as forcible if we apply it to Election; and ſay thus,
In the very choice of their Deacons, which was but an inferiour Office, the people had the power of Election; much more ought they to have the choice of their Paſtors, who are to be exerciſed in the work of Preaching and diſpenſing Sacramental myſteries, which are ſervices of all others of greateſt weight and worth.
2. An Argument from that which is both leſſer in it ſelf, and alſo in probability, to that which is greater, may not be valid Affirmatively: we grant it is no good way of arguing to ſay, becauſe a man is able to do the leſſer, therefore he is able to do the greater.
Our brethren are miſtaken, if they think that we argue thus, the people are able to chuſe Deacons, Ergo, they are able to chuſe Paſtors. That the people have abilitie to chuſe their Paſtors, is not the immediate concluſion of our Argument from Act. 6. but, that Chriſt hath granted the people a liberty or power to elect their Paſtors, this is it which we ſtrictly conclude thence, and in the ſecond place we may argue; That becauſe Chriſt hath granted them liberty or power to chuſe their Paſtors, therefore he hath given them ability to do it.
Theſe are two diſtinct queſtions. 1. whether the people have abilitie to chuſe their Paſtors? 2. whether Chriſt hath granted the people, or a particular Church liberty and power to chuſe them; It is the latter of the two, which we determine Affirmatively from Act. 6. If their abilitie to chuſe their Paſtors be queſtioned, we have many other Mediums to prove that by, as John 10. v. 4. The ſheep follow him (i. e. Chriſt) for they know his voice, v. 5. And a ſtranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voyce of ſtrangers and v. 14. 27. Whence it is evident that not only Church-officers, as Paſtors and Teachers, but the ſheep of Chriſt who are to be fed or Taught, even they have abilitie to diſcern whether it be Chriſts voice, or the voice of ſtrangers which they hear, whether they be ſuch Teachers as they are to follow, or ſuch as they are to flee from, and what can be required more to give abilitie for Election, but a knowledge what Teachers they are to own, and who are to be avoided? our Brethren at other times will grant, that the peoples choice maketh a man their Miniſter, their Paſtor, and how could this be, if they had not ability to chuſe? and why is it that they here argue againſt their having the whole and ſole power of Election? if Officers lay claim not onelyonly to Ordination, but alſo to part of Election, it will be next unto nothing that they will leave to the people.
3. An Argument from the Leſſe to the Greater, in probability or in the cauſes of it, though the thing alſo be greater in it ſelf, yet is valid affirmatively in Divine things: from that which is leſs credible, leſſe likely, hath leſs apparent grounds and cauſes for it, to that which is more credible, more likely, hath more apparent grounds and cauſes for it, is a good way of arguing, and that affirmatively; and therefore it is not a certain rule which our Brethren give, that Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirmative.
The Scripture is frequent in ſuch arguings, as Mat. 6. v. 26. Behold the fowls of the Air, your heavenly father feedeth them, are ye not much better then they? v. 30. If God ſo cloath the graſs of the field, which to day is, and and to morrow is caſt into the oven; ſhall be not much more cloath you, O ye of little faith? Luk. 12. v. 6, 7. Are not five ſparrows ſold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God, but even the very hairs of your head are all numbred, fear not therefore, ye are of more value then many ſparrows, Luk. 11. v. 13. If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, much more ſhall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him.
The Argument from the Leſs to the Greater affirmatively, is urged in all theſe inſtances; from the Lords taking care of the Lillies of the field, and the fowls of the air, which are of leſs value, he argueth that he will take care of his own people, who are of Greater value, or far better then they. From earthly Fathers providing for their children, he affirmeth with a much more, that our heavenly Father will provide for his children, things far Greater in themſelves. And the ſame is our Argument, from Act. 6. If the Lord would have the people have the whole and ſole choice of their Deacons, who were to take care of their bodies and worldly goods, much more would the Lord have the people have the whole and ſole choice of their Paſtors and Teachers, who are to take care of their ſouls; as Dr. Ames ſaith, There are more and more weighty cauſes requiring the conſent of the Church, in appointing Paſtors, then in appointing Deacons.
