The Preacher Sent, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
Wherein many Arguments are anſwered, which are brought againſt Election, as giving the Eſſence to the call to Office.
OUr brethren in their Jus Divin. Minist. produce ſeven Arguments, whereby they endeavour to prove,
That the whole Eſſence of the Miniſterial call, doth not conſiſt in Election without Ordination. We crave leave to reply briefly to their Arguments.
Arg. 1. Becauſe our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their aſſertion (as we can find) nor do we think Jus Divin. Min. p. 134.that any can be brought.
Anſw. 1. Many weighty Arguments grounded upon Scripture, they may find in Mr. Hookers Survey, Part 2. c. 2. p. 66, &c.
2. We refer them to our foregoing arguments, where we have brought one expreſs Scriptute to prove it, viz. Act. 14. 23. and other reaſons, which by Conſequence from Scripture do evince it.
Arg. 2. Becauſe that thoſe very Texts fore-mentioned, which are the chief (if not the onelyonly) Texts that are brought for popular Jus Divin. Min. p. 134.Election, do ſeem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this aſſertion. When Mathias was made an Apoſtle, it was not the Election of the people that did conſtitute him an Apoſtle. All that the 120 did (if they did that) was to ſet two before the Lord, but it was God that did conſtitute and appoint Mathias to be the Aſtle. In the choice of Deacons, the people nominated ſeven perſons to be Deacons, but it was the Apoſtles Ordination, not the peoples Election, that did conſtitute and make them Deacons; ſo ſaith the Text expreſſely, Act. 6. 3. foreign Look ye out among you ſeven men, whom we may appoint, or conſtitute over this buſineſs. The eſſence and ſubſtance of the Deacons call, is placed not in the peoples nomination, but in the Apoſtles Ordination. As for Acts 14. 23. they that did foreign were the Apoſtles and not the Churches; it rather proves, that the Apoſtles Ordination was that which did conſtitute Elders in every Church.
Anſw. 1. We have produced Arguments from other Scriptures beſides theſe, to prove that the whole eſſence of the Miniſterial call is in the peoples Election, to which we refer the Reader.
2. As for the inſtance of Mathias, Acts 1.
1. It holdeth forth as much againſt Ordination giving the eſſence to the call to office, as againſt Election: for ſeeing (as they ſay) it was God that did conſtitute and appoint Mathias to be the Apoſtle, hence, it was not Ordination by a Presbytery that did it. And here was an half Election, Act. 1. v. 23. They appointed two, but not a ſyllable about Ordination, or impoſition of hands, and therefore this is as contrary to their aſſertion, that the call conſiſteth in Ordination, as to ours, that it conſiſteth in Election, if contrary to either.
2. If Mathias his not being conſtituted an Apoſtle by the peoples Election be contrary to our aſſertion, that Election gives the whole eſſence of the Miniſterial call, then Pauls not being conſtituted an Apoſtle by Ordination, Act. 13. v. 2, 3. muſt needs be contrary to their aſſertion, that Ordination gives the Eſſence of the Miniſterial call. There is the ſame reaſon for the one, as for the other; for as Mathias was Elected, and yet not conſtituted an Officer thereby, ſo was Paul ordained, and yet not conſtituted an Officer thereby; and the latter muſt needs be as much againſt them, as the former can be againſt us.
3. This was but half an Election, and that is the reaſon why it did not conſtitute Mathias an Apoſtle, as appeareth, becauſe the chuſing of the one (which was by God) was the conſtitutive act, Act. 1. v. 24. Shew whether of theſe two thou hast choſen, v. 26. therefore if the people had choſen but one, but Mathias onelyonly, that had been a conſtitutive act, but that could not be, for then the call ſhould have been mediate, and ſo he had not been an Apoſtle; but the Lord ſheweth how highly he would have Election eſteemed, in that he would have the people chuſe two, one of which he would conſtitute an Apoſtle, when the call was to be immediate. And indeed, the people might have choſen but one, and yet the call might have been immediate, if Election had not been the conſtitutive act, but in that the Election of the one made him an Officer, it ſtrongly evidenceth that Election is that which giveth the eſſence of the call to Office.
There was a compleat Ordination in all the acts of it, Acts 13. 2, 3. and yet that was not conſtitutive, and that ſpeaks more againſt Ordination giving the eſſence to the call to office, then this can againſt its conſiſting in Election.
3. As for Act. 6. there is granted to the people a power to chuſe, v. 5. And the ſaying pleaſed the whole multitude, and [they choſe] Stephen, &c. here was not a bare nomination, but an Election [they choſe] which is far more then to ſnominate, and frequently expreſſeth the conſtitutive act of an Officer in Scripture, as John 6. v. 70. Jeſus anſwered them, have not I choſen you twelve, Luke 6. v. 13. He called unto him his Diſciples, and of them he choſe twelve, whom alſo he named Apoſtles, Act. 1. v. 2, 24. So that the being choſen, made, or gave the eſſence to the immediate call of Officers, and ſurely this is expreſſed, alluding to that which maketh the mediate call. Chriſts chuſing did conſtitute Apoſtles, and therefore chuſing is that which conſtituteth other Officers. Will any ſay, that Chriſt did but nominate the twelve to be Officers? Surely he conſtituted them Officers, by his chuſing of them. But we ſhall ſpeak more fully to the objection from Acts 6. and ſhew how we are to underſtand thoſe words, v. 3. whom we may appoint; when we anſwer their arguments about Ordination.
As for Acts 14. 23. we have ſufficiently proved before, that they that did foreign, were the Churches, and that this holdeth out, that the eſſence of the call is in Election; we referre the Reader to our former anſwers to that objection.
Arg. 3. All thoſe Texts which we ſhall hereafter bring for the aſſerting of the Divine right of Ordination, do prove that Jus Divin. Min. p. 135.the eſſence of the Miniſterial call doth conſiſt in Ordination, and not in Election: there are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for Election, and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct, but an eſſential conſtituent of the Miniſterial call.
Anſ. 1. If they intend, all thoſe Texts which they alleadge to prove their firſt aſſertion, viz. That Ordination of Miniſters is an Ordinance of Chriſt, p. 157. they are much miſtaken, in ſaying, that all thoſe Texts do prove the eſſence of the miniſterial call to corſit in Ordin. Act. 13. 1, 2. 3, 4. is one Text inſiſted upon there, and that proveth that Ordination doth not give the eſſence to the call, for there it did not Other Texts they all eadge to prove that aſſertion ſpeaks of laying on of hands, as 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Heb. 6. 1, 2. but that this Impoſition of hands giveth the eſſence to the call to office, they prove not, neither do our brethren aſſert it, when they come to their third aſſertion, which is about laying on of hands.
If by [all thoſe Texts] they mean, all the Texts alleadged for their ſecond aſſertion, pag. 164. we ſhall ſpeak to them in their place.
2. They are (as we apprehend) as clear Scriptures for Election as for Ordination. What can be more plain then, Act. 6. v. 5? The ſaying pleaſed the whole multitude, and [they choſe] and in regard the Apoſtles there did give Rules to the multitude to regulate their choice, and mentioned divers qualifications that ought to be found in the perſons choſen, v. 3. Look ye out among you ſeven men of honeſt report, full of the holy Ghost, and wiſdom, &c. Hence we conclude, that all thoſe places which largely ſet forth the qualifications of Officers, have reſpect to Election. As for Deacons, when the Apoſtles here laid down their qualifications, they directed their ſpeech expreſſely to the Church or multitude of the Diſciples, and that purpoſely to inable them to make a due Election; and therefore when Paul writeth to Timothy about the qualifications of Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. v. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. it cannot with found reaſon be concluded, that his end was to tranſlate the uſe of his directions to Timothy or Officers only, when the Apoſtles end in laying down like Rules, upon a like occaſion, was, to help and regulate the people in their choice of the very ſame Officers: if this were his inrent, which example ſhould we follow? the Rules and qualifications about other Officers, viz. Biſhops or Elders are not limited in their uſe, more to Timothy and ſucceeding Officers, then theſe about Deacons, which are undoubtedly extended to the people, Act. 6. v. 3. And therefore we conclude, that theſe directions were given to Timothy, not chiefly to order his own practice by, about Ordination, but that he might (as the Apoſtles did) give them forth in a doctrinal way to the people, to order their practices by, about Elections either of Elders or Deacons. And ſeeing the Apoſtles do ſo much inſiſt upon, and are ſo copious in the laying forth theſe Rules, the great uſe of which, are to regulate Elections (which are before Ordination) hence, there are as clear Texts for Election as for Ordination.
