The Preacher Sent, Chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII.
Wherein is ſhown that the Eſſence of the Miniſterial Call doth not conſiſt in Ordination.
OOur Brethren in their book called Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 140. &c. endeavour to prove that Ordination of Miniſters is an Ordinance of Chriſt. If Ordination be taken in a right ſenſe, & by [Miniſters] be nnderſtood [officer] we can own the Aſſertion, and therefore we ſhall not here excep againſt their Arguments which they produce for the proof of it; but we proceed to their ſecond aſſertion. viz
Aſſertion. That the Eſſence of the miniſterial call doth properly conſiſt Jus Divin. Min. p. 164.in Ordination.
This they ſtrive to make out by diverſe Arguments.
Argu. 1. If Election doth not give the Eſſentials of the Miniſteral office, Jus Divin. Miniſt.then Ordination doth; for the outward call of a Miniſter (as it is agreed on all ſides) doth conſiſt only in his election or Ordination. But election doth not, &c. as we have formerly ſhewed by diverſe Arguments, Ergo, Ordination doth.
Anſw. Election doth give the Eſſentials of the outward call of a Miniſter, (as we have formerly ſhewed by diverſe Arguments, to which we refer the Reader) Ergo, Ordination doth not.
Argu. 2. If Ordination makes a man a Miniſter that was not one before, then Jus Divin. Mini. pag. 164. &c.it gives the Eſſence of the Miniſterial office But Ordination makes a man a Miniſter that was not one before.
Ergo, &c.
That this is ſo appears,
1. From the Ordination of Deacons, Act. 6. 3. look ye out ſeven men, &c. whom we may appoint over this buſineſs, foreign is to put a man into an office which he had not before. Thus it is ſaid of Joſeph, Acts 7. 10. And he made him Governour over Egypt, &c. foreign &c. This act of Pharaohs did not confirm him in that office which he had before, but conferred upon him an office he never had. The like we read, Deut. 1. 13. &c. Thus Exod. 18. 21. Thou ſhalt provide able men, and place ſuch over them to be Rulers of thouſands, &c. It was Moſes his placing that did give them the formalitie of Rulers. The Hebrew word in Exodus and Deut. is foreign which anſwers the Greek word foreign 1 Tim. 1. 12. where it is ſaid foreign and it was the Apoſtles appointing Deacons that did make them Deacons: all that the people did was to ſet ſeven men before the Apoſtles whom they by Ordination made Deacons.
2. This appears alſo from Tit. 15. For this cauſe left I thee in Crete that thou ſhouldeſt Ordain elders in every City, is foreign & conſtituas; and ordain or appoint: Titus was not left only to adde an Adjunct to the Miniſterial call, or to eſtabliſh and confirm thoſe in their places that had right to them before, but he was left foreign which is all one as in a civil ſenſe, foreign or foreign as one ſaith, or foreign conſtituere & preficere rectores & judices, to conſtitute and make rulers and Judges; thus it is ſaid Luke 12. 42 who then is that faithful ſteward whom his Lord ſhall make Ruler &c. foreign This Act of the Lord of the houſe is that which gives the formal being of a Ruler unto this Steward. And it is Ordination that doth foreign and is eſſentiale conſtituens of the Miniſterial office.
Anſ. 1. Election is undoubtedly given, the people, Act. 6. ver. 3. 5. And the ſaying pleaſed the whole, and [they choſe.] And, electing or chuſing in Scripture ſenſe doth expreſſe the putting a man into an office which he had not before, as certainly as it can be ſuppoſed that this appointing can do it. As Luk. 6. 13. He called unto him his diſciples, and of them he [choſe] Twelve whom alſo he named, Apoſtles &c. So, John 6. 70. Acts 1. ver. 2. 24. Chriſt did not barely no minate and deſign the Twelve by chuſing them, but conferred upon them an office they never had before, did give them the formality of officers, did conſtitute and make them officers by chuſing of them; and from theſe examples we may as ſafely conclude that the peoples chuſing Deacons was that which made them Deacons, and conferred their office upon them; as they may conclude either from the word foreign or from Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. Luke 12. 42. Tit. 1. 5. that Ordination doth it. For, if they ſay that appointing doth in theſe places expreſſe the office-making act, ſo may we ſay doth chuſing in the other places, expreſſe as fully the office-making act alſo.
