The Preacher Sent, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Wherein is proved that Ordination doth not ſo belong to a Presbytery, but that a Church or the people may in ſome caſes lawfully act in it.
Our Brethren proceed to a Third Aſſertion, viz. That Ordination Jus Divin. Min. p. 170.of Miniſters ought to be by prayer, faſting and impoſition of hands, And their chief drift in this, is to prove, that Ordination ought to be with impoſition of hands.
And becauſe we have ſpoken briefly to that already, and ſhewed that it is like laying on of hands was, of extraordinary uſe, for the conveyance of gifts, or onelyonly an indifferent ſignificant Ceremony to declare who the party was, that was ſolemnly ordained, and ſo may without ſin be omitted, or the end of it may be attained without its uſe; by ſome other ſign it may be declared who the perſon is; alſo becauſe themſelves do not aſſert it to be any more then an inſeparable Adjunct to Ordination, therefore we ſhall not ſpend time about this, onelyonly take a Rule, which may ſerve as part of an anſwer to moſt, if not all their Arguments for impoſition of hands. viz. That it is uſual in Scripture to expreſſe things, by that which is neither neceſſary nor of conſtant uſe about them, So [Chain] is put for bondage and ſuffering, Act. 28. 20. I am bound with this chain, Jud. ver. 6. [Key] is put for power, authority, Government, Iſai. 22 ver. 21, 22. [Rod] is put for correction, 1 Cor. 4. 21. Prov. 13. 24. [The croſſe] is put for ſuffering and perſecution, Mat. 16. 24. A chain is not neceſſarily or conſtantly uſed in bondage; nor a key, in the exerciſe of power or Government, nor a rod in correction, nor a croſſe in perſecution, yet becauſe ſometimes ſuch inſtruments were uſed in ſuch caſes, therefore the Holy-Ghoſt expreſſeth thoſe things by them: So, though impoſition of hands be neither of neceſſary, nor of conſtant uſe about Ordination, yet the whole of Ordination may be expreſſed by it, hence, Pauls forbidding Timothy to lay hands ſuddenly, doth not imply that it was his duty to lay on hands, or that he muſt neceſſarily and conſtantly uſe that ceremony, but that it was duty to ordain men, which they aſſert to be the thing notified by laying n of hands, which anſwers their ſecond Argument; ſo the whole work of Ordination may be comprehended under the ceremony of impoſition of hands, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and yet it may not be of neceſſary and conſtant uſe about it, any more then in the former inſtances, the putting a chain for bondage, and key for the whole of Government, and rod for all correction, and croſſe for all afflictions, &c. will imply that they neceſſarily and conſtantly belong to them, which anſwers their third and fourth Arguments. It is ſufficient that impoſition of hands was ſometimes uſed about Ordination to render the whole of it expreſſed thereby; but it doth not prove the conſtant uſe of the ceremony to be neceſſary, but only of Ordination, which is the thing ſignified by that ceremony.
We proceed to their fourth Aſſertion. viz.
That Ordination of Miniſters ought to be by the laying on of the hands of Jus Divin. Min. p. 181.the Presbytery.
After a brief explication of the word Presbytery, &c. they come to that which (as they tell us) they eſpecially aim at in this fourth Aſſertion, and they give it under this following Propoſition.
Propoſ. That Ordination of Miniſters doth belong to Church officers, and not to a Church without officers. And that Ordination by people without Miniſters is a perverting of the Ordinance, and of no more force then baptiſme by a midwife, or conſecration of the Lords Supper by a perſon out of the office.
We ſhall give ſome Arguments to prove the lawfulneſs and validity of the peoples Ordination, and then anſwer their arguments againſt it.