Arg. 4. We argue from the nature of popular Election; Election by the people, properly is nothing elſe but their deſignation of a perſon that is to be made their Miniſter, or that is already a Miniſter to his particular charge: it is not ſimply a making of him a Miniſter, but the making of him a Miniſter of ſuch a place; this appears in the Election of Deacons; all that the people did by Election, was onelyonly to deſign the perſons, and to ſet them before the Apoſtles, but it was the Apoſtles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons. This likewiſe appears from Deut. 1. 13. the peoples taking of men, did not give them the eſſentials of their Office; they nominated the perſons, but it was Moſes that made them Rulers. If the people have no Office-power belonging to them, how can they by Election make an Officer, &c? Nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter. Why then did the Apoſtles take ſo much pains to return to Lyſtra, Iconium, and Antioch, to ordain them Elders in every Church? Act. 14. 21, 23. and why did Paul leave Titus in Crete, to ordain Elders in every City? Tit. 1. 5. why did they not ſpare their journey, and ſend to the people to make their own Miniſters by Election? can we imagine that they took ſuch pains onelyonly to adde an Adjunct to the Miniſterial call, &c?
Anſw. 1. Election is more then a deſignation to a particular charge or place; for Election with acceptation, bringeth in ſuch a ſpecial relation as the perſon choſen is over, and hath the charge of the chuſers committed to him thereby: and it muſt needs be an Office-making deſignation which ſetteth a man over thoſe which he was not over before.
A man may nominate a woman to another to be his wife, and no relation may ariſe thereupon; but that act which ſetteth a man over a woman as her husband, is that which giveth being to a relation, which had no foundation before. So Election ſetteth over a people a Church, and ſo maketh a man an Officer, as well as their Officer.
2. They conclude beyond their proof, when they ſay, all that the people did by Election of Deacons, was to deſign the perſons to their particular charge, and ſet them before the Apoſtles, Act. 6. 6. it is ſaid, they choſe them, Acts 6. 5. and we ſhewed before, that chuſing denoteth a conſtitutive act. Neither doth that Text ſay, that, the Apoſtles praying and laying on their hands, was it that made them Deacons. They were (as we ſuppoſe) made Deacons by Election, and the appointing at the utmoſt was but to the work, not to the office of Deacons.
3. As for Deut. 1. 13. we might make a queſtion whether the peoples Election of Church-officers be not a further act, then here was granted them about their civil Officers; for, the deſignation of the perſons to their particular charge (which our brethren in this objection grant is Election) was not till after this nomination, nay, was performed by Moſes, v. 15. Or we might tell them what learned Ainſworth ſaith on the place, Here the people gave them, and after in ver. 15. Moſes gave, that is, made them heads: for when things are done by many under the government of one principal they are ſaid to be done by them or by him, as 1 Chro. 19. 19. compared with 2 Sam. 10. 19. So 2 Kin. 11. verſ. 12. with 2 Chron. 23. 11. and 1 Chron. 16. 1. with 2 Sam. 6. 17.
But we rather anſwer thus, The caſes do not run paralell, for Moſes was the Supream Magiſtrate and ſo might reſerve ſuch a power to himſelf in the conſtituting of civil officers, as neither a Presbytery nor a Church can claim about the conſtitution of Eccleſiaſtical officers: whether it belongeth to the Church by Election, or to Presbytery by Ordination to give the call, yet it is but an outward call that they give to Church officers; a far greater power is put forth in the creating or conſtituting civil officers. Neither Ordination by a Presbytery nor election by a Church, do anſwer Moſes act; onelyonly Chriſts acts in making Churches officers, do anſwer Moſes acts in making civil officers, becauſe onelyonly Chriſt is King of his Church, as Moſes was the Supream Magiſtrate over Iſrael. So that we may ſay it is not Election nor Ordination, but Chriſts act onelyonly, which in the ſenſe of, Deut. 1. 13. doth make Church officers, and therefore this place will not ſerve at all to their purpoſe.
4. Is is uſual in civil Corporations, for the Freemen (who are no officers) by their Election, to make their own officers.
It is very uſual for them to Communicate an office power, and to give the Eſſentials of a call, to their Bayliffes and other officers, when yet the Freemen cannot act or exerciſe an office-power, but are in ſubjection unto thoſe officers which by their election they give both place and power to; and why then ſhould this be ſuch a riddle to any? Either the Freemen in ſuch caſes have office-power vertually or elſe they that have it not either formally (for ſo the Freemen have if not) nor virtually, yet may communicate office-power. If they will ſay they have that power vertually, then ſo hath a Church, and by election may give the Eſſentials of a Miniſterial call, as well as the Freemen can by election make civil officers to rule over themſelves.
5. It is well obſerved by ſome learned men, that if the people have not office-power either formally or vertually, yet they may by election Communicate officepower Miniſterially: they may Miniſterially give what they never had, viz. As Miniſtering to him who hath power and vertue of deriving it; as a man not having a penny of his own may give an 100l. if the King make him his Almoner. Thus the Church deriveth office-power as taking the perſon whom Chriſt deſcribeth, and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church.
It is very ordinary, for thoſe that are leſſer or inferiour, to communicate a power that rendreth the receiver, greater in place, power, and dignity then the giver of it; thus Free-holders and o hers by chuſing do make Parliament men and Burgeſſes, though they be far inferiour to the perſons choſen, &c. and therefore that rule, nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter, is not univerſally true.
6. It doth not appear, that the main or chief end of Paul and Barnabas in their journey to Lyſtra, Iconium, and Antioch, was, to ordain elders: it is ſaid, Act. 14. ver. 21, 22. They returned again to Lyſtra, and to Iconium and Antioch, Confirming the ſouls of the diſciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith; and that we muſt through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God. So that the Confirmation and eſtabliſhment of thoſe Saints in the faith, and the encouraging them to patience and perſeverance ſeem to be the principal ends of their undertaking this journey, and therefore it is a vain queſtion, [why did they not ſpare their journey and ſend to the people to make their own Miniſters by election?] Though there had not been one Miniſter to be ordained, yet their journey could not well be ſpared, for then the ſouls of the diſciples would have wanted Confirmation, and it is eaſie to imagine that they would have taken more pains then they did in this return, only to have confirmed their ſouls; and their concurrence in Ordination is mentioned as one of the laſt things they did, ver. 23. and that may be but an Adjunct to the Miniſterial call for all that is yet ſaid againſt it. And it is not made the ſole end of Pauls leaving Titus in Crete, that he ſhould ordain elders, for it is ſaid, Tit. 1. ver. 5. For this cauſe left I thee in Crete, that thou ſhouldeſt ſet in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders, &c. If there had been no elders to have been ordained, yet it had been needful that Titus ſhould be left in Crete to ſet in order other things that were wanting, and ſtill Ordination may be but an Adjunct, of the miniſterial call.
We do highly eſteem of Ordination, as an appointment of Jeſus Chriſt, yet we would not give it a higher place, then Chriſt hath ſet it in, we cannot find that Chriſt hath made it of that uſe to give the Eſſence to the call to office, and we cannot but fear that many do too much magnifie and even Idolize that Ordinance of Chriſt.
Arg. 5. If election gives the Eſſentials to a Miniſter, then may a Miniſter elected adminiſter the Sacraments without Ordination. For as Maſter Hooker well ſaith in another caſe, He that hath compleat power of an office, and ſtands an officer without exception, he cannot juſtly be hindred from doing all acts of that office: for to be an officer compleat without an office, or being compleat in his office, yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his office, implies a contradiction; for its all one to ſay a man is implies a contradiction; for its all one to ſay a man is bound to a rule, and yet by a rule he ſhould not do it.