If they ſay that foreign &c. is to conſtitute and make Rulers and Judges, we may as well ſay, To chuſe is to conſtitute and make Apoſtles, and therefore to chuſe Elders or Deacous is to conſtitute and make them ſuch, there is as good reaſon for the one as for the other.
2. But two Scriptures our brethren inſiſt upon to prove that Ordination maketh a man a Miniſter that was none before.
The firſt Scripture is Act. 6. v. 3. which they ſtrengthen with others, as Acts 7. 10. Deut. 1. 13. Exod. 18. 21. which ſpeak of appointing unto Government. But they know that the appointing, Acts 6. 3. was not unto Government or Juriſdiction over the Church. Deacons were helps, not Governments, ſerving tables; officers in the Church, not over it, as widdowes alſo.
And can they indeed think that Ordination made them Deacons and Election made them Deacons of that Church, or that they were made Catholick Deacons and ſuch as at Antioch, Epheſus &c. might have challenged the overſight of, or power to provide for the poor as thereunto appointed, or officers therein, vel in actu primo?
The ſecond Scripture is, Tit. 1. 5. That thou mighteſt Ordain; but they will not ſay that Titus might Ordain alone, but with a cauſal concurrence of the Elderſhip, we crave leave to adde, and of the brethren of the whole Church, for they faſted and prayed working together in every thing except impoſition of hands, which is not an Act, but a ſign of Ordination, not neceſſary but left free, ſo Aſſertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, part. 1. cap. 14.
To appoint therefore is not pro imperio determinare, or by vertue of pretended power and authoritie to impoſe one to be a Ruler in or over the Church. Supream Magiſtrates may appoint Judges, Juſtices, &c. whoſe Commiſſion is Eſſentiale conſtituens, to their office the people willing or nilling the ſame, Miniſters are forbidden doing ſo, 1 Pet. 5. ver 3.
But to appoint in thoſe Scriptures, (if it doth denote onelyonly faſting, prayer or impoſition of hands after Election) is, to Solemnize a call to office, or Solenniter approbare; a Kings Coronation or a Magiſtrates ritual inveſtment may be called the Ordination of a Magiſtrate. The Solemnization of a Matrimonial contract between man and woman the Ordination of a husband and of a wife, although the Eſſentiale conſtituens, of the relation lie in the contract, not in the ſolemnization. So in this cauſe, the act which hath but the nature of an adjunct, having the name of the principal act. Yet is not an officer bound to approve of whatſoever ſhall be ordered by the Church, 1 Tim. 5. 22. If the Church ſin in Election, let not Timothy ſin in ordination, approbation, &c. It is alſo conſiderable that Act. 6. 3. ſpeaketh not of an appointment to office, but to the work of the office.
Arg. 3. If ordination be the ſending of a man forth with power and authority Jus Divin. Min. p. 166.to preach the Goſpel, and adminiſter the Sacraments, then it is that which gives the eſſence of the Miniſterial office. But ordination is ſo, Ergo, The Minor (they ſay) is proved from Rom. 10. 15. And how ſhall they preach except they be ſent? this ſending is an authoritative Miſſion to preach the Word as Cryers and Heralds (for ſo the word foreign ſignifieth) and alſo as Embaſſadors are ſent forth by their Prince with their letters miſſive and credentials, which appears by the words immediately following; as it is written, How beautiful, &c. it muſt be underſtood of ſuch an authoritative ſending, which was to continue to the end of the world, for the Apoſtle in that Climax of his, makes it as neceſſary and perpetual, as calling upon the name of the Lord, as believing and hearing the Word.
Anſw. We deny their Minor, neither doth all that they have ſaid, prove, That Ordination is a ſending of a man forth with power and authority to preach the Goſpel, and administer the Sacraments.