Indeed the ſpiritual welfare of ſouls is promoted or hindred, according to the ſutableneſs, or unſutableneſs of the Teachers; as the comfort of the natural life would many times be loſt, if a man ſhould be forced to take a woman to be his wife without chuſing her, or a woman were forced to have a man for her husband that ſhe did not chuſe; yea, though the parties might be gracious that were ſo taken unchoſen: So, the comfort of the ſpiritual life would often be loſt, if ſuch Paſtors were obtruded upon Churches as they did not chuſe, and many temptations they might be expoſed to in the caſe of unſutable Paſtors, more then in the caſe of unſutable Deacons; and therefore the whole and ſole power of chuſing Paſtors, appertaineth to the Church.
But you may take it thus; If the Apoſtles would not have ſo much as Deacons made without Election by the Church, much leſs would they have Paſtors obtruded upon them without their Election, or then they would not make them Paſtors without their having the whole and ſole power of chuſing them; and then it is Argumentum a minori ad majus Negative.
3. The third Text alleaged by us, for the peoples Election is, Act. 14. 23, When they had created them by ſuffrages Elders in every City. Againſt this they alleage ſeveral things.
Object. 1. Though the word foreign ſignifieth primarily and properly, to chuſe, by liſting up of the hands, as foreign ſignifieth to chuſe by ſtones or counters, yet alſo it oftentimes ſignifieth ſimply to chuſe, or to appoint, or to ordain, without the uſe of the ceremony of lifting up of bands; thus it muſt neceſſarily be taken, Act. 10. 41.
Anſ. 1. It being granted by themſelves, that foreign ſignifieth primarily and properly, [to chuſe by lifting up of the hands]; …ence we are to ſtick to that, unleſs ſome ſpecial reaſon forbids it. As Dr. Ames ſaith in anſwer to Bellarmine; We are not to recede from the native ſignification of any word, in interpreting Scriptures, unleſs it be manifeſtly repugnant to the ſence of the context; let our Brethren ſhew a reaſon why, in this place, it muſt not be taken properly.
2. As the ſaid Dr. Ames obſerveth, No example can be given from the Metaphorical ſence, but Act. 10: 41. where by Analogy it is transferred from men to God; and as he goeth on, Quid autem in hominum uſu ſignificet vox aliqua, non debemus aut poſſumus ex eo ſenſu ſtatuere quem habet Deo tributa: ſed contra, quiae primo creaturis impoſita fuerunt hujuſmodi nomina, & poſtea adres divinas imperfecte notandas applicata. Other anſwers they may find to this objection, given by Dr. Ames in the ſame place.
3. As for Act. 10. 41. unto witneſſes [choſen before] of God, as the word muſt be taken for a chuſing without the uſe of the ceremony of lifting up of hands; ſo alſo it muſt neceſſarily be taken there for a chuſing without laying on of hands; for, as God properly hath no hands to lift up, ſo neither to lay on; and therefore if foreign, muſt be taken Act. 14 23. in the ſame ſenſe that it is Act. 10. 41. then it cannot be meant of Ordination by laying on of hands.
4. If it doth ſignifie ſimply to chuſe, appoint or conſtitute; ſtill it proveth, that the whole and ſole power of chuſing Elders belongeth to the people whether it were with or without the lifting up of hands.
5. If the word foreign be underſtood of Ordination by impoſition of hands, then it muſt be granted that there is expreſſe Rule and example in the New Teſtament for the peoples ordaining by laying on of hands; for not onelyonly here, is it given to the people, or Church foreign but alſo, 2 Cor. 8. 19. who was alſo [choſen] of the Churches to travel with us foreign. It is not ſaid he was choſen of the Elders or Officers, but of the Churches; and therefore if it ſignifieth an ordaining by impoſition of hands, then the Churches may ſo Ordain.
Object. 2. Whatſoever is meant by foreign, yet certain we are that the perſons that did foreign, were Paul and Barnabas, and not the people; for it is ſaid expreſſely, And when they had ordained them Elders, This they muſt needs be Paul and Barnabas; it is ſix times uſed of them in five verſes, verſ. 21: 22. when they had Preached, &c. they returned to Lyſtra confirming the ſouls of the Diſciples, and ver. 5. 23. when they had ordained, &c. and had prayed they commended them to the Lord, and verſ. 14. After they had paſſed throughout Piſidia, they came, &c. and they Preached, by all which it appears that the perſons that did ordain were Paul and Barnabas, &c.