Forma dat operari, effects depend upon the form, not upon extrinſecal circumſtances.
Anſ. We deny the conſequence. Although election gives the Eſſentials to a Miniſter, yet it will not follow that a Miniſter elected may adminiſter the Sacraments without Ordination; for Chriſts will is to be our Law; if Chriſt hath required the adding but of an Adjunct before the doing ſome ſpecial works, without ſin, no man can do thoſe works without that Adjunct. If Chriſt hath pre-required Ordination before the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, what is man that he ſhould ſay, one may adminiſter them without Ordination, though that be but an Adjunct to the call unto office.
That which Maſter Hooker ſpeakes is onelyonly this, that [he cannot juſtly] be hindred from doing all acts of office, if he hath the Eſſentials of office upon him; and this may be granted, for, if Chriſt requireth Ordination as Antecedaneous to the adminiſtring of the Sacraments, then, he is [unjuſtly] hindred who either refuſeth or is denyed Ordination, He is not according to rule hindred from doing what belongeth to his office, but by breaking that Rule, which requireth his ſubmitting to Ordination. The reaſon ſerveth to Maſter Hookers purpoſe, but not to our brethrens, in this Argument.
And upon ſecond thoughts, we ſuppoſe they will not ſay, that one may act in adminiſtrations without ſuch Adjuncts as Chriſt hath pre-required unto acting in them, eſpecially ſeeing themſelves durſt not aſſert impoſition of hands to be more then an Adjunct to Ordination, and yet urge it as a duty to receive it, and endeavour to prove it a ſin to refuſe or omit it.
Argu. 6. If the whole Eſſence of the Miniſterial call conſiſteth in election, Jus Divin. Mini. p. 137.then it will follow that a Miniſter is only a Miniſter to that particular charge to which he is called, and that he cannot act as a Miniſter in any other place. That this conſequence is neceſſary they endeavour to prove, by its being confeſſed by Maſter Hooker, and the new England Miniſters in ſome of their books.
Anſw. If the whole Eſſence of the Miniſterial call conſiſteth in Ordination (as our brethren judge) will it follow, that a Miniſter is onelyonly a Miniſter to the Univerſal Church to which he is (as they ſuppoſe) Ordained, and that he cannot act as a Miniſter to any other? If ſo, how can he preach to Pagans and Indians, who are no members of any Church, when Preaching is a Paſtoral act in their ſenſe? why may not we extend Paſtoral acts to them that concur not in Election, as well as they may extend them to ſuch as concur not in Ordination? But they proceed to the proof of their Minor, and give many reaſons againſt that.
That a Minister can perform no Paſtoral act out of his own Congregation, (they ſay) is an Aſſertion.
Unheard of in the Church of Chriſt before theſe late Jus Divin. Min. p. 138.years.
Anſw. If the Goſpel holdeth forth ſo much, ſurely then it is an Aſſertion heard of many hundred years ago; & if it were taken for granted and not qu…ſtioned in the Primitive times, and through the overſpreading of Popery the truth were hidden ſince, it is a mercy that within theſe late years, it or any other truth is come to light. As many Authors may be cited, who many hundred years ago aſſerted errors, and yet this will not prove that we are to receive them as Goſpel truths; ſo if no antient Authors could be cited for this, yet that will not prove it to be an error, neither would the citation of many for it, prove it to be a truth, and therefore we muſt to the Law and to the Teſtimony for the clearing of it.
2. Contrary to the practice of the brethren themſelves with whom we Jus Divin. Min. p. 138.diſpute; it is acknowledged by all of them, that the adminiſtration of the Sacrament is a Miniſterial act, and cannot be done but by a Paſtor or Teacher; and yet it is ordinary, both in Old England and in New England, for members of one Congregation, to receive in another Congregation. If we may argue from our Brethrens practice, we may ſafely conclude, That a Miniſter may act as a Miniſter out of his own Congregation.
Anſw. 1. This is an Argument rather againſt our practice, then againſt the aſſertion it is levelled at: If we practice againſt our own principles, that doth not prove that our principles are unſound.
2. But we anſwer further, Miniſterial or Paſtoral acts have for their Objects ſome things that are common, ſome things that are ſpecial and proper. Some things are common to men as men, as the Word and Prayer, which all men may join or have communion in, unleſs in ſome particular caſe diſinabled. Some things are common to Church-members as ſuch, namely, admiſſion to the Lords Supper, Rom. 16. 1. Church-councel and care to be acted towards ſuch, by a more eſpecial obligation then towards other men, ſeeing every new relation is a foundation to further Communion. If the right of a man as a man, be ſufficient to claim the priviledge of hearing with a Church, not conſidering whether he be of this or that place or Church, then alſo, may not the claim of a conſederate with a particular Church, be ſufficient to a priviledge in breaking of bread, not conſidering whether of this or another Church, for his right is as confederate, not as a member of this or that Church?
Some things are ſpecial and proper, wherein the liberty and juriſdiction of the Church doth conſiſt, as admiſſion of members, excommunication, Election of Officers, &c. Acts of power which iſſue neceſſarily from the gift or reſignation of every one to another, and to the whole, whereby it is, that common priviledges are by them injoyed after a ſpecial manner, who have intereſt not onelyonly in the good diſpenſed, but in the power diſpenſing; not in the objects of a Miniſterial act onelyonly, but in the Miniſtery. As, ſuppoſe a Father at ſet times giveth inſtruction to his children, who alſo is a Maſter, and teacheth his Servants, at which times the children and ſervants of the neighbour-hood attend upon him, and receive inſtruction, this man performeth the duty of a Father, and of a Maſter to his own children and ſervants, who have intereſt in him as ſo related, the other partake in the good which is given forth, yet not under thoſe relations which are the grounds of thoſe miniſtrations; for, the ſame man is under ſpecial obligations, to give inſtructions to his children, and to his ſervants, by the Law of the relation of a Father and a Maſter, and is to give inſtruction to his neighbours alſo, by the Law of love or charity; but his omitting or neglecting to give ſuch inſtructions to children, is no breach of the Law of his relation as a Maſter, but of his relation as a Father, and his neglecting to give inſtruction unto neighbours, is no breaking the Law of his relation as a Father or a Maſter, but of the common Law of love or charity; and when he giveth theſe inſtructions to his children, he doth not put forth any act of the relation of a Maſter therein, or if he giveth them to his ſervants, he doth not put forth any act of the relation of a Father therein, &c.
So, if Paſtors and Teachers do preach and adminiſter the Sacraments to their own flocks which they are over, they act as Paſtors, as Teachers, as Officers to them therein, becauſe the Law of their relation bindeth to ſuch duties towards them, and the failing of them were to break the Law of Office-relation; but if they perform theſe acts to any, not of their own Congregations, they do not act as Paſtors, as Officers to them therein; for they ſtand in no ſuch relation to them, and if they refuſe to perform ſuch acts to thoſe not of their own Congregations, they do not break the Law of their relation as Paſtors or Officers, but they ſin againſt the Law of the general office of charity, which bindeth to ſeek the promoting of our neighbours good to the utmoſt of our ability and capacity. And as it is frequently found that O…ficers, as in Corporations, &c. may extend ſome priviledges and immunities to ſome which they are no Officers to, which none but ſuch as are Officers have power to afford, ſo in this caſe.
3. It is an aſſertion contrary to Scripture, for the Scripture tells us. 1. That Jus Divin. Min. p. 138.there is a Church general viſible. 2. That Miniſters are primarily ſeated in the Church general viſible, and but ſecondarily in this or that particular Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Epheſ. 4. 11, 12.
3. That every Miniſter hath a double relation, one to his particular Church, another to the Church general viſible; he hath a vertual and habitual power to preach as a Miniſter in any place where he ſhall be lawfully called. Therefore Miniſters are ſpoken of in Scripture, under a general notion, to ſhew the indefiniteneſs of their office. They are called Miniſters of God, 2 Cor. 6. 4. Miniſters of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 4. 1. but never Miniſters of the people.