Our Propoſition is this,
Pro. That in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it, ſome believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without officers. We ſay [in a Church that hath no officers] for if a Church hath officers in it, they may go before the Church in Ordination, as well as in Praying on other occaſions and Preaching, &c. that onelyonly officers muſt act in it in ſuch a caſe is not clear to us, as ſuppoſe a Church hath but two officers in it, we do not ſee any neceſſity that the whole work of the day muſt lie upon them onelyonly, but [ſome believers] i. e. ſuch as have moſt of the ſpirit of Prayer, being deſired, may lend aſſiſtance; but whether that may be or not, it is ſufficient to our preſent purpoſe, and to any caſe that neceſſarily falleth out, in the congregational way, if it can be proved, that when a Church hath no officers of its own then ſome believers being deputed or choſen thereunto by the Church may ordain, without the neceſſary concurrence of any officers.
And we ſay ſome believers [may] ordain without officers, not [muſt] for we do not reckon Ordination an act of Government, and therefore Churches may (for ought we yet ſee) hold communion each with other in it, as well as in ſolemn prayer upon upon any other occaſion, and ſo officers of other Churches may act in it, yet not qua officers, but qua gifted, and men gifted may without any officers, ordain; for it is a matter wherein the Church hath its liberty who it will depute thereunto, when it wanteth officers, and it is not neceſſarily confined to officers, as if none elſe might act in it, If a Church hath officers, the Law of their relation to the Church putteth them under obligations to go before the Church in Ordination, as well as in other duties as Preaching, adminiſtring of the Sacraments, &c. and therefore where officers are in a Church, they act as officers in Ordination as well as they do in prayer upon other ſolemn occaſions, wherein undoubtedly other Chriſtians eminently giſted may act in Prayer, yet do it not as officers.
This is our ſenſe of the queſtion, yet becauſe our brethren do account Ordination to be an act of Government, yea an eminent act of juriſdiction, therefore if in ſome of our Arguments may ſeem to ſpeak of Ordination as an act of Government, & of officers as officers, yet we do not grant it, but rather prove our ſenſe of it, by denying it in that ſenſe which they plead for it in.
This being premiſed we proceed to our Arguments.
Argu. 1. Whatſoever would neceſſarily and unavoidably infer Ordination to be unattainable, that is contrary to ſound doctrine, and is not to be aſſerted. But that ſome believers may not lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers in a Church that hath no officers in it, that would neceſſarily and unavoidably infer Ordination to be unattainable. Ergo, That ſome believers may not lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers, in a Church that hath no officers in it, is contrary to ſound Doctrine, and is not to be aſſerted.
The major none can deny who plead for Ordination as an ordinance of Chriſt ſtill continuing; for if it be of Chriſts appointment doubtleſs he hath provided a way wherein it is attainable.
The Minor we prove thus;
Becauſe there are no officers on earth authorized or appointed by Chriſt to ordain (in caſe a Church hath no officers in it) any more then believers without officers, and therefore if believers without officers may not ordain, then no more may any officers (for one is as much warranted as the other) and ſo Ordination is unattainable.
That no officers on earth are authorized or appointed by Chriſt to ordain in ſuch a caſe, any more then believers without officers we prove, becauſe ſuch officers muſt be authorized or appointed by Chriſt to ordain either by general Goſpel rules which ſpeak nothing of Ordination it ſelf, but onelyonly of ſuch acts as it conſiſteth of, and who may perform theſe, and thoſe general rules will warrant believers and authorize them to ordain as much as officers, for believers may uſe Prayer upon ſpecial occaſions without officers, and are as well allowed to exerciſe themſelves thereunto as any officers. Or elſe ſuch officers muſt be warranted to ordain in ſuch caſes by the ſpecial Rules and examples which are left in the Goſpel about Ordination, and theſe do not limit Ordination to officers (in caſe a Church hath no officers in it) nor warrant them to ordain any more then believers without officers; For, either they were extraordinary officers to whom the Rules were given about Ordination, and who acted therein, and ſo thoſe Churches where they ordained, were not without officers, for they were officers in all Churches where they came. Or elſe they had an extraordinary call to ordain, and ſo they will not warrant any ordinary officers without an extraordinary call to ordain, any more then believers without officers.
