The Preacher Sent, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
Concerning Election, as Eſſentiall to a call to Office.
THeir ſecond Propoſition is, Propoſit. 2. That the whole eſſence of the Miniſterial call doth not conſiſt in Election without Ordination.
Before we proceed to any Arguments, we ſhall premiſe three things.
Premiſe 1. That if we ſhould grant that the eſſence of a call to Office doth conſiſt in Ordination, and not in Election. Yet,
1. This would not overthrow the Congregational way. it would not deny Congregational Churches to be true Churches, for they muſt be true Churches before Officers can regularly be ſet over them, whether by Election or Ordination.
Nor would it deny Officers in thoſe Churches, to be true Officers of Chriſt, or to be rightly conſtituted; for, Ordination as well as Election is uſed in the Congregational way, and ſo the Eſſence of the call is not wanting there, whether it conſiſts in the one or the other.
Indeed, if it could be proved to conſiſt in Ordination, then one principle of moſt Congregational men would fall, but the way would ſtand ſtill. It is not ſuch an inſeparable principle, as the Congregational way ſtandeth or falleth with it.
2. This would not deny the lawfulneſs of gifted mens preaching without Ordination: for, though the Eſſence of the call to Office did conſiſt in Ordination, yet ſomething elſe might give the Eſſence to a call to preach. The written word may warrant gifted men in their preaching (though unordained) as well as it doth in their hearing, praying, private exhorting, &c.
If Ordination doth conſtitute an Officer that doth not ſpeak againſt the preaching of gifted men, who do not aſſume the Office of the Miniſtery. Unleſſe they can prove all preaching to be an incommunicable work, or act of Office; this (if granted) will not forbid their preaching. They are without the Eſſence of a call to Office, yet have what is eſſential to a call to preach.
Premiſe 2. By [Ministerial call] in their Propoſition, we underſtand [a call to Office] and we ſuppoſe ſo they take it, becauſe they reſtrain the very work of preaching to Officers.
Premiſe 3. That though we deny Ordination to be of the Eſſence of the call to Office, yet we aſſert it to be a neceſſary adjunct of ſuch a call; Officers ought not to be wholly, or altogether without Ordination, yet the Eſſence of a call to Office is compleat without Ordination. Theſe things being premiſed, we ſhall give ſome grounds to evidence, that the whole Eſſence of a call to Office doth conſiſt in Election, i. e. with acceptation; and then anſwer the Arguments uſed againſt it. Our Propoſition is this.
Propoſ. That the whole Eſſence of a call to Office, doth conſiſt in Election without Ordination.
Arg. 1. If Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before, then it gives the whole Eſſence of the call to Office without Ordination. But Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before. Ergo, Election gives the whole Eſſence of the call to Office, without Ordination.
The Major they cannot deny, it being clear in it ſelf, and alſo becauſe they uſe ſuch a Medium to prove that Ordination gives the Eſſence of the Miniſterial Office, becauſe (they ſay) it makes a man a Miniſter that was not one before. Jus Divinum Miniſt. p. 164.
The Minor, That Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before, we prove from Act. 14. 23. And when they had choſen, or created them Elders by ſuffrages in every Church, &c. Whence we obſerve,
1. That Election or chuſing here mentioned, made them Elders who were none before: foreign ſignifieth to chuſe by lifting up of hands, and it is not ſaid, when they had choſen men afterward to be made Elders, but [when they had choſen them Elders]; which plainlyſheweth, that it was this chuſing that made them Elders. And our Brethren ſay that the word ſigfieth to chuſe, or to appoint, or to ordain; and they tell us, they could cite multitudes Jus Divin. Min. pag. 129, 130.of Authors, where the Greek word foreign is uſed for diſcerning, appointing, conſtituting, and that without lifting up of hands. Whether it was with or without lifting up of hands, is not material in this Argument; that the appointing, conſtituting act is expreſſed by that word, themſelves clearly grant.
Junius & Trem▪ renders it thus, Et constituerunt eis in omni caetu Seniores: Some thus, Quumque ipſis per ſuffragia creaſſent per ſingulas Eccleſias Presbyteros. When they had created them by ſuffrages, Elders in every Church. From all which we gather, that they which did foreign they did create, make, conſtitute, or appoint thoſe Elders.
2. That not Paul and Barnabas onelyonly, but the people did foreign this we proved before. The word cannot be denyed to ſignifie Electing or chuſing, ſo it is taken, Act. 10. 41. unto witneſſes [choſen before] of God, &c. 2 Cor 8. 19. [choſen] of the Churches, &c. it denoteth ſuch a chuſing, as is a conſtituting, creating act; and let our brethren ſhew any Scripture that will prove, that Paul and Barnabas, or any of the Apoſtles, did or might warrantably aſſume the power of Election or chuſing ordinary Officers for any Goſpel Churches; without this can be evinced, what ſhadow of reaſon is there to limit Election or chuſing to Paul and Barnabas in this place, if our former reaſons be conſidered?