Anſ. 1. If by Church ſhould be meant, a general viſible Church, yet it would not follow, that thoſe Officers might act in any part of that Church, but onelyonly where they are fixed, as we ſhall ſhew afterward.
2. If they be never called Miniſters of the people, to be ſure they are never called Miniſters of the Presbytery.
3. They are called [Elders of the Church] Act. 20. v. 17. which is as much as to ſay, Elders of the people.
4. The ſpeaking of Officers under a general notion, doth not prove the indefiniteneſs of their Office, or the extent of it beyond a particular congregation; for, if they might not preach or adminiſter the Sacraments to any out of their own congregations, yet it were proper to call them Miniſters, of God, of Chriſt, of the New Teſtament, of the Goſpel, Miniſters in the Lord, and Embaſſadors for Chriſt.
4. This aſſertion, that a Miniſter can perform no Paſtoral act out of his Jus Divin. Min. p. 140.own congregation, is contrary to found reaſon.
They mention ſeven conſequences hereof.
Object. 1. Hence it will follow, That when a Miniſter preacheth in his own Congregation, to members of another Congregation, he doth not preach to them, nor they hear him preach as a Minister but as a gifted brother. And that at the ſame time he preacheth as a Miniſter by vertue of his office to thoſe of his own Congregation, and to others of anther Congregation then preſent, onelyonly as a gifted brother, ex officio charitatis generali, cut of the general office of charity, which to us is very irrational.
Anſw. If by [as a Miniſter] they mean [as an Officer] then, we ſee no abſurdity in it, to ſay that he preacheth to ſome as an Officer, as under a ſpecial relation to them, as over them in the Lord, and at the ſame time preacheth to others not as an Officer, or not as over them, or in any ſuch relation to them. A man at the ſame time may give inſtruction to ſome as a Father, to others as a Maſter, to others as a friend and neighbour, as we ſhewed before. So that a man may act under one relation to ſome, and not under that, but another relation to others, in the very ſame act, without any abſurdity.
Obj. 2. Hence it will follow, that when a Miniſter preacheth out of his own Congregation, Jus Divin. Min. p. 140.he preacheth onelyonly as a private Christian, and not as an Ambaſsador of Christ, and when he acts in a Synod, his actings are the actings of a private Chriſtian; and when he preacheth a Lecture out of his own Congregation (though it be in a conſtant way) yet he preacheth onelyonly as a gifted Brother. Now what a wide door this will open to private men, to preach publickly and conſtantly in our Congregations, we leave it to any indifferent man to judge.
Anſ. 1. We deny that in any of the caſes mentioned, a man facteth as an Officer; his Office-power is not drawn out in his preaching out of his own Congregation, or when he acteth in a Synod, or preacheth a Lecture conſtantly in another Congregation. Our brethren have given us nothing to prove, that he acteth as an Officer in any of them.
2. Yet we deny, that it doth neceſſarily follow, he muſt act as a private Chriſtian therein: if he acteth in a Synod, he may act as a publick Meſſenger, and yet not act as an Officer; for ſuch as are no Officers may be ſent to act in ſuch a meeting, as the Presbyterians themſelves grant; and though comparing them with Officers whoſe actings are conſtantly in publick, they may be called private Chriſtians, i. e. comparatively, they are not perſons ſo publick in their actings as Officers are, yet they being choſen by a Church (which is a publick aſſembly) to act in a Synod, in a publick work, hence they may not act barely as private Chriſtians in ſuch works. If the brethren in a Church, act in a Synod (as they did generally at Jeruſalem, Act. 15. v. 22, 23.) we ſuppoſe they will not ſay, that the brethren generally are Officers, or act as officers, yet either they muſt grant it, or elſe aſſert that men may act in a Synod not as Officers. And then either they act as private Chriſtians, or elſe as publick perſons in thoſe occaſional publick employments.
So when a Miniſter preacheth out of his own Congregation, and when he preacheth a Lecture conſtantly, he may be ſaid to act as a publick perſon, becauſe his work is publick; and ſo he acteth, not barely as a private Chriſtian, yet not as an Officer, for then he might be actually an Officer to three or four flocks or Churches, becauſe he may lawfully keep up ſo many Lectures conſtantly, and without aſſerting Epiſcopacy, he cannot be ſaid to be actually an Officer to ſo many flocks at once. As, to the preaching of private men, we have ſpoken to that before.
Object. 3. Hence it will follow, That when a Miniſter baptizeth a child, he baptizeth him onelyonly into his own Congregation. For if he be not an Officer of the Catholick Church, he cannot baptize into the Catholick Church, which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 13.
Anſw. 1. If by baptizing [into a Church] they mean, a making one a member of a Church by baptiſm, we deny that a Miniſter baptizeth (in that ſence) either into his own Congregation, or into a Catholick Church; for if baptiſm giveth admiſſion either into a particular or a Catholick Church, then while baptiſm remaineth valid, the party remaineth a member of that Church, for ſo long as he hath that upon him which giveth memberſhip, he muſt needs be a member, as Mr. Hooker ſaith, where the form is, the formatum muſt needs be. And then either Excommunication doth make baptiſm a nullity, and render the perſon who is excommunicate, unbaptized; or elſe Excommunication doth not eject a perſon out of the Church, becauſe it doth nullifie baptiſm, which (they ſay) giveth memberſhip.
And this may anſwer their Argument, to prove that a Miniſter is a Miniſter of the Church Catholick viſible. Jus Divin. Min. p. 139. They ſay, He that can Miniſterially admit or eject a member into, or out of the Church-Catholick viſible, is a Miniſter and officer of the Church-Catholick viſible. But every Miniſter, by baptiſm or excommunication, admitteth or ejecteth members into, or out of the Church-Catholick viſible. Therefore, &c. We deny the Minor; If we grant ſuch a Catholick viſible Church, yet we cannot grant that a Miniſter by baptiſm admitteth into that Church; for then, if Heathens be converted at a great diſtance from any Church or Officer, whatever glorious profeſſion they make, yet they are not to be deemed members of that Catholick viſible Church, until they be baptized, which ſoundeth very harſh, if thoſe belong to Satans viſible kingdom, who are without that Church, as they intimate in their next objection. And alſo then it will follow, either that Excommunication doth not eject a man out of the Catholick viſible Church, and then the other part of their Minor is falſ, or elſe that Excommunication maketh baptiſm a nullity, and then re-baptizing muſt be aſſerted, becauſe there may be a re-admiſſion after excommunication upon repentance, witneſs the inceſtuous perſon, 2 Cor. 2. v. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Or elſe a man may have that upon him, which maketh one a member of the Catholick viſible Church (viz. baptiſm) and yet be no member thereof: he may have that which admitteth and giveth the formal being of memberſhip, and yet be no member, which is a contradiction.
If an excommunicate perſon be no member of the Catholick viſible Church, then he muſt be re-baptized if ever he be admitted a member thereof, if admiſſion into it be by baptiſm.
Alſo we deny, that a Miniſter by Excommunication ejecteth out of the Catholick viſible Church; the perſon may eject himſelf out of it (if there be ſuch a Church) by renouncing or contradicting his former profeſſion, which (if any thing) made him a member thereof, before Excommunication, and ſo may loſe his memberſhip in the Catholick Church, before he loſeth memberſhip in a particular Church; or however, he may be ejected with, and not by Excommunication. And how a mans being ejected out of a particular Church, by Excommunication, ſhould make him no member of the Catholick viſible Church, if being ejected out of Office in a particular Church, doth not make a man, no Officer to the Catholick viſible Church, we find not.
2. We may aſſert, that a Miniſter baptizeth onelyonly [in] a particular Church, i. e. only ſuch as are members [in] ſome particular Church or other, and yet not aſſert, that he baptizeth onelyonly [into] a particular Church, much leſs, onelyonly [into his own congregation]. This baptizing [into his own congregation onelyonly] may ſeem to intimate.] that if he loſeth his relation to that particular Church, then he muſt alſo loſe his baptiſm (which it is ſuppoſed) was onelyonly into that. But if that be driven at, it falleth as heavy upon themſelves, if ſuch a baptizing into a Church were granted; for, then, if a man be baptized into the Catholick viſible Church, if he be ejected out of that (which they ſay he may be by excommunication) then he muſt as much loſe his baptiſm there alſo.