There is not one precept for, nor Preſident or example of any ordinary officers acting in Ordination (out of the particular Church he is over) upon any ordinary call in any one Text: that Ordination is ſpoken of, as will be evident by examining the ſeveral places that ſpeak about it.
In Act. 6. 2, 3, 5, 6. Either the twelve Apoſtles alone (who were extraordinary Officers) were the perſons ordaining; or the Apoſtles and the Diſciples together, v. 3. whom we may appoint; [we] i. e. as ſome think you and we, as [we] doth often include the perſons ſpoken to, as well as the perſon ſpeaking, as Eph. 2. 5. When [we] i. e. you and we were dead in ſins, v. 10. [we] i. e. you and we Apoſtles, are his workmanſhip, &c. and then it belongeth to the people to ordain: however the Apoſtles were Officers in that Church.
In Act. 13. v. 1, 2, 3. The perſons ordaining were Prophets and Teachers: if it be meant of ordinary Prophets, ſuch as 1 Cor. 14. then it proveth that ſuch as are no Officers may act with Officers in Ordination; if they were extraordinary Prophets, ſo might the Teachers be alſo, for Paul and Barnabas (who were extraordinary Officers) are reckoned up as ſome of the Prophets or Teachers that were in the Church of Antioch, v. 1. and ſeeing it cannot be proved that any of them were ordinary Teachers, and if they were, yet they were in the Church at Antioch, v. 1. hence this place doth not evidence that it belongeth to ordinary Officers to ordain in a Church that hath no Officers of its own. And our brethren themſelves tell us, that this was by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghoſt, the Holy Ghoſt ſaid, ſeparate me, &c. and v. 4. and they add further, this was an extraordinary thing, and therefore not ſufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon. So that from their own words we conclude, that the call was extraordinary, and therefore it will not warrant ſuch perſons to ordain, who have no ſuch extraordinary call thereunto.
In Act. 14. 23. Our brethren ſay, the perſons that did ordain were Paul and Barnabas, who were extraordinary Officers.
As for 1 Tim. 5. 22. The perſon ſpoken to was Timothy, who was an extraordinary officer, an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4. 5.
As for 2 Tim. 1. 6. Paul was an Apoſtle. As for Tit. 1. 5. he was an Evangeliſt alſo, (as our brethren grant) becauſe he was ſent from place to place, 2 Cor. 8. 6. 16, 23. 2 Tim. 4. 10. and was to ordain as Paul appointed him. As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we ſee nothing from the word to convince us that any one in that Preſbytery, was an ordinary officer, and though it be uſually taken for granted that it was an ordinary Presbytery, yet we much queſtion it, and whereas it is often urged to ſhew a neceſſity of an ordinarie Preſbytery in theſe dayes for the mannaging of Churchaffairs, and ſome are ready to ſay that an ordinance of Chriſt is wanting in many Churches becauſe there is but one Presbyter, no Presbytery; to all ſuch plea's we ſay, it is a mercy the Lord hath afforded a Presbytery or diverſe Presbyters to ſome Churches; but ſuppoſe a Church, as Corinth, Epheſus, &c. had fix or eight Presbyters, theſe it will eaſily be granted did make a ſufficient Presbytery to act in Church-affairs, but if the Lord added ſix or eight Presbyters more to the former number, it was a mercy, yet no ordinance of Chriſt was wanting when they were but ſix or eight in all; nor no new power was given by ſuch an addition as made the number twelve or ſixteen, but onelyonly more perſons were afforded for aſſiſtance in the uſe of that power which before fewer had. So if there be put one elder in a Church, the Presbyterial power reſideth in him, and ſo no ordinance of Chriſt is wanting then, and if the Lord addeth more Presbyters that there be a Presbytery in a Church, no new power is given by ſuch an addition, for if theſe act in a united way as a Presbytery, they are but Presbyterial acts which are put forth, and ſo they are if a ſingle Presbyter putteth forth the ſame acts, and therefore here is the onelyonly difference that we can find; where there is a Presbytery, more perſons uſe that power which one alone may uſe; And as one that laid hands on Timothy (and ſo joyned with other Presbyters in the very ſame act that this Presbytery is ſaid to perform,) was an extraordinary officer, viz. Paul, 2▪ Tim. 1. 6. So might all the reſt in the Presbytery be, as well as one. It might conſiſt onelyonly of extraordinary officers and yet aptly be called a Presbytery, for they were Presbyters. If the Apoſtles onelyonly ordained Deacons, Act. 6. yet they might be called a Presbytery or elſe that will evidence that it doth not belong to a Presbytery onelyonly to ordain: and why may not that be called a Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. though it conſiſted onelyonly of extraordinary officers, as well as that company, Act. 6. And the word Presbytery being no where elſe found but in this place in the new Teſtament where it can be ſuppoſed to intend any Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly of Chriſts appointment, and fairly admitting of ſuch an interpretation in this place, hence our brethren are wholly at a loſſe for a Rule for their Presbyteries.