Eſpecially ſeeing the words of the Text do not neceſſarily reſtrain it to them, but rather give it to the ſeveral Churches; for if the queſtion be asked, [who were the perſons that did foreign] the Text doth plainly anſwer, [they in every Church.] It runneth thus, without any wreſting of the ſence, [In every Church they choſe or created Elders by ſuffrages]. And the phraſe is frequent in our ordinary ſpeech? we uſually ſay, They chuſe them Majors, Bayliffs, Burgeſſes, by voyces in every Corporation; or they chuſe them Parliament men by ſuffrages in every County or Shire; and yet we underſtand by ſuch expreſſions, that the people or Free-men themſelves in the Corporations, and the people themſelves in the Counties or Shires are the chuſers, and not others for them. The people in the Corporations, Counties or Shires, are the [they] that anſwer to the queſtion. So every Church doth aptly anſwer to the queſtion in this place. So that the Text ſeemeth to us to determine every Church to be the they that did foreign and not Paul and Barnabas onelyonly.
There is no need that foreign ſhould be traſſanted[according to the Church] to further this interpretation; the preſent tranſlation [in every Church] will ſerve as well and better to this ſence. Neither wil its being foreign not foreign ſpeak againſt this, for foreign ſignifieth himſelf, as John 4. 2. Jeſus himſelf baptized not, &c. foreign Epheſ. 2. 14. Luke 24. 39. and therefore in the plural number, it is aptly rendred themſelves, and therefore it is not improper to read it thus, And they choſe, or created to themſelves Elders by ſuffrages in every Church. And ſo Election by a Church, i. e. being compleated by the parties acceptation who is choſen, is that which maketh a man an Elder who was none before, and therefore gives the whole Eſſence of the call to Office, without Ordination.
Arg. 2. If Ordination doth not give the eſſentials of the Miniſterial Office, then Election doth: for our brethren ſay, it is agreed on all ſides, that the outward call of a Miniſter doth conſiſt onelyonly in his Election or Ordination. See Jus Divin. Miniſt. pag. 164. But Ordination doth not give the eſſentials of the Miniſterial Office, Ergo, Election doth.
That Ordination doth not give the eſſentials of the Miniſterial Office, we ſhall prove by three Arguments.
Arg. 1. That which doth not ſet a man over a Church of Chriſt, or commit it to his charge, that doth not give the eſſentials of the Miniſterial office, or of the outward call to Office. But ordination doth not ſet a man over a church of Chriſt, nor commit it to his charge, Ergo, Ordination doth not give the eſſentials of the miniſterial Office, or of the outward call to office.
The Major is evident.
1. Becauſe committing of a Church to ones charge or ſetting him over it, is the formal cauſe of office, and ſo the relation of office cannot have a beeing without it; for, forma dat eſſe.
He that is not ſet over ſome Church of Chriſt is no officer of Chriſt; this is the ſpecificating diſtinguiſhing character of Offiers, which differenceth them from ſuch as are no Officers, 1 Theſſ. 5. v. 12. Wee beſeech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and [are over you] in the Lord, &c. 1 Tim. 3. v. 5. If a man know not how to rule his own houſe, how ſhall he [take care of] the Church of God? In theſe places, [being over, and taking care of the Church of God] expreſſe the nature of Office.
2. Becauſe, If Ordination doth not ſet a man over a Church, or commit it to his charge, then it doth not lay him under obligation to the work of Office, neither are any people under obligations to duty towards him by ordination as they are towards an Officer; for a being over them, is that which putteth under ſuch mutual obligations, Acts 20▪ 28. They are commanded to take heed to the flock or Church over which they are made overſeers, Heb. 13. v 7. Remember them that have the rule over you, &c. v. 17. obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves, &c. No flock or Church may groundedly challenge ſuch ordinary and conſtant feedings, from any other, but thoſe that are over it; and onelyonly thoſe that are over the flock can groundedly challenge this obedience and ſubmiſſion from it; for, the mutual duties are required expreſſeſly under that notion. All in it that are not over it, are required to obey thoſe that are over it, and therefore if Election ſetteth over, and giveth the charge of a Church, then election layeth the perſon elected under obligations to act as an officer, and layeth the Church electing under obligations to the performance of duties towards him as towards an officer. All which may fully demonſtrate, that if ordination doth not ſet over a Church, then it doth not give the eſſentials of the miniſterial office or of the outward call to office. The Lord would not command duty towards thoſe that are over a Church as towards officers, if they might be over it and yet be no officers, or not have the eſſentials of an outward call to office upon them, which they might, if election ſetteth over, becauſe that may, yea accoring to goſpel order ought to precede or go before ordination, Act 6. verſ. 5, firſt, The Church did chuſe, and then, verſ. 6. They were ordained.
Jus Divinum, Our brethren ſay, That it is agreaable to the word of God, and very convenient that they that are to be ordained, be deſigned to ſome particular Church or Miniſterial employment. And a little after they adde, we ordain none without a title.
So that according to their principles and practices, election may and ought to be Antecedaneous to ordination. And therefore if election doth ſet a man over, and give him the charge of a Church, then it will follow either that a man may be actually an Officer before and without ordination, and then ordination doth not make a man an officer, or the eſſence of the call to office doth not conſiſt in ordination, but in election. Or elſe, a man may actually be ſet over and have the charge of a particular flock or Church committed unto him, and yet he actually be no officer, (which is contrary to, 1 Theſ. 5. 12. Hebr. 13. 7. 17.) For, election, and ſo the ſetting over the Church, may be before ordination.