3. As for 1 Cor. 12. v. 13. It ſpeaketh of the baptiſm of the Spirit into the myſtical body of Chriſt, not of water baptiſm into any viſible Church at all; for the words are theſe, [For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.]
Object. 4. Hence it will follow, That a Chriſtian, who by reaſon of the unfixedneſs of his civil habitation, is not admitted into a particular Congregation, hath no way left him to have his children baptized, but they muſt all be left without the Church, in Satans viſible Kingdome.
Anſw. 1. We deny (as before) that baptiſm admitteth into Chriſts Kingdom, or delivereth out of Satans viſible Kingdome. By vertue of the Covenant they are Co-members with their parents of the viſible Church before baptiſm.
2. Some will grant, that Offiers may baptize in ſuch caſes, by vertue of memberſhip in the Catholick Church, as well as they may baptize members of other particular Churches, becauſe baptizing is an act purely Miniſterial in it ſelf, and doth not neceſſarily imply his being over, or being an officer to thoſe it is performed towards.
3. We rather anſwer thus, that a Chriſtian, notwithſtanding the unfixedneſs of his habitation, yet ought to join as a member with ſome particular Congregation or other, and ſo the difficulty vaniſhed: thoſe that joined to the Church at Jeruſalem, Act. 2. v. 41. 47. yet were many of them men of other Countries, as appeareth, verſ. 5. 9. 10, 11. and though they had no fixed habitations there, yet they liſted themſelves as members and were baptized at Jeruſalem, verſ. 41. when they cannot (by reaſon of the unfixedneſs of their habitations) enjoy ſuch conſtant Communion with a Church, as they would, yet they are to joyn with ſome Church, and hold as much communion with it as they can, elſe a wide door is open to multitudes to keep from under diſcipline altogether: for, if they offend, what Church can call them to an account, or paſſe a cenſure upon them in caſe of obſtinacy?
Object. 5. According to this aſſertion, there is no way left us by Chriſt for the Jus Divin. Min. p. 141.baptizing of Heathens, when it ſhall pleaſe God to convert them to the Chriſtian faith. We will ſuppoſe an hundred heathens converted we demand, by whom ſhall theſe be baptized? not by a private Chrictian. To baptize is an act of office. Not by a Miniſter, for a Miniſter (ſay they) cannot perform any Paſtoral act (ſuch as this is) out of his own Congregation. Neither can theſe hundred converts chuſe a Miniſter, and thereby give him power to baptive them; for they muſt firſt be a Church before they have power to chuſe officers, and a Church they cannot be till baptized: neither can they joyn as members to any other Church and thereby be made capable of Baptiſme by that Miniſter into whoſe Church they are admitted. For in the way of Chriſt a man muſt firſt be baptized before he be capable of being outwardly and ſolemnly admitted as a member of a particular Church. The three thouſand were not firſt added to the Church and then baptized, but firſt baptized and thereby added to the Church, Ast. 2. 41.
Anſw. 1. The difficultie of ſuch a caſe (if there be any in it) will be found in their way as well as in ours; for, if an hundred heathens be converted, we may ask, by whom ſhall theſe be baptized? not by an officer, for a Miniſter or officer is ſet in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. not in the world; ſuppoſe it be the Catholick viſible Church that is there intended, yet ſtill the Church is the boundary of Office, it reacheth no further then that, and the hundred converted heathens are no members as yet of the Catholike viſible Church, becauſe (ſay they) perſons are admitted into that Church by Baptiſme; and theſe are not yet baptized. What have officers who are ſet in the Church, to do to perform an act of office, to ſuch as are no members of any Church? if they have an habitual power to Act as Miniſters in any place of the world, yet that power extendeth no further then the Church, for then they muſt have a threefold relation, one to the Church Catholick, another to a particular Church, and a third to the world, and all as officers.
2. Chriſt hath left theſe wayes for the Baptizing ſuch as are converted from heatheniſme to the Chriſtian faith, either they may joyn as members to ſome Church, and ſo be made capable of baptiſme by the Miniſter of that Church into which they are admitted, Or they may joyn together as a Church, and ſo call an officer who may baptize them.
We ſee no inconvenience in aſſerting that they may be a Church, before they be Baptized, the onelyonly place alleadged againſt it, doth not ſay that they were firſt Baptized and thereby added to the Church, but the words are theſe, Act. 2. 41. Then they that gladly received his word, were Baptized, and the ſame day there were added about three thouſand ſouls. They might be added to the Church, either before, or after baptiſme, and yet all this might be ſaid, and therefore it cannot prove that they were added by baptiſme. Their being Baptized was rather a ſign of being added, then that by which they were added. Chriſts way is expreſſed, Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore, and Diſciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. they are to be firſt diſcipled, and then baptized; and a diſciple properly is one in Chriſts School, his Church, Act. 8. ver 3. compared with Act. 9. v. 1. & leſt any ſhould ſay that the diſcipling of them was by baptizing them, thoſe two are plainly diſtinguiſhed, John 4. ver. 1. Jeſus made and baptized more Diſciples then John. Here is a difference put between making a Diſciple and baptizing him. And therefore ſuch converts may orderly become a Church or Church-members, before they be baptized, we have proved that they are not admitted by baptiſme, and themſelves will grant that they are Church-members immediately after it, and therefore ſurely their admiſſion is to be before their baptiſme.
Object. 6. Hence it will follow, That a Miniſter Preaching out of his own Congregation, cannot Lawfully and warrantably prononnce the bleſſing after his Sermon; for, to bleſſe the people from God is an act of Office, and to be done only by an officer, Nu. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26 compared with Revel 14. 5. Deut. 10. 8. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Eph. 1. 2.
Anſw. 1. We do not judge, that the Levites did bleſſe as types any more then they did pray or exhort as ſo; nor that bleſſing ſhould ceaſe now Chriſt is come to bleſſe, any more then other acts in which Chriſt is chief, but they were appointed to bleſs as they did miniſter, Deut. 10. 8. 1 Chron. 23. 13.
2. Bleſſing is an act of office (we grant) and to be performed by an officer, but not onelyonly: to exhort is an act of office, yet ſome not in office may exhort as we have proved, and might do ſo under the Old Teſtament without offence to the Levite, Act. 13, ver. 14, 15. we have read that the Jewes had in their Synagogues a Pew or Seat on purpoſe for brethren to ſpeak out of, where they that had any thing to offer, did place themſelves, and ſet, until the rulers therein did give liberty of ſpeech; in which Seat Paul was noted by them, and not as an Apoſtle but as a brother among them, and they ſent unto him that ſat viz. in the Speakers place. In like manner bleſſing is an act of office, it was performed by the Levites but not onelyonly, David did bleſſe, and he was no Levite, 2 Sam 6. 18.
3. Though bleſſing were to be performed by office onelyonly, yet being an act of a common nature, which all have right in who are bleſſed of Chriſt, it may be put forth by vertue of communion, which caſe hath been already ſpoken to by us.
Argu. 7. If the whole Eſſence of the miniſterial call conſiſteth in Election Jus Divin. Min. p. 144.without Ordination, then it will neceſſarily follow, that when a Miniſter leaves or is put from that particular charge to which he is called, that then he ceaſeth to be a Miniſter & becomes a private perſon, and that when he is elected to another place, he needs a new Ordination, and ſo toties quoties, as often as he is elected ſo often is he to be ordained.
Anſ. If by [Miniſter] they mean [an officer] we grant the conſequence thus far, that if he leaveth or be juſtly put from that particular charge to which he is called, then he ceaſeth to be an officer, and when he is elected to another place, he needs a new Ordination; we can ſee no inconvenience in granting this conſequence, If by Miniſter they do not mean an officer, then they ſpeak nothing to the queſtion in hand, which is onelyonly about a call to office; we deny that either election or Ordination giveth the call to gifted men to Preach. But we ſuppoſe they ſpeak of the call to office, and then although we deny that an officer leaving, or being unjuſtly put from his particular charge becomes a private perſon (for by Chriſts allowance he may ſtill act in the publick work of preaching, which may denominate him a publick perſon) yet we grant he ceaſeth to be an officer when the relation to the particular Church ceaſeth. But this ſeemeth to them a very great abſurdity, and contrary to ſound Doctrine, which they endeavour to prove diverſe wayes.