However our brethren ſay, that thoſe words by prophecie, do ſignifie the Jus Divin. Min. p. 167.moving cauſe and that which encouraged Paul with the Presbytery to lay hands on Timothy; and if ſo, then whether the Presbyters were ordinary or not, the call to lay on hands (being by propheſie) was extraordinary, and thereſore not ſufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon.
And thus it may be ſeen that none of the ſpecial rules laid down in Scripture about Ordination do either limit and reſtrain it unto ordinary officers (when a Church wanteth officers) or warrant them to be the perſons that ought then to ordain, any more then believers who are no officers. Indeed, although thoſe ſpecial rules do prove that Ordination is an ordinance of Chriſt ſtill continuing, & therefore that ſome perſons are to ordain, yet we cannot find that they hold out at all who ought to be the perſons ordaining, for in theſe dayes there are no ſuch extraordinary officers, none that have ſuch an extraordinary call to ordain, as theſe had, and therefore unleſſe we look to general rules (which will warrant believers doing it as well as officers) there are none on earth that can claim a power to ordain, and ſo Ordination will be altogether unattainable.
Object. But they might act as ordinary officers although they were extraordinary officers, all their acts did not pertake of the extraordinarineſſe of their call, and ſo their acting may warrant ordinary officers in Ordaining.
Anſ. 1. That the act of Ordination was ordinary we grant, but that the perſons, in ordaining acted as ordinary officers onelyonly, this we deny: their acting about Ordination was in part extraordinary as the immediateneſs of the call and the nature of the directions, do evidence, 2 Tim. 4. ver. 5. Do the work of an Evangeliſt, Tit. 1. 5. and ordain elders in every City as I have appointed thee. In obeying ſuch exhortations they cannot be deemed to act as ordinary officers, for to do the work of an Evangeliſt, and to ordain in every city, and by the appointment of an Apoſtle, is that which belongeth not to ordinary officers: they are not Evangeliſts, and are fixed in their particular Congregations, and therefore cannot be required to do the work of ſuch an office as they have not, or to travel from place to place as Titus was; which maketh it evident that there was ſomething extraordinary in their acting in Ordination.
2. If they acted as ordinary officers, yet that will not warrant officers ordaining, in caſe a Church hath no Officers, as will appear by our ſecond Argument.
Arg. 2. In a Church which hath no Officer or Officers in it, either ſome believers may lawfully and warrantably ordain without Officers, or elſe ſome believers and Officers of other Churches or elſe Officers of other Churches onelyonly, without other believers, muſt be the perſons appointed by Chriſt to ordain, or elſe in ſuch a caſe, there is no way laid out by Chriſt for the attaining of Ordination.