The Minor, That ordination doth not ſet a man over a Church of Chriſt, nor commit it to his charge, we prove thus.
1. Becauſe without Election, a man cannot be over any flock, though he hath ſubmitted formerly to Ordination: if no Church of Chriſt hath choſen him, then he cannot truly ſay of any Church, that he is over it. We ask which is he over? and why over one more then another when he want Election from all? A man that formerly took up Ordination, if by a Patrons unjuſt uſurpation of a power, or by the peoples withdrawing ſubjection, he be diſpoſſeſſed of the flock he was ſuppoſed to be over, or by his own voluntary act he leaveth that people, before any other hath called him, poſſibly he may be a monethmonth, or a year before a new Election; we ask what Church is he over by his Ordination in this Interval, betwixt his departure from one flock and his coming to the other? If he be over or hath the charge of any Church, then he ought to feed and take the overſight of it, and that ought to obey him. Heb. 13. ver. 7. 17. of what Church will he require this obedience? and why of this more then of another? he may challenge a power for the exerciſe of his Office in that Church he is over, & let him but try to put forth a ſuch power in any Church in ſuch a caſe, & he will quickly find by experience that he is over none.
If he be over no Church and yet was formerly ordained, then it is plain that Ordination doth not ſet a man over a Church, or elſe that Ordination in ſuch a caſe is loſt; for ſo long as that which ſetteth a man over or giveth him the charge of a Church hath its continuation, ſo long he muſt needs remain Actually over it.
2. Becauſe if Ordination doth ſet a man over a Church, then there is a neceſſity of a frequent repetition and iteration of Ordination: For, a man by his Ordination can be ſet over onelyonly one particular Church at once, and ſo if he removeth to ten ſeveral places in his life, he muſt ſo often have a new Ordination.
Our brethren ſtrongly aſſert the lawfulneſs of an Officers removing in three Jus Div-Min. pag. 154.caſes, when he cannot have his health where he is, if he be denyed competent maintenance, and if the glory of God may be in an eminent manner advanced.
Some of theſe caſes may fall out to one Officer. 4. 6. 8. or 10. times in his life, and if he removeth ſo often, either he was ſet over, and had the charge of all theſe Churches (which he removeth to) committed to him, by his Ordination, or not. If not, then Ordination is not that which ſetteth a man over or giveth him the charge of them; for, he is ordained and yet is not over ſome of them. There may be Ordination and yet that be wanting which ſetteth over them. If Ordination did it, then ſo ſoon as ever he was Ordained he muſt needs be over them, and have the charge of them. If the cauſe actually exiſteth, the effect muſt needs exiſt alſo, and then he ceaſeth not be over that Church which he is removed from; Surely he is as much over that, as he is over the reſt which he ſhall afterward remove to.
If they will ſay, he is over and hath the charge of ſo many Churches, let them prove it. It doth not ſound like Goſpel order, that one officer ſhould be ſet over many Churches, one Paſtor have the charge of many flocks at one and the ſame time, and this by Ordination but once uſed: their own Arguments in their Jus Divin. Minist. againſt Epiſcopacy will forbid this.
Object. If they ſhould ſay that Ordination ſetteth him over the univerſal Church, or maketh him a habitual officer to any or all particular Churches, and the peoples Election maketh him actually an officer to, or ſetteth him actually over them as their Paſtor, their Miniſter.
Anſw. This (as we conceive) cannot be.
1. Becauſe we cannot find one Text of Scripture to prove, that any ordinary officer is ſet over or hath the charge of a Univerſal Church; or that he is over any but a particular Church.
2. Becauſe it is not proved that the Goſpel knoweth any ſuch habitual officers: and how in propriety of ſpeech we can mention an habitual ſetting over, we ſee not. Either a man muſt be actually over a Church, or elſe not be over it at all. Either he muſt actually have the charge of it, elſe not have the charge of it at all. And how a man can be an officer to ſuch a Univerſal Church as they aſſert, and yet be no Officer to any particular Church would be conſidered; a man after his Ordination may loſe his relation to, or may ceaſe to be over any particular Church, either by the peoples rejection or otherwiſe, and in ſuch a caſe, it will be hard to him to be an Officer. He is actually over no particular Church, and ſo muſt be an habitual Officer onelyonly, no actual officer at all; and if Ordination doth not make a man an actual officer, ſurely it maketh not an officer at all, for to be no actual Officer, and to be no officer, ſeemeth to us to be the ſame.
3. Becauſe all that he is over he muſt feed and give an account for, Act. 20 28 Heb. 13. 17 He cannot ordinarily feed, nor watch for the ſouls of the Univerſal Church (without neglecting his particular Church) and therefore that cannot be deemed the flock or Church he is ſet over: therefore the ſetting him over ſo many Churches muſt not be by Ordination, or elſe muſt be by a frequent repetition and iteration of it (which we grant though we deny the Eſſence of the Call to conſiſt in it) but this will not agree with our brethrens principles.
For, if ſuch a repetition and iteration of Ordination be admitted of, then either a man is an Officer only to a particular Church, and as often as he removeth, ſo often he ceaſeth to be an officer, and is made an officer again as often as he receiveth a new Ordination; or elſe Ordination is not an office-making act, for there can be no making of him an officer by iterating ordination, who is made an officer already and hath not loſt that relation; and if the Eſſence of the Miniſterial call doth not conſiſt in Ordination, we have what we contend for.