Object. 1. Becauſe every Miniſter hath a double relation, one to the Church Jus Divin. Min. p. 145.Catholick indefinitely, another to that particular Congregation over which he is ſet. Ordination is to the Eſſence of the Miniſterial office, and not onelyonly in reference to a particular place or charge. The Reverend Aſſembly ſay that the Miniſtery was given by Jeſus Chriſt to the general Church viſible which they prove from 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 4, 5. compared with ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16. of the ſame Chapter. Now if Miniſters be ſeated by Chriſt in the Church Catholick as well as in their particular Churches, then it followeth, That they have a Relation as Miniſters to the Church Catholick, and though their relation to their particular Church ceaſeth, yet their Miniſterial relation ceaſeth not, becauſe they were officers of the Church Catholick, and there doth ſtill remain in them a power in Actu primo to diſpenſe all the Ordinances of Chriſt, though their call ad actum ſecundum, five exercitium pro hic & nunc (as Maſter Hudſon phraſeth it) ceaſeth. Even as every private Chriſtian hath alſo a double relation, one to the Church general, and another to the particular place whereof he is a member; and when he removes from his Congregation he doth not ceaſe to be a member of the viſible Church (for then his baptiſme ſhould ceaſe, for every baptized perſon is a member of the Church) but onelyonly of that particular Church: a Miniſter of the Goſpel; when he leaves his particular Congregation, he continueth ſtill to be a Miniſter, though not their Miniſter, and needs no more to be ordained a new, then a private Chriſtian to be baptized a new; becauſe neither Ordination nor baptiſme do ſtand in relation to the particular Congregation, but to the Church Catholick.
Anſw. 1 Part of this makes the queſtion, the proof of the queſtion, for, their propoſition is, That the the whole Eſſence of the miniſterial call doth not conſiſt in Election without Ordination; and part of the proof is, becauſe Ordination is to the eſſence of the miniſterial office.
2. Their illuſtration (for a proof it is not) doth run them unavoidably into Anabaptiſme, which themſelves cry out ſo much againſt: for, they plainly aſſert theſe two things. 1. That if a man ceaſeth to be a member of the viſible Church, then his baptiſme ceaſeth. 2. That every baptized perſon is a member of the Church.
From theſe we conclude, That every perſon juſtly excommunicate is an unbaptized perſon; for, he is ceaſed to be a member of the viſible Church; and (ſay they) when a man ceaſeth to be a member of the viſible Church, then his baptiſme ceaſeth; and it followeth from the ſecond alſo, for we argue thus,
Every baptized perſon, is a member of the Church; No excommunicate perſon, is a member of the Church; for, they ſay every Miniſter by excommunication ejecteth out of the Church Catholick viſible. Jus Divin. Min. p. 139. Ergo, No excommunicate perſon is a baptized perſon.
If no excommunicate perſon be a baptized perſon, then if upon repentance one be re-admitted into the the Church, he muſt alſo be Rebaptized, or elſe be in the Church unbaptized. And re-admiſſion, upon repentence is commanded, 2 Corinth. 2. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, &c.
This miſtake of theirs, we ſuppoſe ariſeth from their aſſerting that Baptiſme doth admit or make to ſtand in relation to a Church; whereas baptizing is not into a Church neither into a particular nor into a general Church, as if that gave a being to a relation unto either; but Baptizing is, to or into the Name of Chriſt; baptiſme is a ſolemn ſign of a perſons taking the Name Chriſt upon him, or of his being engaged under, and to make profeſſion of, and own that Name in all wayes, and for all uſes and ends that it ſerveth to, Mat. 28. 19. baptizing them to or into the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghoſt, Acts 8. 16. 1 Cor. 1. ver. 12, 13, 14, 15.
And hence, although a perſon be baptized in a Church, yet when he leaves that Church or ceaſeth to be a member of it, yet his baptiſme ceaſeth not. If by excommunication he be ejected out of the Church, yea if he ceaſeth to be a member of the Catholick viſible Church (if there be ſuch a one) yet he doth not loſe his baptiſme, that remaineth as a teſtimony againſt him, as a ſolemn ſign of his engagement for the Name of Chriſt, which now he denyeth: as if a man hath Covenanted under his hand and ſeal to pay an Annuitie, &c. to ſuch a perſon; if afterward he refuſeth to make payment thereof, yet his hand and ſeal will evidence againſt him; ſo will baptiſme againſt thoſe that caſt off the profeſſion of Chriſts Name; and upon this account if a Chriſtian leaveth one Congregation and joyneth with another, yet he need not be baptized again; becauſe he did not receive baptiſme as a ſign onelyonly of his being engaged for the Name of Chriſt whilſt he walked with that Congregation, but for ever: the caſe is not alike for Ordination for if a man after he be ordained proveth wicked, ſcandalous, or heretical, he may be excommunicated and depoſed, and loſing his office, he loſeth his Ordination eſpecially if Ordination did give the Eſſence to the call to Office, ſurely he hath not that upon him ſtill, for then he might be an Officer of Chriſt, when he is no member of any Church of Chriſt, but he doth not loſe his baptiſm. And beſides, it is not proved, that his Office reacheth beyond a particular congretion, whereas his baptiſm doth.
3. We deny that an Officer hath a double relation, one to the Church-catholick, and another to his particular congregation: the places cited, do not prove that he hath a relation as a Miniſter to a Church-catholick; as for 1 Cor. 12. 28. If a Church-general viſible were intended there, yet it would not follow, that any mans relation as an Officer doth extend ſo much as habitually, or in actu primo, to the utmoſt bounds of that Church; for, it may properly be ſaid, There are ſet in the Common-wealth, Juſtices, Conſtables, &c. Yet will any conclude hence, that Juſtices ſuſtain a double relation, one to the Counties wherein they live, and another to the whole Commonwealth? or that Conſtables have a double relation as Conſtables, one to the pariſh where they live, another to the Common-wealth, or that they have a power in actu primo, to do the Office of Conſtables in all places of the Common-wealth? So an Officer may be ſaid to be ſet in the Catholick viſible Church, becauſe that particular Church to which he is an Officer, may belong to that Catholick-Church, and yet his office may extend no further then his particular congregation, he may have no relation, ſo much as in actu primo, to any other Church.
He cannot be denyed to be ſet in the Commonwealth, who is ſet in any one place or Pariſh which is in it; and ſo an Officer may be ſaid to be ſet in the Church-catholick, who is ſet in any particular Church which appertaineth to that univerſal, and yet the office may be bounded by that particular Church, may reach no further, and therefore the being ſet in the Churchcatholick, cannot enforce a relation as an Officer to to that Church, without which no double relation.
As for Epheſ. 4. The Apoſtle ſpeaketh either
1. Of the myſtical body, one in ſpirit and faith, over which never any were ſet as Officers in the whole, part of it being in heaven when the Apoſtles were on earth; nor in part, if ſo, then with or without its own act; not without, for, as office and authority is Chriſts gift as our fountain, ſo the Churches call is the means thereof; anſwer of the Aſſembly to the reaſons againſt the inſtance of the Church of Jeruſalem, p. 12. not with its own act, for they that never met, nor can meet unto a Church act, put forth none. Ergo, though Officers be given [for] the myſtical Church, yet they have not relation [to] it, as Officers over it in the Lord. Or,
2. Of the integral body, which is one by conſent and agreement; as the body of Antioch is one, and the body of Epheſus is one, the unity of the Spirit to be kept there, &c. We ſee no abſurdity to ſay, God hath given to or ſet in the Church, viz. this and that Church, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, for the edifying of the body, ſc. this and that body. And whatever we have in notion, we can find no Church in exiſtence or action, but muſt be a particular Church; as, it is proper to ſay, Satan perſecutes man, though there be no Catholick man to perſecute, becauſe he perſecutes this and that man; ſo to ſay, God careth to edifie the Church, the body, though no Catholick body or Church, but this and that particular.