1. We deny that Ordination and Miſſion are the ſame things: that Text alleadged, Rom. 10. 15. ſpeaketh of Miſſion or ſending, but not one word about Ordination, and therefore it is far from proving that Ordination is a ſending a man forth with power and authority to preach, &c. unleſs they can prove, that they are all one, (which we conceive they can never do) if an authoritative Miſſion were intended, ſuch as Cryers, Heralds and Embaſſadors have, yet that would not evidence that Ordination giveth power and authority to preach and adminiſter the Sacraments.
2. We deny that the power and authority to preach and adminiſter the Sacraments, is received by miſſion or ſending. the act of the perſon ſending, doth not compleat miſſion, without the objects to whom he ſendeth. The end of Miſſion is not to give a call to, or juſtifie the lawfulneſs of a mans preaching or adminiſtring the Sacraments; but that a Preacher may juſtifie the lawfulneſs of his preaching to ſuch a people, i. e. ſuch ſpecifically conſidered, not numerically. As, if a Jew ſhould deny it to be lawful for any to preach the Word unto Gentiles, we may prove it lawful to preach unto the Gentiles, by or from miſſion, becauſe Chriſt hath ſaid, Mat. 28. 19. Go ye and teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. This Miſſion will prove it lawful for any particular perſons in any Nation, in any Church, in any place, to be preached to, but miſſion will not warrant any particular Preacher in publiſhing the Goſpel unto ſuch particular perſons, in this or that place. We deny that miſſion giveth a man his Commiſſion or authority to preach; and if the Apoſtles Climax did make it as neceſſary and perpetual as calling upon the name of the Lord, as believing and hearing the Word, yet that would not prove it. The utmoſt that is ſaid by the Apoſtle is, they cannot (i. e. not orderly, not warrantably) preach, except they be ſent, and it may as well be ſaid, they cannot orderly or warrantably preach and adminiſter Sacraments, except they be gifted, except they have thoſe qualifications which are required unto Officers, 1 Tim. 3. v. 1, 2, 3, &c. yet we ſuppoſe they will not ſay, that thoſe gifts and qualifications do give power & authority to preach and adminiſter the Sacraments; if that will be granted, then they give up the caſe wholly, for a man may have thoſe gifts and qualifications before, and ſo without Ordination, and ſo (by that rule) may have power and authority to do thoſe acts although unordained. Such gifts and qualifications are neceſſarily and perpetually required unto Offiers, as well as miſſion, and ſo, by the ſame medium that they prove miſſion to give authority to perform ſuch acts, may we as ſtrongly prove ſuch gifts and qualifications to give authority thereunto.
3. We deny that the giving of that miſſion ſpoken of Rom. 10. 15. belongeth to any man whatever, unleſs it be meant of the providential ſending. It belongeth to Chriſt onelyonly to ſend, it was he that ſaid, Mat. 28. 19. Go, &c.
We deſire ſome Scripture-proof, that it appertaineth to a Presbytery, or any man to give Miſſion, if that cannot be produced, then ſending is far from being that which giveth the power and authority to preach, or the outward call to office, which muſt be given by man.
Arg. 4. If Ordination be that which gives the Miniſterial office, then the Jus Divin. Min. p. 167.eſſence of the Miniſterial call conſiſteth in Ordination. But Ordination is that which gives the Miniſterial office.
That this ſo appears, from 2. Tim. 1. 6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands; and by, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. By laying on of the hands, is meant, the whole work of Ordination, and by gift is meant, docendi officium (as moſt interpreters ſay) office of the Miniſtery, and the power and authority conferred thereby upon him. The Greek word foreign is often taken not onelyonly for the grace by which we are fitted for an office, but for an office unto which men are through grace fitted. Thus it is taken, Eph. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 6.
And thus it is here to be taken, Paul by Ordination, did not onelyonly declare Timothy to be an Officer, and confirm him in that office which he had before collated upon him, by the choice of the people, but he together with the Presbytery, gave him the gift, or office of the Miniſtery.
Anſw. We deny the Minor, The Texts alleadged do not prove, that Ordination is that which gives the Miniſterial office.
There are three things that need proof, and if any one of them want it, their Argument cometh to nothing. 1. That by laying on of hands is meant Ordination. 2. That by Gift is meant Office. 3. That this gift is given by Ordination.