We may conclude with this,
Every man that is actually ſet over, or hath the charge of a particular flock or Church committed to him, he hath the Eſſentials of the Miniſterial office. But every man who is Elected by a Church of Chriſt, and hath accepted of the choice (though as yet unordained) is actually ſet over or hath the charge of a particular flock or Church committed to him; for Election with acceptation ſetteth over, Ergo, every man who is electd by a Church of Chriſt and hath accepted of the choice (though as yet unordained) hath the Eſſentials of the Miniſterial office.
And this is our firſt Argument to prove that Ordination doth not give the Eſſentials of the call to office.
Argum. 2. That which by the will of Chriſt, is to be conſequential unto a mans having the whole Eſſence of the call to office, that cannot be intended by Chriſt for the giving the eſſence of that call, or that cannot give the Eſſentials of the call to office. But Ordination, by the will of Chriſt, is to be conſequential unto a mans having the whole Eſſence of the call to office. Ergo, Ordination cannot be intended by Chriſt for the giving the Eſſence of that call, or cannot give the Eſſentials of the call to office.
The major is evident, for doubtleſs Ordination is to be uſed according to the will of Chriſt; it is Chriſt that inſtituted it, and ſo his will is the determining Rule about the way and order that it is to be uſed in, and none can croſs his will therein without ſin; and therefore, if by his will, Ordination be to come after a mans having the whole Eſſence of the call, then it cannot give the Eſſence to that call; for that which is conſequential or after in its own production, that cannot give a being to that which is before it. Unleſſe ordination it ſelf hath a being, it cannot give a being to ſuch a call. If the call to office hath it's eſſence, before ordination hath any being upon a particular perſon, then there is ſomething elſe that giveth the eſſence unto the call, and ſo ordination cannot give it.
The Minor we prove from Act. 13. v. 2. 3. The Holy-Ghoſt ſaid, ſeparate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had faſted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they ſent them away. Whence we obſerve.
1. That Ordination was here uſed, in all the Acts of it, and requiſites to it in thoſe dayes; here was, 1. Faſting. 2. Prayer. 3. Impoſition of hands. No other acts are found to be belonging unto Ordination when any mention is made of it, Act. 6. ver. 6. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them, Act. 14. 23. And had prayed with faſting, &c. So that no Acts were omitted in this that uſally appertained unto Ordination.
2. That the ordaining of theſe perſons was conſequential unto their having the whole Eſſence of the call to office; this appeareth,
1. Becauſe Paul and Barnabas were the perſons here ordained who were immediately called to office by God, Gal 1. 1. Paul an Apoſtle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jeſus Chriſt, and God the Father, &c. He had been an Apoſtle by men, if this his Ordination had given the Eſſence to his call to office.
As Maſter Hooker obſerveth it implieth a contradiction to be mediately and immediately called.
2. The Text expreſſely declareth that they were before called to that they were now ordained unto, Act. 13. verſ. 2. whereunto [I have called them] Their call was Antecedaneous to this their Ordination, and ſo received not its Eſſence from it.
3. That by the will of Chriſt, Ordination is ſtill to be conſequential unto a mans having the whole eſſence of the call to office; this followeth upon the two forementioned particulars; For, here is a plain example of Ordination as coming after the whole Eſſence of the call to office. Now, if this example be a binding Rule to us ſtill, then it is undenyable that by the will of Chriſt, Ordination is ſtill to be conſequential, unto a mans having the whole Eſſence of the call to office. And that this example is a binding Rule to us ſtill; we prove thus.
1. Becauſe the ordainers act herein as ordinary; it is the Rule our brethren give us. Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 161.If we ſhould not follow the examples of the Apoſtles in thoſe things in which they acted as ordinary elders, we ſhould be left at uncertainties, and every man might do what ſeemed good in his own eyes, which would tend to confuſion, and the diſſolution of the Church; theſe are their own words. Now in this example, Acts 13. 2, 3. If they were ordinary Elders, that were the perſons ordaining, then they muſt needs act as ordinary elders, or elſe not as Elders at all, for if they were not extraordinary elders, their actings could not flow from a relation which they had not. If they were extraordinary Teachers as Barnahas and Saul (the perſons ordained) were, (who are alſo reckoned up, and called Prophets or Teachers. v. 1.) The Act was ordinary, viz. Ordaining. 2. The main work was ordinary to which they were ordained, viz. Preaching of the Goſpel. 3. There is nothing in the Text that doth evidence the order to be extraordinary, any more then the act it ſelf. Its no more ſaid, that the coming of Ordination after the call to office-work is extraordinary, then that the Ordination it ſelf is extraordinary.
4. This order of Ordination after the call to office, doth not (that yet we can find) croſſe any other Text of Scripture, and therefore it cannot in faith be concluded that this order is extraordinary. Enough is ſaid to prove that their acting was Ordinary in this Ordination, and therefore if any will aſſert that this particular, viz. the order of the act was extraordinary, let them prove it.