Object. 2. If a Miniſter, when he removes, or is removed from his particular Congregation, ceaſeth to be a Miniſter, then it will follow,
1. That if the Church that called him prove heretical, and wickedly ſeparate from him, that then the ſin of the people ſhould nullifie the office of the Miniſter; Or
2. If the Church refuſe to give him competent maintenance, and ſtarve him out from them, or if the major part unjuſtly combine together to vete him out, that then the covetouſneſſe and injuſtice of the people ſhould make void the Function of their Miniſter. Or
3. By this Doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or a Nation to un-miniſter all their Miniſters, which things are very great abſurdities and contrary to ſound Doctrine.
Anſ. 1. As to the two former particulars, though ſuch Churches do hainouſly ſin againſt the Lord, and commit wickedneſs at a great height, and muſt expect that the Lord will reward them according to their works, for ſeparating from and nullifying of the office of ſuch, as Chriſt hath ſet over them, upon ſuch accounts; yet we know not but that in ſuch caſes, the ſin of the people may nullifie the office of the Miniſter, it doth debar him from the exerciſe of his office, and why may it not make void the office? Suppoſe upon taking up ſome wicked principles, they cruelly murther or take away the life of their officer, ſurely he ceaſeth then to be an officer, and if their ſin can nullifie his office in ſuch a way, why not by an unjuſt ſeparation from or rejection of him?
2. If a peoples ſinful rejection of their officer doth not nullifie his office, we ſuppoſe the reaſon is not becauſe his office-power extendeth beyond that particular Congregation, but becauſe he is, de jure and of right, ſtill over that Church as its officer, though he be hindred by their ſinful actings from the exerciſe of his office amongſt them: as a lawful Prince may by an unjuſt invaſion be diſabled for the exerciſe of Government in his Kingdom, though he yet be the Supream Governour, and may recover his right when he can. But if a Miniſter voluntarily removeth, or be rejected by the people, when either of theſe are upon juſt grounds, then ſurely the relation between them ceaſeth, and ſo he ceaſeth to be an officer.
3. As to the third thing, they grant that a peoples rejection of a Miniſter, maketh him ceaſe from being their Miniſter; and this openeth as wide a door for the people of a City or Nation to un-miniſter themſelves, or to leave themſelves without any Miniſters, as the other aſſertion doth to un-miniſter their Miniſters; & if the people of a City or Nation will be ſo wickedly diſpoſed, as to withdraw ſubjection from, or reject all from being their Miniſters, what advantage can there be in their having the name of office upon them, when they cannot exerciſe their office there? and if they be unjuſtly rejected, and loſe their office thereby, they may become Officers again in other places, as well as if they be but put out from being their Miniſters.
Object. 3. Becauſe there is no Scripture to warrant the iteration of Ordination Jus Divin. Min p. 147.in caſe of removal. The Apoſtles went about ordaining Elders in every Church, and Titus was left in Crete to ordain Elders, &c. but there is no mention made of any command for reiterated Ordination, neither indeed can it be; for Ordination being a ſetting a man apart to the Office of the Miniſtery (as we ſhall hereafter prove) and not onelyonly to the exerciſe of it in ſuch a place, though the local exerciſe ſhould ceaſe, yet his office ſtill remains, and therefore needs not be reiterated.
Anſw. 1. There is no Scripture (that we can find) to evidence that a man is an Officer to any more then a particular congregation, and if his office extendeth no further, then in caſe of removal he ceaſeth to be an officer, or becometh no officer; And here;
2. All thoſe Scriptures that warrant the Ordination of any Officers, do warrant the iteration of Ordination, in caſe a man becometh an Officer again to any other Church. As in a corporation, if Bayliffs or other Officers having ſerved their whole time, do become no Officers, and afterward the ſame perſons come into the ſame Offices again, the ſame Law that required ſuch ceremonies to be uſed in the inveſtment of all ſuch Officers, doth require the iteration of ſuch ceremonies upon a new entrance into thoſe Offices, though the Law doth not require it under the notion of an iteration. So all thoſe Scriptures that warrant the ordaining of all Church Officers, muſt needs warrant the re-ordaining of ſuch, as after a becoming no Officers, do take up office a new again, though the Scriptures do not mention it under the notion of an iteration of Ordination, but under the notion of ordaining Officers at their firſt entrance into office. Take it thus,
Major. All that aſſume office in the Church, ought to be ordained. All the Scriptures that prove Ordination of Officers to be neceſſary, do prove this; and our brethren cannot deny this Propoſition, unleſs they will give up the whole caſe, and ſay that ſome may aſſume office in the Church without Ordination, and ſurely then gifted brethren may preach without it.
Minor. But thoſe that remove to take the charge of a new Church, they aſſume office in the Church. For, upon a removal they became no Officers, becauſe their office extended no further then their particular Church, and now they become Officers again, in taking a new charge.
Concluſion. Ergo, Thoſe that remove to take the charge of a new Church, ought to be ordained.
When the perſon ceaſed to be an Officer, his Ordination (which was an adjunct of his office) ceaſed alſo, and then he was conſidered as without Ordination, and he taking up office again, is ordained again, becauſe elſe he aſſumeth office without Ordination as really as if he had never been ordained.
3. If any example could be ſhewn of an ordinary Officers removal from one Church, to become an Officer to another Church, we do ſuppoſe, it would give an example of the iteration of Ordination.
4. Ordination is not a ſetting apart to the office of the Miniſtry, but of ſuch as are already Officers, to the work of their office. We do not ſay that Ordination is a ſetting apart to the exerciſe of office in ſuch a place, but to ſuch perſons, or to ſuch a Church; that Church may remove to another place, or meet at a great diſtance from the place where now it is ſeated, yet he acteth as an Officer towards it there.
5. As for Act. 13. 2, 3. thus much may be concluded from it, viz. That when Officers are called by the Lord to the work of office amongſt a people, not before committed to them, or when they take a new charge upon them, they are to be ordained.
If this example hath not the force of a Rule in the grounds and ends of it, what uſe is it of to us for our direction or imitation? if it doth not oblidge, us to uſe Ordination upon an occaſion of like nature, it is binding (as an example) in nothing: for what may be alleadged againſt its being exemplary in this, will as well deny it to be exemplary in other things, and then why do our brethren alleadge it at all for Ordination? If Ordination were needful for Paul and Barnabas, upon their taking a new charge for officework, when yet they ceaſed not to be Officers upon the coming of this new call, but onelyonly had their Commiſſion inlarged by it, then much more is Ordination needful for ordinary officers, upon their taking a new charge, ſeeing they do ceaſe to be Officers upon ſuch removals. If this Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, were (as they ſay) by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghoſt, that may ſpeak, that in theſe dayes we are not to expect ſuch an extraordinary immediate call to ordain Officers, but it doth not deny it to be a a binding example to us, in all that was ordinary in it. Now it is ordinary for Officers to have a call to a new charge, as Paul and Barnabas had here; and the ends of this praying for them were ordinary, viz. that the Lord would afford his ſpecial preſence to, and bleſſing upon them in office-work in their new charge, and therefore it doth warrant the iteration of Ordination, in caſe there be a removal to a new charge.
Object. 4. If the whole eſſence of the Miniſterial call conſiſteth in popular Election, then will two other great abſurdities follow. 1. That Ordination can in no caſe precede ſuch Election. 2. That there muſt be Churches before there be Miniſters.
Anſw. We know no abſurdity in aſſerting theſe, but let us hear how they would prove them to be abſurdities.
We conceive many caſes may be put, in which Ordination may lawfully go before Election, we ſhall onelyonly give two inſtances.
1. When an ordained Miniſter removes upon warrantable grounds, from one charge to another, the people to whom he removes, chuſe him not as one that is to be made a Miniſter, but as one already made, and now to be made their Miniſter, &c.