1. It is queſtionable whether by laying on of hands here be meant Ordination; for that ceremony was uſed upon other occaſions as well as in Ordination. Laying on of hands was uſed in the Collation or conveyance of gifts, frequently when there was no Ordination, as Act. 8. 17, 18. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghoſt, Act. 19. 6. Timothy might have gifts conferred upon him, although there were no Ordination, and if there were no Ordination, it is far from proving that the Miniſterial office is given thereby.
2. It is to us clear, that by Gift is not meant Office; ſeveral reaſons are given by Mr. Hooker to evidence this, that by gift is meant thoſe ſpiritual abilities by which he was fitted and furniſhed for his office.
1. The word foreign doth moſt commonly ſignifie ſuch gifts and graces as the Lord beſtoweth upon us, & not office: and without ſpecial reaſon we may not recede or depart from the common ſignification of a word. They have given us no reaſon to evince that it muſt be taken here for office, and not in its uſuall ſignification, and therefore it is a feeble argument, which hath no better proof.
2. The nature of the Expreſſions forbid, that by gift ſhould be meant office; for (as Mr. Hooker obſerveth) a man is not ſaid to ſtir up his office that is in him, but to ſtirre up the grace that is in him, being put into office. We are not wont to ſpeak thus, Forget not the …ffice that is in you; a man is not onelyonly more properly, but more truly ſaid to be in his office; nay, the very nature and reality of the thing requires this alſo; An Office is a relation adjoyned to a man, not inherent in him, &c.
3. The perſon exhorted to ſtir up the gift, 2 Tim. 1. 6. and not to neglect the gift, 1 Tim. 4. 14. was Timothy, who was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4. v. 5. Do the work of an Evangelist, &c. and therefore his office could not be collated upon him, either by the people, or by the Presbytery; let it be proved that an extraordinary office could be conveyed by an ordinary Ordination, if not, then by Gift cannot be meant Office; and therefore their Argument is altogether without proof, for, the Miniſterial office is not there ſaid to be given by Ordination; And themſelves interpret one of the Texts of extraordinary gifts, uſing theſe words; [If Timothy had any extraordinary gift that was given by the impoſition of the Apoſtles hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift that is in thee, by the laying on of my hands; as it was in thoſe times uſual for extraordinary gifts to be conveyed] Why in one place of the ſame book, they ſhould underſtand by Gift, extraordinary gifts, and in another place, Office, in interpreting the ſame Text, we know not. And whereas they ſay there, That impoſition of hands now, confers as much as the impoſition of hands by the Presbytery did to Timothy, viz. the office of a Presbytery. It is not proved that an office was conferred upon Timothy by laying on of hands, and if any were, it muſt be the Office of an Evangeliſt, for that was Timothies office, and ſurely our brethren will not ſay, that the extraordinary office of an Evangeliſt is conferred now by Ordination, which muſt be, if by the Gift were meant Office, and that were conferred by impoſition of hands, and as much were conferred now; for ſurely that which made him an Evangeliſt, made him a Presbyter.
3. If by Gift were meant Office, yet it is onelyonly ſaid to be given [with] the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: it is ſeldom that foreign ſignifieth [by]; and however, it cannot be reſtrained to that ſignification, and therefore no Argument can ſafely or forcibly be fetched thence, for moſt properly it is rendred [with], and that doth not intimate any cauſal vertue, but onelyonly a connexion or concurrence, ſuch as a concomitantial adjunct may have. If laying on of hands denoteth Ordination, and be but a meer adjunct to the conferring of the gift, yet it may properly be ſaid to be given, foreign, 1 Tim. 4. 14. with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and therefore it doth not prove that Ordination giveth the Miniſterial office.
Their firſt Argument to prove, that the eſſence of the Miniſterial call doth conſiſt in ordination, is divided into three parts.
Ob. 1. The perſons that are ſaid in Scriture to Ordain, are either Apostles, Prophets, Jus Divin. Min. p. 169.Evangelists, or Presbyters. And this is a ſufficient argument to us to prove, that it is Ordination that conſtitutes the Miniſter, and not Election. For it is not likely, that Christ would appoint his Apoſtles, and his Apoſtles appoint extraordinary and ordinary Elders to convey onelyonly an adjunct of the Miniſterial call, and leave the great work of conveying the office-power unto the common people.