2. Becauſe in this example, Ordination had the ſame uſes and ends, as it had when ordinary Officers were Ordained: Jus Divinum Miniſt. pag. 160. Our Brethren ſay, That Apoſtolical examples in things neceſſary for the good of the Church, and which have a perpetual reaſon and equity in them, have the force of a Rule. And ſurely ſo far as Goſpel examples are ordinary, ſo far they have a perpetual reaſon and equity in them, and if the uſes and ends of this Ordination were ordinary, then this example thereof, hath the force of a Rule. And what extraordinary ends imaginable could it ſerve to, Paul and Barnabas being the perſons Ordained? Nay, ſeparation for the work whereunto they were called was the uſe and end of this Ordination, as appeareth, v. 2, 3.
If it be enquired what work they were called to. we may ſee, 1 Cor. 1. v. 17. Chriſt ſent me not to baptize, but to preach the Goſpel. Paul telleth us that it was the preaching of the Goſpel he was called to, and therefore it was this work that he was Ordained to. His Commiſſion was larger and extended further in reſpect of the perſons who were the objects of it, then ordinary Officers Commiſſions now, but that is not material in this caſe, his Ordination was to the ſame work (viz. preaching the Goſpel Office-wiſe) which ordinary Officers are ſtill to be ordained to. And v. 3. They ſent them away, i. e. freely let them go, though they would gladly have enjoyed their labours ſtill, yet they conſented to their departing. We ſuppoſe none will think that this ſending a way, doth imply any ſuch Miſſion to preach as they uſually plead for from Rom. 10. 15. the word will not enforce any ſuch ſending, it is uſed, Mat. 27. 21. Whether of the twain will ye that I Releaſe unto you? Acts 26. 32. Luke 2. 29. Lord now lettest thou thy ſervant depart. So that according to the ordinary uſage of the word, it may be rendred thus [They Releaſed them, or let them depart] and therefore nothing can be gathered hence for the belonging of Miſſion to Ordination.
That faſting and prayer here ſerved to any extraordinary ends which in ordinary Ordinations they availed not to, cannot be proved, and ſurely the praying was not in vain, it was not a bare act of obedience to the will of God, but they might expect a return of theſe prayers as well as in any other Ordinations. As for Impoſition of hands, that it ſerved to any other uſes or ends, then in Ordaining of Deacons, Acts 6. 6. will hardly be proved.
Object. But if this Ordination had ordinary uſes and ends, and ſo this example may be a binding rule as to Ordination it ſelf, yet how doth it prove it to have the force of a Rule in its being conſequential to the call to Office.
Anſ. 1. When ſo many things are ordinary about an Act, there muſt be ſome ſpecial reaſon to render it probable that other things are extraordinary.
2. It proveth that the ordinary uſes and ends of Ordination have their attainment after the call to office, and therefore Ordination hath its place and order after the call to office alſo, If ſeparation to the work of Office, appeareth by this Text to be the proximate end of thoſe Acts which are called Ordination, until a man be an officer he cannot orderly be ſeparated to the work of office; and becauſe the ſeparation muſt be conſequential to the call to office, therefore the Ordination by which a perſon is ſuppoſed to be ſeparated to that work, muſt needs be conſequential alſo, and ſo it is, an ordinary order, and therefore the example is a binding rule to us in the order as well as in the act of Ordination.
Ordination here was compleat in its acts, and in its uſes and ends; and therefore the giving the eſſence to the call to office is not the proper uſe, or ordinary end of Ordination. The outward call to office and Ordination are ſeparable one from the other, for Ordination can attain its end, when ſuch a call to office is before it. And if this will be granted, we have what we contend for in this queſtion.
Object. 2. This Ordination might be uſed not for the proper end whereto it ſerved, when ordinary Officers were ordained, but for an example, to ſhew the neceſſity of Ordination, and it is not ſaid, ſeparate me Paul and Barnabas for the Office, but for the work whereunto I have called them, Acts 13. 2, 3.
Anſ. 1. Some end there muſt be of this ordination, and that it ſerved here onelyonly for an example, or for any other end then uſually it ſerved to, is not proved.
2. It cannot be an example of the neceſſity of Ordination for the giving the Eſſence to the call to Office, (which is the thing here contended about) becauſe, that was not given by this Ordination; If the main uſe of Ordination were to give the Eſſence to the Miniſterial call, then this example failed in the chief thing wherein it ſhould have been exemplary. How could the Church of Antioch take this as a pattern to ſhew the neceſſity of Ordination unto the giving the Eſſence to a call to Office, when it was not uſed for any ſuch end in the pattern? it could not be an example of that which was not done by it. If we grant it to be an example of Ordination to the work of office, yet that will not prove that Ordination is eſſential to the call to office, but rather that it is to come after that call.
3. It is true, it is not ſaid, ſeparate them for the office but for the work, let any prove from ſcripture that ordination doth ſeparate to the office of the Miniſtry, as Office is diſtinguiſhed from the work. What work was it that Paul and Barnabas were ſeparated for? Surely if it were to any, it was to the work of their office, and yet they had the whole Eſſence of their call to office before; and therefore we may grant Ordination to the work of office, and yet deny Ordination to office, or deny it as eſſential to a call to office. This may be an example of the one, and not of the other.
4. It is not like that the Church at Antioch was unacquainted with Ordination, ſo as to need this for a firſt example thereof; And who can think that Paul and Barnabas ſhould be with the Church at Antioch a whole year before this, as Act. 11. v. 25. 26 & 12. v. 27. & 13. v. 1, 2, 3. and yet they be ſtrangers to Ordination?