The laſt we ſuppoſe none that plead for Ordination will aſſert, nor any that argue againſt believers ordaining, for, if Chriſt hath laid out no way in ſuch a caſe to attain Ordination, then either ſuch Churches as are without Officers, muſt for ever be without them, or elſe ſome perſons muſt ordain, who are not appointed by Chriſt to do it, and then ſurely believers may do it as well as any other.
If ſome Officers of other Churches, and ſome believers be appointed by Chriſt to ordain, then it doth not belong onelyonly to a Presbytery to ordain; for, believers who are no Officers (according to this grant) may act in it; then it belongeth to believers, and is not peculiar to Church Officers to ordain; and then why are the people cryed out againſt ſo much for ordaining? or why may not Officers be blamed as well for ordaining without the people, as the people for ordaining without Officers? But we ſuppoſe they will aſſert the other, viz. That Officers of other Churches onelyonly, without believers, muſt be the perſons appointed by Chriſt to ordain, and let them prove it.
When we ſay [without believers] we mean without their concurrence in a way of acting, for our brethren will grant their concurrence by way of preſence; they will give liberty to believers to be preſent when they ordain, but not to act in Ordination.
Our Brethren who ſay, Ordination by people without Miniſters, is a perverting of the Ordinance, &c. let them prove, that it belongeth to Officers of other Churches to ordain, or that Chriſt hath appointed Officers to ordain who are without that Church, to which a perſon is ordained an Officer, or elſe their Ordination by a Presbytery of Officers of other Churches, is as much a perverting of the Ordinance, and of no more force (to uſe their own words) then baptiſm by a Midwife, &c. for what can hinder the peoples Ordination from being lawful, and of validity, but their wanting a Commiſſion from Chriſt, or a Goſpel Rule to warrant their acting in Ordination? And the Officers of other Churches are as much without a Commiſſion from Chriſt, or a Goſpel rule to warrant their becoming a Presbytery, and acting as a Presbytery in ordaining Officers to Churches that have no Officers, as the people can be.
We have under the former Argument found, that all the Texts which ſpeak about Ordination, they intimate either the officers that acted in it, or the call to be extraordinary. Neither is there any one inſtance, that doth certainly prove any ordinary Officers acting in Ordination in all the New Teſtament, much leſs is there any colour for either one precept or preſident, to warrant a Presbytery of officers of divers Churches to be of Chriſts Inſtitution, or to have any allowance from him to act in Ordination. We cannot but wonder that ſome ſhould go about to aſſert, that acts ought to be performed by a Presbytery, without giving proof that ſuch a Presbytery conſiſting of the Officers of divers Churches is of a Goſpel ſtamp. Surely it ſhould be proved to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, before it be aſſerted what it ought to do.
As for Act. 6. Act. 13. Act. 14. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. either they acted as Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, whoſe Commiſſion reached to all Churches, or as Officers in thoſe Churches where they ordained men, and their general Commiſſion made them Officers in and to all Churches where they became, and therefore whatever Churches they acted in, they acted not barely as Officers, as Miniſters, but as their Officers, as their Miniſters, for Paul ſaith, that he had the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11. 28. and therefore theſe examples will not warrant Officers of divers Churches to ordain Officers unto Churches that have no officers.
Becauſe the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts ordained in Churches they were officers to, Ergo, ordinary officers may ordain in Churches which they are no officers to, ſurely the inconſequence will be evident.
As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is probable it was a Presbytery of extraordinary officers, however that it was a Presbytery which conſiſted of ordinary officers of divers congregations, there is not a ſyllable in the Text that way.
1. The Scriptures hold forth neither precept nor preſident for the neceſſary ſubordination of any Church of Chriſt, to any ſociety of men without it ſelf, for any acts of Church-government, as this is by our brethren ſuppoſed to be; it is ordinary for Churches to be without any officers, either by the death or removal, &c. of thoſe that were ſeated in them, and if they cannot attain officers without ſome officers of other Churches put forth acts of Government and juriſdiction to make officers for them, that will imply a neceſſary ſubordination of Churches to other ſocieties without them, which is no where warranted by the Word.