Anſ. 1. As Paul and Barnabas are ſpoken of and notified by [they] in ſome verſes, ſo the diſciples are alſo ſpoken of in others, v. 20. [The Diſciples] ſtood round about him, &c. yea in the verſe foregoing that alledged, the Diſciples are mentioned twice. verſ. 22. Confirming the ſouls of [the Diſciples] and exhorting [them] to continue in the faith, &c. verſ. 23. And chuſing them elders by ſuffrages in every Church, or when [they] had choſen them elders by ſuffrages in every Church, &c. [They] may have reference to [the diſciples] as well as to Paul and Barnabas, for the Diſciples were ſpoken of in the very verſe before, when [they] i. e. the Diſciples, they that were confirmed, when they had choſen them elders, &c.
2. Saith Doctor Ames, we do not deny that Paul and Barnabas did give Bell. Enerv. F. 2 l. 3. c. 2.their ſuffrages, but that [they onelyonly] gave them. If this [they] muſt needs refer to Paul and Barnabas, yet it may include the Diſciples alſo, and therefore it is too haſty a concluſion, that the perſons that did foreign were Paul and Barnabas, and [not the people] where elders are in Churches, they may give their ſuffrages with the people, though they do it not as officers, but as members. And then it runs thus, wher [they] ie. Paul and Barnabas with the reſt of the Diſciples, had choſen them elders by ſuffrages in evary Church, &c.
3. They i. e. Paul and Barnabas may be ſaid foreign becauſe they went before the Diſciples in the Election, and yet the whole and ſole power of chuſing might be in the people: it might be the voyce of the major part of the Church, that was the determining Rule who ſhould be choſen, yet the officers might be ſaid to chuſe, becauſe they regulated and directed in the choice; as in a Parliament and other Aſſembles the Chair-man moderateth and ordereth proceedings, and yet the major vote carrieth it, and poſſibly againſt him. It is obſerved, that it is very frequent, when things are done by a Ainſworth. on numb. 21. 21.multitude where one is chief, that the on is aſcribed either to the multitude, or to him that is chief indifferently, as they made peace with [David] and ſerved him, 1 Chr. 19. 19. or they made peace with [Iſrael] and ſerved them, as another Prophet recordeth it, 2 Sam. 10. 19. So [Jehoiadia he] brought forth the Kings ſon, and [he] put the crown upon him, 2 Kin. 11. 12. Or [they] brought forth the Kings ſon, and [they] put upon him the crown, 2 Chr. 23. 11. and [they] offered burnt-offerings. 1 Chr. 16. 1. or [David] offered burnt-offerings, 2 Sam. 6. 17. So Deut. 2. 26. Moſes ſaith, [I] ſent meſſengers unto Sihon King, and Num. 21. 21. And [Iſrael] ſent meſſengers unto Sihon King of the Amorites &c. So it may be aſcribed to Paul and Barnabas that they choſe elders, Act. 14. 23. and yet the power of chuſing might belong to the people: And therefore if this [they] muſt needs be Paul and Barnabas, yet I cannot deny the people to be the chuſers, or it wil not follow thence, that the people did not chuſe, any more then in the forementioned places making peace with Iſrael will deny making peace with David; or that the peoples being the [they] 2 Ch. 23. 11. 1 C. 16. 1. will make it follow that Jehoiada and David acted not, or had not a power of acting therein, whereas the actions are aſcribed to them 2 Ki. 11, 12., 2 Sam. 6. 17.
4. It cannot be meant of a chuſing or ordaining only by Paul and Barnabas, as may appear.
1. Becauſe the word foreign, is never uſed in all the Scripture for Ordination or impoſition of hands; and therefore (without a ſpecial reaſon) it cannot admit of ſuch a ſenſe in this place.
Nay, we cannot find that any Authors before Lukes time, did ever uſe the word, for ſuch ordaining; and what reaſon can there be to take it in this place, in a different ſenſe from its conſtant uſage both in Scripture and all writers?
2. Becauſe there are other words uſed in Scripture for Ordination and impoſition of hands as foreign, that aptly expreſſe the action, which this word doth not. And who can conceive that Luke would uſe the word here, in ſuch a ſenſe as was unheard of before, when other words are not wanting by which the thing might better be ſignified?
3. Becauſe the proper and native ſignification of the word forbideth that Paul and Barnabas ſhould be the onelyonly perſons that did foreign for, the word ſignifieth to chuſe or create by ſuffrages, and they being but two, there could be no place for ſuffrages.
That a choice ſhould be ſaid to be made by moſt voyces, or the lifting up of the hand in token of chuſing, and yet but two to give their voices, is not imaginable. And that the choice ſhould be made amongſt a multitude, or in the preſence of an Aſſemly, as here it was [in every Church,] and yet but two to be the perſons chuſing, is ſtill more unconceivable. Saith Dr. Ames. Nullum exemplum dari poteſt Bell. Ener. F. 2. p. 97.ubi foreign ſignificat in coetu eligere, it a ut ſuffragium unius, aut duorum tantum expecietur.