2. When there is a neceſſity of ſending men (as there is now in New England, for the converſion of Heathen people) we think it very agreeable unto Scripture rules, that theſe men ſhould be firſt ordained before they be Elected by the Heathen to whom they are ſent. And the reaſon is, becauſe that the converſion of ſouls is the proper work of the Miniſtery. When Chriſt went up into heaven, he left not onelyonly Apoſtles, Prophets & Evangeliſts, but alſo Paſtors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtery, for the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 11, 12. And the office of ordinary Miniſters is to be Embaſſadors for Chriſt, and in Chriſts name or in Chriſts ſtead, to beſeech people to be reconciled unto God.
Where it may be had, there we conceive it is moſt agreeable to the Word, that men ſhould be firſt ordained before ſent; hereby they ſhall go with more authority, and ſhall have power to baptize thoſe whom they do convert, which otherwiſe they cannot lawfully do, &c.
They grant liberty to preach, as Probationers before Ordination, yet here they ſay men cannot lawfully baptize, without he be ordained; whence we infer,
1. That according to their own principles, baptizing is more limited to Officers, then preaching.
2. That men may act as Embaſſadors of Chriſt, though they be not ordained: for if they preach but once as Probationers, either they act as Embaſſadors of Chriſt, and then Ordination doth not make them ſuch, or elſe there is ſome preaching warranted by Chriſt, not as his Embaſſadors, and then gifted men, though no Officers, and without power to baptize, and though they be not Embaſſadors for Chriſt, yet may preach.
2. They aſſert a Miſſion here, which is no part of Ordination, for they ſay [it is most agreeable to the Word, that men ſhould be firſt ordained before ſent]. There is a ſending then, which is diſtinct from, and may be ſubſequent to Ordination; and why then do our brethren ſo often aſſert ſending and ordaining to be all one? or how will it appear, that any other ſending is intended, Rom. 10. 15. then this which themſelves grant, Ordination may be before?
3. When an Ordained Miniſter removes upon warrantable grounds from one charge to another, he is to have a new Ordination, but a new Election is to precede this new Ordination. The Goſpel knoweth no difference between making a man a Miniſter, and making him their Miniſter, if by Miniſter they intend an Officer.
4. When there is a neceſſity of ſending men for the converſion of Heathens, we deny that they are ſent forth as Officers, or that they ought to be ordained to make them Officers, before they be ſent. If ſuch as are Officers, and have been ordained, do take a journey and preach unto Heathen people, it is not in the capacity of Officers, for thoſe Heathens are of no Church; but they act as perſons gifted, and warranted by Chriſt to lay out their gifts in ſuch publick works, for ſuch ends. The converſion of ſouls is the work of the Miniſtery, not the proper work, ſo as the Lord uſeth none but Miniſters therein; Parents, and Maſters, and Neighbours, may be converting inſtruments as well as they. Miniſters are lights, not by vertue of Ordination or Office, but illumination and gifts; if men in darkneſs be ordained, yet they are in darkneſs ſtill: Officers are not made lights when made Officers; they were lights before, therefore to ſhine in the exerciſe and improvement of their gifts, and might have been Embaſſadors to the world, though they had not been Officers to a Church.
Gifted men are Embaſſadors in a general ſence, for Chriſt, and in Chriſts name and ſtead are to beſeech people to be reconciled unto God, for (as we have proved) they are warranted and commanded by Chriſt to preach.
We deſire ſome Scripture-proof, That Ordination may in any caſe precede Election to Office.
Object. 2. It will alſo follow, That there muſt be Churches before there be Ministers, which is againſt Scripture and ſound reaſon: we do not deny but that there must be a Church before their Miniſter; but not before a Miniſter: the Church Entitative is before a Church Miniſterial, but yet a Minister must needs be before a Church; for every Church muſt conſiſt of perſons baptized, (unbaptized perſons cannot make a Church) and therefore there muſt be a Minister to baptize them, before they can be made capable to enter into Church-fellowſhip. Our Saviour Chriſt choſe his Apoſtles for the gathering of Churches, there were firſt Apoſtles before Churches, and afterwards the Apoſtles ordained Elders in theſe gathered Churches, and one great work of theſe Elders, was to convert the neighbouring Heathen, and when converted, to baptize them and gather them into Churches; and therefore Elders as well as Apoſtles were before Churches: And whoſoever with us holds, That none but a Miniſter in office can baptize, muſt needs hold, that there must be ordinary Miniſters before Churches, and that therefore the whole eſſence of the Miniſterial call, doth not conſiſt in the Election of the Church.
Anſw. 1. That a Church muſt needs be before a Miniſter or Officer is evident, becauſe if one be made a Miniſter, an Officer, it is to a Church; that is neceſſarily preſuppoſed, before one can be made an Officer to it.
2. If Apoſtles were before Churches, yet ſeeing their call was extraordinary and Immediate from God, that doth not prove, that ordinary Officers (who are called by men) are before Churches, and the contrary is evident, Act. 14. 23. When they had choſen them Elders by ſuffrages in every Church, &c. the Churches muſt needs be before the chuſing Elders in every Church. Neither can it be proved, that theſe were Elders before they were their Elders, or that ever any ordinary officers were before Churches. Suppoſe unbaptized perſons could not make a Church, yet the utmoſt it could amount to, would be but this, that there muſt be a Miniſter before this or that Church, it would not follow thence, that there muſt be Miniſters before Churches in general, or before any Churches: for, look upon any Church, and if it be ſaid, there was a Miniſter before this or that Church, to baptize the perſons which it conſiſteth of, we may ſay, then there was a Church before that Miniſter, for he could not be an officer unleſs it were to ſome Church, becauſe Officer and Church are Relatives: if it be ſaid there was ſome Miniſter before that Church, elſe the perſons therein could not have been baptized, we may anſwer, to there muſt be ſome Church before that Miniſter, &c. and ſtill Churches are before Miniſters, until we come to the Apoſtles dayes, if the line of ſucceſſion holdeth ſo far, and if that line breaketh before we aſcend ſo high, then where the ſtop was made, either the perſon baptizing was no Miniſter, and that cutteth the throat of the objection, for then they being baptized by one that was no Miniſter, after their baptiſm they might become a Church before any Miniſter; or elſe the perſon baptizing was a Miniſter, and then it muſt be ſaid, he was a baptized perſon and yet no Church-member, or elſe a Miniſter, and yet an unbaptized perſon; a Church-officer, and yet no Church-member; for if he were a Church-member, then Church was ſtill before the Miniſter: and how could he become a Miniſter, if a Church were not before?
If the line of ſucceſſion holdeth to the Apoſtles dayes, their call was extraordinary, and they being the onelyonly Officers that were before Goſpel Churches, it ſpeaketh nothing at all againſt Election of the Church, as giving the whole eſſence of the call to ordinary Officers, and it is the call of ordinary Officers onelyonly, that this queſtion is about, whether that conſiſteth in Election or not.
3. That a great work of ordinary Elders was to convert the neighbouring Heathens we grant, but that they acted as Elders in their converſion, we deny: that ordinary Elders did baptize then when converted, before their being gathered into Churches, is a thing which they have not given us any Scripture-proof for. A Church is not to ſuffer perſons in it to continue unbaptized, but we conceive unbaptized perſons may make a Church, and then either by Communion with other Churches, or by chuſing and ordaining an Officer for it ſelf, perſons in it may be baptized; and thus we may hold, that none but a Miniſter in office can baptize, and yet need not hold that there muſt be ordinary Miniſters before Churches, which to be ſure, the Goſpel ſpeaketh as little of, as of unbaptized perſons making a Church. And ſo we have anſwered their arguments againſt Election as eſſential to the call to office.
Two Arguments of Mr. Hookers they undertake to anſwer, by aſſerting that Officers as ſuch, do ſuſtain a relation to a univerſal Church, and by diſtinguiſhing between the perſons which give being to a Miniſter as to be their Miniſter; and thoſe which give being to him as to be a Miniſter, but becauſe neither the aſſertion nor the diſtinction, are proved to have any ſooting in Scripture, therefore we paſſe them over.