5. May not we conclude more ſafely, that it is an example binding to the uſe of Ordination after the declared call to office, and onelyonly to the work of the Miniſtery, then they can conclude it to be an example of Ordination to office, ſeeing no call to office was here given by it?
Object. 3. But Paul and Barnabas were extraordinary Officers, and ſo could not have an ordinary or mediate call to office by their Ordination, and that may be a ſpecial reaſon, why it had not the ſame uſe to them as it hath to ordinary Officers: and beſides this Ordination was by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13. 2. 4. it was an extraordinary thing, and therefore not ſufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon.
Anſ. 1. We cannot yet ſee it proved that ordination ſerved to any other uſes and ends when ordinary officers were ordained, then now it ſerved to, when theſe extraordinary Officers were ordained: if it attained here all the ordinary ends, that it was intended by Chriſt for, then giving the eſſence to the call to office is none of the ordinary ends of Ordination, for that was not attained here; and ſo, neither the extraordinary office of the perſons ordained, nor the extraordinary call which they had, who were the perſons ordaining, can in the leaſt hinder its ſerving to the purpoſe we alleadge it for. Let them prove that Ordination attained any other ends (then it did here) when ordinary Officers were ordained.
2. The extraordinarineſs or the immediateneſs of the call to ordain them, doth prove neither the order of Ordination after the call to office to be extraordinary, nor its falling ſhort of attaining any of the ordinary ends which it ſerveth to. The Apoſtles had an extraordinary call to their office, and yet in the ordaining of Deacons, Act. 6. 6. Our brethren (we ſuppoſe) will not ſay that either the end of Ordination, or the order of it was extraordinary. So upon this immediate call they faſted, prayed, and laid on their hands, Act. 13. 2, 3. yet if the acts were not ordinary, then Ordination it ſelf in the acts of it, muſt be concluded to be extraordinary and ſo to be ceaſed, and as well may the order, uſes and ends of it be ordinary, as the acts.
The Apoſtles had an immediate call to preach the Goſpel, and yet that work is ordinary, and to be performed for the ſame ends and purpoſes, by thoſe who have no ſuch immediate call thereunto, as they had.
And this is our ſecond Argument to prove, that Ordination doth not give the eſſential of the call to office.
Arg. 3. From the nature of Ordination.
Take this diſcription of it.
Ordination is the ſolemnization of an officers call, or the Solemn ſeparation of an officer by prayer and faſting to the work whereunto he is called.
1. For its general nature, it is [ſolemm Separation.] 1. Not ſuch as was of the Temple, veſſels, garment in the time of the Law, from common uſe, which would render civil imployment unlawful to officers, not onelyonly as hindering their reſign ation to the word and prayer, but alſo in it ſelf by vertue of that Separation, Acts 6. ver. 2. 4. Paul was an officer and did Preach, Act. 11. ver 25, 26. and yet was ordained after, Acts 13. ver. 2, 3. and ſo he was ſeparated as much from worldly employments, before, as after his Ordination. 2. Nor ſuch as is mentioned, Rom. 1. 1. viz. A ſelecting or determining a perſon to office, for this is done in Election with acceptation. But as is the Sanctification of creatures, viz. meats and drinkes unto not onelyonly a lawful and common uſe, but holy, 1 Tim 4. 5. ſuch is the ſeparation of an Officer (but more ſolemnly performed) to his ſpecial work, in Ordination.
2. For its Act, it is prayer; this we take to be the Eſſential act of Ordination, or that which giveth the Eſſence to it, as Auguſtin ſaith, Ordinare, quid eſt aliud niſi orare?
There are but three things, which ordination can be imagined with any ſhaddow of Scripture evidence to conſiſt of, viz. 1. Faſting. 2. Prayer. 3. Impoſition of hands: the places alledged for Ordination, mention no more but theſe three, Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 14.
1. As for faſting; that is no act of worſhip, but is diſpoſitive to prayer which is an act of worſhip, and therefore faſting though it be a neceſſary requiſite to ſome ordinations, viz. of elders, Act. 13. 2. Act. 14. v. 23. yet it cannot be deemed Eſſential, nor neceſſary to all ordinations; we do not read of any faſting at the ordaining of Deacons, it is ſaid, Act. 6. ver. 6. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Here was a compleat ordination, without any mention of faſting. We ſuppoſe none will aſſert faſting to be an Eſſential part of ordination, if they will, let them prove it.