4. Becauſe the thing intended by foreign in this place muſt be Antecedent to and diſtinct from, ordaining by prayer with faſting, for the words run thus, Act. 14. 23. And when they had choſen them elders by fuffrages in every Church, and had prayed with faſting, &c. the Apoſtle plainly diſtinguiſheth theſe actions 1. They chuſe elders 2. prayed with faſting. He mentioneth two acts, and chuſing is the firſt, or before the faſting and praying, and therefore the chuſing (whether it be with, or as our brethren would have it, without lifting up of hands) cannot be Ordination, which conſiſteth in prayer with faſting which are here ſaid to be conſequential thereunto. foreign here, cannot expreſſe the whole of Ordination, for then there were a Tautologie in the Text; our Brethrens Third aſſertion is, That Ordination of Miniſters Jus Divin. Min. p. 170.ought to be by prayer▪ faſting, and impoſition of hands; and if foreign comprehendeth all theſe, then the words …ound thus, [And when they had prayed, fasted, and laid their hands on Elders in every Church, and had prayed with faſting] As ſuch vain repetitions are not found in holy Writ, ſo they are unpleaſant to the very ear; And, ſeeing the ſupply of Churches with new Officers, is the thing undoubtedly ſpoken of, hence the praying and faſting, expreſſely mentioned in this Text, cannot rationally be deemed to be any other then that which was uſual in ſuch caſes of ordaining Officers; and if ſo, then foreign doth not expreſſe the whole of Ordination, for prayer is the chiefeſt part, if not the whole of it, and that is mentioned by it ſelf after. Neither can it denote only impoſition of hands; for, generally in the new Teſtament, laying on of hands with Ordination, is ſet after prayer & faſting, as Act. 6. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them; ſo Act. 13 3. and onelyonly in this Text ſhould that order of words & actions be inverted, which is the more unlikely, becauſe it is ſuch a ſenſe as the Scripture never uſeth it in, nay, it is againſt the very importance of the word; for it denoteth a lifting up of hands, not a laying down, or on, of hands.
It remaineth that the word foreign, muſt be taken for a chuſing by ſuffrages, or ſimply for chuſing, and either way it could not be Paul and Barnabas only that did foreign, as appeareth.
5. Becauſe the power of Election or chuſing of Officers is never (that we can find) given to the Officers, but is given to the people, Act. 6. We deſire Scripture, that Election or chuſing of Officers, doth belong to Officers only, elſe Paul & Barnabas could not be the only perſons that did foreign. None can ſhew any Scripture for obtruding an Officer upon a Church, without its chuſing of him, and therefote it cannot be reſtrained to them, as if they were the only chuſers, but we muſt interpret it by other Scripture phraſes, where actions ſeem to be limited to a few perſons or to one ſingle perſon, and more concurred or were Co-acters, if not the ſole inſtruments therein: ſeveral inſtances we gave before, we ſhall adde one or two more, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of [my hands]; Here [my] hath as clear a reference, and doth as much limit the action to Paul, as in the other place [they] can limit or reſtrain the chuſing to Paul and Barnabas; and yet others, a Presbytery, concurred with Paul, for he ſaith, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; ſo Joh. 3. 26. & 4. v. 1, 2. Jeſus made and baptized more diſciples then John, though Jeſus himſelf baptized not, but his diſciples. Becauſe it was by the command and direction of Jeſus Chriſt, that his Diſciples did baptize, therefore Jeſus is ſaid to baptize, when the Diſciples onelyonly were the Adminiſtrators of baptiſm. So, Paul and Barnabas may be the [they] who are ſaid foreign, to chuſe by ſuffrages, becauſe by their command or direction, Elders were choſen, although poſſibly Paul and Barnabas did not vote at all, or concurre in the leaſt in the act of chuſing, but left that wholly to the Churches. And taking it thus, many inconveniencies that attend other interpretations will be avoided, and the requiſites to thoſe new Officers, are clearly found in the Text. Here is,
1. Election in its proper place, before Ordination, as it was, Act. 6. v. 5, 6. The Deacons were firſt choſen, And after that they prayed and laid on hands. So here by the direction of Paul and Barnabas, the people firſt choſe Elders in every Church by ſuffrages, or lifting up of hands; and thus the native ſignification of that word is retained, and the peoples priviledge preſerved, to whom the chuſing power doth belong; for by their own grant, they could not be their Miniſters, their Paſtors, their Shepherds, without their chuſing of them, and theſe were to be made their Paſtors, their Elders, for ſuch are ſaid to be created in every Church; therefore here was an appropriating of theſe Elders to thoſe Churches, by their chuſing of them, and foreign, ſo aptly expreſsing, ſo undeniable a requiſite to ſuch a matter as the Apoſtle is treating of, we wonder that any ſhould offer to vex and trouble the Text, by forcing a ſence upon the word, which the Scripture knoweth nothing of.