Anſw. 1. Whether it belongeth ſo to Officers to ordain, as none elſe may do it, we ſhall ſhew afterward.
2. If onelyonly Officers might ordain, yet that were no proof to us, that Ordination conſtitutes the Miniſter; for, the office-relation which is introduced by the call, or by that which conſtitutes a Miniſter, is a relation to the people or to a Church, and therefore the people or a Church muſt needs convey the office-power; for one relate gives being, and the eſſential conſtituting cauſes to another. Relata mutuo ſe ponunt & tellunt tam in eſſendo, quam cognoſcendo. They are not made Officers over, or to the Miniſters that do ordain them, the relation is not between Officers and Officers, but between Officers and a Church, Act. 20. 28. and therefore if Miniſters onelyonly may ordain, yet they do not conſtitute the Miniſter thereby; for then Relate ſhould not give being to each other.
And although Ordination be but an Adjunct to the outward call, yet that adjunct conſiſting chiefly, if not onelyonly, in prayer, and the bleſsing and ſucceſs of the Officer in his work, depending wholly upon the Lord, who in Ordination is prayed to for it; hence it is not unlikely that Chriſt would imploy Elders in adding ſuch an adjunct, and yet leave the great work of conveying the office-power as to the outward call unto the people.
Object. 2 The ſolemnity uſed in Ordination is, prayer, fasting. and impoſition Jus Divin. Min. p. 169.of hands: we do not read the like Solemnitie expreſſed in Scripture in Election, and therefore it is againſt reaſon to think, that Election ſhould conſtitute the Minister, and give him all his Eſſentials, and Ordination onelyonly give him a ceremonial complement.
Anſ. 1 Ordination (ſo far as man acted in it) did conſiſt in ſuch Solemnitie; and reaſon will rather give it, that the call ſhould conſiſt in ſomething elſe, and that Ordination ſhould be but the Solemnization of a call, and not the call it ſelf; for it is improper to aſſert that a call conſiſteth onelyonly in Solemnities, and that any other acts concurred in Ordination in thoſe dayes, beſides thoſe which they mention, cannot be proved.
2. Prayer is the chief, if not the onelyonly act wherein Ordination doth conſiſt, and reaſon tells us, that a call muſt go before praying for the bleſſing of God upon a man in a work, which is the fruit and effect onelyonly of the call.
Object. 3. The blame laid upon Timothy if he ſhould lay hands ſuddenly upon any Miniſter, is very great. For hereby he makes himſelf impure, and becomes acceſſary to the ſins of thoſe whom he makes Miniſters. Now we may thus reaſon, where the greateſt blame lies for unworthy men coming into the Miniſtry. Surely there must lie the greatest power of admitting men into the Miniſtery, elſe the blame is not juſt.
But the greateſt blame is laid upon the Miniſters. Ergo. If the conſtituting cauſe of the Miniſterial call did lie in Election, The miniſters may well excuſe themſelves and ſay, we do but ordain, we do but give an Adjunct, &c.
Anſ. 1. That blame is laid upon Timothy, if he ſhould lay hands ſuddenly upon any man, we freely grant; but that the greateſt blame is laid there, for unworthy men coming into the Miniſtery, they have not proved, neither can we find a ſyllable that way in the Text they alleadge, 1 Tim. 5. 22. The Apoſtle is not there comparing the acts of Miniſters in undue Ordinations, comparing the acts of the people in undue Elections, and then caſting the greateſt blame upon the Miniſters, and therefore their argument is altogether without proof. Timothy is injoyned to lay hands ſuddenly on no man, and therefore he ſhould have ſinned if he had done it; and ſo Act. 6. 3. the people are injoyned to Elect or chuſe men of honeſt report, full of the Holy Ghost and wiſdom, and therefore they ſhould have ſinned alſo, if they had choſen men that were not ſo qualified, and the blame laid upon the people in caſe they choſe perſons without ſuch qualifications, was very great alſo, Mat. 7. 15. The people are warned to beware of falſe Prophets, and a great danger is intimated, in caſe they did not take heed of them, they would make a prey upon them like ravening wolves; and ſurely there is a like danger in electing ſuch to be Prophets as in receiving ſuch when they are gotten into the place of Prophets, and therefore a great blame laid upon the people, in caſe they elect ſuch, ſo John. 10. v. 5, 8. and how doth it appear then, from what they have ſaid, that the greateſt blame is laid upon the Miniſters?