2. As for impoſition of hands, it is queſtionable whether it be ſtill continuing or not. Many think its uſe was extraordinary, and now ceaſed: and it is certain that it was uſed in thoſe dayes for the collation of extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt, Act. 8. ver. 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy-Ghoſt; the giving of the Holy-Ghoſt was through the laying on of hands, as is more plainly intimated, ver. 18. Alſo it was uſed in bleſſing others, Mat. 19. ver. 15. Chriſt laid his bands on the little children, Mark 10. ver. 16. And he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them and bleſſed them. It was uſed with ordination of officers in thoſe dayes, but the end of it might be, the collation or giving of the Holy-Ghoſt, or ſome greater meaſure of its gifts, unto thoſe officers, and ſo it might have onelyonly a temporary reaſon for its uſe; neither doth that precept, 1 Tim. 5. ver. 22. lay hands ſuddenly on no man, prohibit this acceptation of the phraſe; for many that were no officers had extraordinary gifts conferred upon them, Act. 6. ver. 14. 17. and 10. ver. 44. 45, 46, 47. much more might officers receive ſuch gifts; and Stephen and Philip the Deacons who had hands laid on them, Acts 6. 6. did great wonders and miracles quickly after, Acts 8. 6, 7. ver. 8. However if impoſition of hands had not ſuch an extraordinary uſe, when officers were ordained, yet,
1. We deny that impoſition of hands was a right or ceremony by which the office was conveyed, Act. 13. ver. 3. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them, and yet (as we proved before) no office was conveyed thereby, for they were officers before, and ver. 1. They are called Prophets or Teachers. By this it is plain that its uſe in thoſe dayes when officers were ordained was not to put the office upon them. Indeed if this were the uſe thereof, then ſuch as want impoſition of hands, are no officers, and this would deny many Preachers in Scotland to be officers, becauſe it is frequently omitted there.
2. We deny that impoſition of hands was any Eſſential or integral part of Ordination in the Apoſtles dayes. Our brethren, when they undertake to prove, that Ordination ought to be with impoſition of hands, yet promiſe that it is not their purpoſe to enquire whether it be an Jus Divin. Mini. p. 173.Eſſential part of Ordination without which it is null and void, or an integral part, without which it is deficient and imperfect, or onelyonly an inſeparable adjunct. We deny that it was any more then an adjunct, or a conſequential circumſtance, and hence, Acts 6. verſ. 6. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Not before, nor in the time of praying, but after it, they laid their hands on them, this was the laſt. Alſo Acts 13. 3. Prayer, was before it; and therefore this did not come in, until the Eſſential part of Ordination was over; ſeeing themſelves durſt not aſſert it to be an Eſſential part of it, either that praying which is Antecedaneous to it, muſt be the only Eſſential act, or elſe Ordination hath no Eſſential act at all.
Our brethren ſay that it is a Rite and Ceremony borrowed from the old Teſtament, and the place they alleadge to prove its uſe in Ordaining or appointing unto office in old Teſtament dayes, is Num. 27. 18. 23. Moſes did ſo ordain Joſhua, but its ſaid, Deut. 34. ver. 9. Joſhua the ſon of Nun was full of the ſpirit of wiſdom, [for] Moſes had laid his hands upon him, &c. which intimateth that there was a collation of the gifts of the Spirit by Moſes laying on of his hands; and therefore if they will borrow it thence, we muſt not impoſe hands until we can confer gifts as Moſes did.
And ſeeing impoſition of hands was no Eſſential part of Ordination, hence (if it were not of that extraordinary uſe, to confer gifts) then it was onelyonly a ſign or circumſtance, to declare who the party was, that was ſolemnly ordained by the foregoing Prayer. Let them prove, that it was aſſigned by the Lord to any other end, when it was uſed upon the occaſion of Ordination. If it were onelyonly a Declarative ſign, then it is a matter indifferent, not neceſſary, nor the omiſſion of it ſinful, any more then the omiſſion of other circumſtances; then, it is as ſinful to omit lifting up of hands in chuſing officers, becauſe, Acts 14. 23. foreign implyeth that rite, as well as foreign doth the other, and it is probable that impoſition of hands, was omitted at the Ordaining of thoſe Elders, Acts 14. 23. for there is mentioned onelyonly faſting and prayer beſides the peoples chuſing by lifting up of hands. If Goſpel examples in things which have a perpetual reaſon and equity in them, have the force of a Rule, as to the Subſtantials of them, yet not as to all circumſtantials, for then Deacons muſt not be choſen under the number of ſeven, becauſe ſeven were choſen and Ordained, Act 6. ver. 3.
And if we had many Goſpel examples of chuſing officers by lifting up of hands, yet we ſhould think that it were no ſin to omit that, and uſe ſome other rite to ſignifie a choice, for the Lord hath not bound us up to ſuch circumſtances; and ſo it is a thing indifferent whether we uſe or not uſe impoſition of hands.
3. As for prayer, that is the Act which giveth the Eſſence to Ordination: ſeeing it is neither faſting, nor impoſition of hands, that give the Eſſentials to it, hence it muſt needs be prayer, Acts 6. verſe 6. when they had [prayed,] Acts 13. verſ. 3. When they had faſted and [prayed] &c. And they that will deny prayer to be Eſſential to Ordination, let them prove what it is when they can:
Neither is it the end of the praying on this occaſion, to obtain direction from the Lord whom to chuſe or call into office, as if it were dubious and queſtionable whether any of the perſons ſhould be officers or not; this could not be the intendment of it, for they were choſen, before this praying, Act. 6. verſ. 5. They choſe, &c. verſ. 6. whom they ſet before the Apoſtles, and when they had prayed, &c. Acts 13. 2, 3. They had their call firſt, and prayer was made for them afterward. So that the determination that they ſhould be officers, did precede the praying, yea they were officers before it; And therefore the ends of the praying muſt needs be ſuch as theſe, viz. That the Lord would give his approbation of the choiſe, and own the perſons choſen as his officers, granting them all neceſſary qualifications, that may fit them for, and all his promiſed bleſſings of aſſiſtance, protection and ſucceſſe in the work whereunto they are called. A Solemn praying unto God, for theſe ends, on the behalf of a perſon choſen into office, before his entring upon the work which his office obligeth him to, is all the Ordination that the Goſpel owneth.