2. Ordination, which is holden forth by thoſe words [And had prayed with faſting]. And thus we have removed the objections againſt the Scriptures alleaged for the peoples having the whole and ſole power of Election.
Their ſecond Argument to prove, that the power of Election of Miniſters, doth not by Divine right belong wholly and ſolely to the Major part of every particular congregation, is drawn from the miſchief that (they ſay) will inevitably flow from this aſſertion. And four miſchiefs they ſpeak of.
Obj. 1. It is certain that every one that is to be made a Minister, is first of all to be tryed and proved, whether he be fit for ſo great an office, 1 Tim. 3. 10. Let theſe alſo be proved, &c. theſe alſo, that is, the Deacons as well as the Biſhops: the Biſhop therefore is to be tryed and examined, whether he be apt to teach, whether he be able to convince gain-ſayers. Now there are many Congregations, wherein the Major part are very unfit to judge of Miniſterial abilities, and if the whole and ſole power were in them, they would ſet up Idol-Shepher ds inſtead of able Shepherds.
Anſ. 1. That perſons ought firſt to be proved whether they be fit for ſuch an Office, before it be conferred upon them, we grant: i. e. A knowledge or good experience, that they are furniſhed with ſuch qualifications, as the Goſpel requireth ſuch Officers ſhould have, ought to be attained before Election unto the office. If they intend by it, a formal examination implying the ſuperiority of the examiners, & the ſubjection of the examined, the Text doth not witneſs that ſuch a probation is required. If a Church by obſervation of a mans converſation, by hearing his doctrine, by its own familiar converſes with him, and others report of him, hath gained a knowledge or experience of his fitneſs for the work; this is all the proving that can neceſſarily be enforced hence.
2. It was referred to the Church to judge of the qualifications of Deacons, Act. 6. v. 3. Look ye out among you ſeven men of honeſt report, full of the Holy Ghoſt, and wiſdom. This implyeth, that they were able to diſcern whether they were ſo qualified or not, elſe it had been in vain to put them upon looking out ſuch. And it is as eaſie to judge of moſt of thoſe qualifications required to be in an Elder, 1 Tim. 3. as it was of thoſe required in a Deacon, Act. 6. The people are able to diſcern whether a man be blameleſs, the husband of one wife, vigilant, ſober, of good behaviour, given to hoſpitality, v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and therefore onelyonly their ability to try whether they be apt to teach, and able to convince gain-ſayers, can be queſtioned; and we have clear proof of a Churches proving Deacons, let our Brethren ſhew as clear proof for a Presbyteries proving Elders.
3. We deſire Scripture grounds to evidence that any true Churches of Chriſt, conſiſt of ſuch members, as the Major part are unfit to judge of Miniſterial abilities: this we deny, and they give us their bare word for the proof of it. This being unproved no ſuch miſchief as they ſuppoſe, doth enſue upon the peoples having the whole and ſole power of chuſing.
4. The Sheep of Chriſt are ſaid to know his voice, Joh. 10. v. 4. & v. 5. A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; and this importeth their having ability and liberty to judge what Teachers they are to Elect, and what Teachers they are to reject, and the ſheep of Chriſt who are hearers, are thus to judge of Teachers. Surely this implyeth their fitneſs to prove them, both whether they be apt to teach, and able to convince gain-ſayers.
Obj. 2. There are ſome Congregations wherein the Major part are wicked, and if left to themſelves wholly, would chuſe none but ſuch as are like themſelves.
Anſ. 1. This will as well deny it to belong to the Elderſhip, as to the Major part of a Church; for, there are many wicked men who are ordained, & ſo are (according to our brethrens principles) made Elders, and if they aſſociate, are a wicked Elderſhip, and if left to themſelves, would chuſe and ordain none but ſuch as are like themſelves. Surely our Brethren cannot deny the Election of Paſtors to a wicked Congregation, & yet grant it to a wicked Elderſhip. And if they ſay itbelongeth onelyonly to a good Elderſhip to act therein, we may as well ſay, it belongeth onelyonly to ſuch a Congregation, the Major part whereof is good.