2. Where Officers are, they are to guide and direct in and about Elections, and if the people erre in chuſing for the want of their guidance, to help them to make a better choice, or if they by laying on of hands do teſtifie their approbation of a bad choice, the greateſt blame may be laid upon the Miniſters, for unworthy men coming into the Miniſtery, yet that will not prove that they have the greateſt power of admitting men into the Miniſtery: it may prove, that in ſuch caſes Miniſters are in the greateſt fault, becauſe they do not by counſels, directions, and perſwaſions, ſeek to prevent ſuch undue Elections, or becauſe they did not waſh their hands of ſuch guilt, by refuſing to ordain them; but as they may be juſtly and greatly blamed upon ſuch accounts for bad Elections, and yet the chief power of Election doth not reſide in them, ſo they may be more blamed for yielding approbation to ſuch undue Elections by ordaining, or laying hands on them (whereby they involve themſelves in their guilt, and make themſelves acceſſary to their ſin, as really as if the whole power of Election reſided in them) and yet the chiefeſt power of admitting men into the Miniſtery may not lie in the Miniſters, but in the people: and therefore in undue Ordinations the Miniſters cannot (as they would intimate) well excuſe themſelves, and ſay, that they do but give an adjunct, for by adding ſuch an adjunct, they eſpouſe the peoples ſinful act in making a corrupt choice, and ſo become as guilty, if not more guilty them the people. They have power to ſuſpend their own acting in Ordination, though they have not power (but by counſel and perſwaſion) to hinder the peoples acting in an irregular Election.
Thus much in anſwer to the Arguments alleadged for the proving that the eſſence of the Miniſterial call conſiſteth in Ordination.
If any would place the eſſence of the call partly in Election, and partly in Ordination, they muſt hold as we do, That a man is an Officer to a particular Church or Congregation onelyonly: For, ſo often as a man removeth from a particular Congregation, ſo often he loſeth Election, which (that aſſertion ſaith) is part of the eſſence of the call to office, and therefore muſt needs wholly ceaſe to be an Officer, toties quoties; for, take away any part of the eſſence of a thing, and that thing can no longer ſubſiſt. That is denyed to be of the Eſſence or being of a thing, which it can ſubſiſt or have a being without. It is a contradiction to ſay that Election is part of the Eſſence of the call to office, and yet a mans call to office can ſubſiſt without Election. It is as much as to ſay, Election is of the being of a call to office, and yet is not of the being of it, for that call can have a being without it. Therefore if Election giveth part of the Eſſence of a call to office, then ſo often as a man removeth and ſo looſeth his Election, ſo often he ceaſeth to be an officer, and ſo often as Election is iterated ſo often he is made an officer, again, and then there muſt be an iteration of Ordination alſo.
If any ſhould ſay, That Ordination giveth the Eſſence of the call to be a Miniſter, and Election giveth the Eſſence of the call to be their Miniſter; we deſire they would prove their diſtinction to be Scriptural; and then it would follow, That a man may be their Miniſter, before he be a Miniſter, for he may have Election before Ordination, Act. 6. ver. 5, 6. and alſo, then a man may be a Miniſter, an officer, and yet not be their Miniſter, or have none that he can warrantably challenge a power over as an officer, or require obedience from, towards him as an officer; for he may loſe his relation to the particular Congregation he was over, and all Congregations, either becauſe they have Paſtors of their own, or upon other accounts, may deny him leave or liberty to put forth acts of office amongſt them. It is contrary not onelyonly to thoſe rules that require duty from them as officers, Act. 20. 28. but alſo contrary to the very nature of office, which conſiſteth in a being over ſome or other; in ſuch a caſe there muſt be overſeers and yet none to be overſeen, &c. we conclude therefore that the Eſſence of the call to office doth conſiſt in election and not in Ordination.