And this being Ordination after a long Digreſſion, we ſhall now ſhew, how the nature of Ordination doth forbid its giving the Eſſence of the outward call to office. And two Arguments will ariſe hence.
Argu. 1. If Ordination conſiſteth in action which is performed to God onelyonly, then it cannot give the Eſſence of an external call to office, from men. But Ordination conſiſteth in action performed to God onelyonly. Ergo, Ordination cannot give the Eſſence of an external call to office, from men.
The major is plain, There muſt be ſome external act put forth by ſome men, towards or upon others, elſe it is impoſſible that the being of an outward call ſhould be brought in, by them, upon theſe. It were apparently falſe, to ſay, we gave ſuch a perſon his external call to office, when no act paſſed from us, upon the perſon himſelf; our acting towards another, on his behalf will not do it; as for example, if a man ſhould Petition the Supream Magiſtrate, for his yielding approbation to a perſons acting in a work he is choſen to, and for his extending ſuch favours to him, as he uſeth to afford unto perſons in ſuch places or offices; it would be concluded that this Petitioning could not give him his call to his office, being no act put forth upon him, but to another for him; either he was an officer before, and onelyonly a confirmation is deſired, or elſe the call to the office is ſtill wanting, and is to be given, not by the Petitioner, but by the Supream Magiſtrate, who is Petitioned.
So, if Ordination conſiſteth in ſuch an action as is not put forth, upon the perſon himſelf, but towards God onelyonly for him, then it cannot with any reaſon, be conceived, that it doth bring in the being of an outward call upon him; eſpecially if Ordination conſiſteth of ſuch an action as hath no colour of a cauſual vertue in it, to leave the impreſſion of an office-right upon him, viz. Prayer: In prayer we refer all to God, in a petitionary way, and nothing is done in or upon a perſon prayed for, unleſſe God doth it; our praying for him can make no alteration of ſtate or relation, if any thing be done that way, it is God who is prayed to, that doth it; and therefore when Prayer is made in a way of Ordination, it muſt be ſaid either, that the perſon was before called by men to office, and then Ordination being frequent, cannot give the call, or elſe that the call from men is to come after prayer, and then let them ſhew what act ſequent to, and diſtinct from prayer, doth give the call. Or elſe it muſt be ſaid that the call to office is given by prayer, and then it is God that giveth the outward call, for prayer is directed to him onelyonly, and ſo we come to Minor; That Ordination conſiſteth in action performed to God onelyonly; this is evident, becauſe it conſiſteth of prayer as its Eſſential act (as we proved before) and prayer being a part of worſhip, cannot without Idolatry be performed to any, but God onelyonly.
And it impoſition of hands (the onelyonly act about Ordination put forth upon the perſon choſen to office) did give the Eſſence to the call to office, then, not Ordination it ſelf, but an adjunct of it ſhould give the outward call, yea then the want of laying on of hands would ſpeak the Ordination a Nullity.
Argnm. 2. That Action which cannot be performed in faith, before an outward call to office hath paſſed upon a man, that cannot give that man his outward call to officer. For, if the call to office be paſſed upon him before, then that Action which followeth after, cannot be ſaid to give it; and no action is to be performed until it can or may be performed in faith, for whatſoever is not of faith is ſin, Rom. 14. 23.
But Ordination is ſuch an action, as cannot be performed in faith, before an outward call to office hath paſſed upon a man; for, how can one pray in faith, or what warrant hath he from the Word (which is the Rule of faith) to juſtifie his praying to God for his approbation of, and bleſſing upon a perſon in a work of Office, before he can conclude that he is ſo much as outwardly called into that Office, to do that work? if one can groundedly conclude that he is called outwardly thereunto, then he was called before the praying, and ſo before Ordination, which conſiſteth in prayer. Ergo, Ordination cannot give that man his outward call to office.
3. In the deſcription of Ordination, we have alſo the Object, and that is [an Officer, or one that is already called outwardly unto Office]
1. Not ſuch as are only gifted men, we ſee no warrant for the ordaining all Preachers to Office-work. The work of Preaching may be performed by gifted men, but they are not ſo to be ordained, until they undertake an Office.
2. Not perſons to be made Officers, but ſuch as are already Officers, they are the objects of Ordination. We find no rule for ordaining men, thereby to make them Officers in reſpect of their outward call, but they that are actually Officers, are called to Office, before they are to be ordained, Act. 13. v. 2, 3. They were firſt called, and then ordained, Ergo, they did not receive their call from or by Ordination.
4. In the deſcription we have, the end for which Ordination is performed, and that is the Officers doing the work whereunto he is called; ſo Act. 13. 2, 3. their ſolemn admiſſion or induction into the work of preaching, as Officers to the Gentiles was by Ordination; the obtaining Gods approbation and benediction, are the chief ends of prayer.
And thus we have finiſhed our deſcription of Ordination, and our Arguments to prove, that Ordinatidoth not give the Eſſentials to the Miniſterial office; and therefore that Election with acceptation doth.