2. We do not ſay the power of Election of Paſtors doth belong to ſuch a Congregation, the Major part whereof is wicked, but to ſuch a Church, the Major part whereof is viſibly godly: if the Major part of a Congregation be wicked, we ſuppoſe then it is no true Church. If once it were a Church, yet now it ceaſeth to be ſo, or is unchurched, or elſe the Minor & better part is to be deemed the Church, By Congregations, ſurely they mean Pariſhes & our brethren know that though ſome pleaders for the peoples power of Election, have granted that there are true Churches in ſome Pariſhes, yet they never ſaid (that we can find) that Pariſhes taken collectively, are true Churches. Becauſe the major part of many pariſhes are wicked, therefore we deny that they are Churches of Chriſt, or that the power of Election of Officers doth appertain to the Major part of the Pariſhioners. We cannot find that they are in a capacity to have Officers over them, until they be a Church, and ſo are uncapable of Elecing.
They ſuppoſe a Church or Congregation ſutable to Presbyterian Principles, and then deny the Election which is according to Congregational principles, to belong to it.
Obj. 3. There are ſome, wherein the Major part poſbly may be heretical, and will never conſent to the Election of an Orthodox and ſound Minister.
Anſ. 1. The anſwers to the former objection will ſerve here alſo. Poſſibly a Presbytery may be heretical, and ſo the Presbytery will not conſent to the Election of an Orthodox and ſound Miniſter; they will not deny that an Orthodox Elderſhip may act in an Election, becauſe an heretical one may not; and why ſhould they deny a Church, ſound in the faith, a power of Election, becauſe an heretical one hath it not.
2. Let them prove that the Goſpel owneth any Congregation as a true Church of Chriſt, capable of having Officers ſet over it by a Presbytery, if the Major part be heretical.
Are not men to be caſt out of the Church for hereſie? did our brethren ever read of a true Church of Chriſt, the Major part of which conſiſted of Heretiques? if not, why do they put the caſe?
3. By the ſame Argument we may prove, that the power of Ordination doth not belong wholly and ſolely to a Presbytery, for the Major part of that, poſſibly may be heretical. Becauſe an heretical Presbytery may not ordain, they will not infer that therefore the whole and ſole power of Ordination doth not belong to an Orthodox Presbytery: and becauſe an heretical Congregation may not Elect Paſtors, why would they infer, that therefore the whole and ſole power of Election doth not belong to the Major part of a Congregation which is ſound in the faith?
Obj. 4. Sometimes there have been great diſſentions and tumults in popular Elections, even to the effuſion of blood, as we read in Eccleſiaſtical ſtory; ſometimes Congregations are deſtitute of Miniſters for many years, by reaſon of the diviſions and diſagreements thereof.
Anſ. 1. In caſes of want of Paſtors, who can ſhew any Scripture rule to warrant their obtruding Paſtors upon a Church without Election? if diſſentions in Churches be ſinful, a Presbyteries obtruſion of Paſtors upon Churches, would be ſinful alſo.
2. We ſay with Dr. Ames, We never read that diſſentions and tumults did ariſe among thoſe that were Orthodox, in the chuſing of Paſtors qualified according to Chriſts appointment.
3. If diſſentions and tumults, even to the effuſion of blood, have attended ſome popular Elections, yet they were but accidental to them; the giving the whole and ſole power of Election to a Church, doth not neceſſarily cauſe, but only occaſion ſuch evils; and ſo this is no argument againſt popular Elections, Rom. 7. 8. Sin took occaſion by the Commandment; yet this doth not ſpeak againſt urging the Commandment. Chriſt is a ſtone of ſtumbling to ſome, and the Goſpel an occaſion of tumults, when it was preached by the Apoſtles, Asts 14. 19. the people ſtoned Paul for preaching the Goſpel. But this will not prove that the Apoſtles had not power to preach Chriſt and the Goſpel. Saith Dr. Ames, Inſtituta Dei non ſunt mutanda propter incommoda Ames Beller. Enerv. F. 2. l. 3. c. 2.quibus ſunt obnoxia; ſed illa incommoda ſunt cavenda & curanda propter instituta, quae obſervare tenemur. So much for the firſt Propoſition.