2. There is no Goſpel Rule to warrant any ordinary officers in putting forth any acts of Government, or any Presbyterial acts properly ſo called, towards any perſons without thoſe particular congregations where they are fixed as officers: let our brethren produce any ſuch Goſpel rule to juſtifie their acting (both for matter and manner) as Presbyters, as officers towards any beyond their particular Churches, over which they are made overſeers.
They are officers whereever they act, but they do not act as Presbyters to any out of their particular congregation. If 40. or 100. Mayors, Bayliffs or Conſtables meet together, they may be called Mayors, Bayliffs, or Conſtables, but cannot act unitedly in any acts of ſuch offices; though they be officers, and have a lawful authority to act ſingly, every one within his own precincts, yet they have no power to act together as ſuch officers; all the Mayors have not power to act together as Mayors to any one Corporation, all thoſe Conſtables have not power to act together as Conſtables; ſo Miniſters have a power from Chriſt to act as officers, as Presbyters in their own congregations, but if a hundred of them meet, they have not power to act together as Presbyters, as Officers, to any one congregation. It is not not enough that they are all Officers of Chriſt to warrant their acting togethers as Officers, but they muſt be commiſſionated by Chriſt to act in combination, and together, as a Presbytery, or elſe they cannot juſtifie their actings.
There is no Scripture warrant for any other Presbytery, but that onelyonly which is within a particular congregation, and there is no rule to juſtifie a Presbytery of a particular congregation, in putting forth any acts as a Presbytery, towards any but the members of that particular congregation where they are fixed; and therefore ſome believers may as lawfully ordain, as any Presbyters in the world, for their power as Presbyters, extendeth no further then their particular Congregations, and if they do not act as Elders in ordaining, then why may not believers ordain without Officers? Divers of Mr. Collings Arguments againſt hearing of men not ordained, we may uſe here, and they will conclude much more ſtrongly againſt calling in Officers of ſeveral Churches, and their acting in combination, or together as a Presbytery in ordaining Officers for a Church which is without Officers. Such a company of Officers have no promiſe made to them in acting as a Presbytery, nor the people in calling them in for that end, and therefore they cannot pray in faith for a bleſſing upon them therein, according to his third Argument. Ordaining Officers is inſtituted worſhip, and Officers of divers Churches are are not warranted either by Scripture precept or preſident, to become a Presbytery, and as a Presbytery to ordain, and therefore by his fourth Argument, it is ſinful.
It is to run out of Gods bleſſing, for there is no promiſe made by God to it, and it is a running upon temptation, becauſe a Presbytery of Officers of divers Churches, is no ordinary means of Gods appointment, and therefore to practice that way, is ſinful and unlawful, by his ſixth Argument. It is to partake of other mens ſins, for ſuch a Presbytery is encouraged in ordaining, and ſo in ſinning (they having no warrant as a Presbytery to ordain) by mens coming to be ordained, and therefore it is ſinful by his ſeventh Argument. And thus it may be ſeen what inconveniencies the aſſerting Ordination to be an act of a Presbytery as ſuch, draweth along with it. But if Ordination be no act of Government, no act peculiar to a Presbytery as ſuch, (which as we conceive it is not) then a Presbytery may ordain where a Church hath one, and either ſome believers without Officers may ordain, or the Officers of other Churches may be called in to ordain, (not as a Presbytery, but as perſons meet and able to do ſuch acts as Ordination conſiſteth of) in caſe a Church hath no Officers.
Arg. 3. If ſome believers who are no Officers may publickly preach, then in a Church that hath no officers, they may lawfully or warranably ordain, without officers. For there is no Scripture-light to evidence that ordination is ſo great a work as preaching, or that it is more limited or reſtrained to officers then preaching is. But ſome believers (i. e. ſuch as are gifted) who are no officers may publickly preach, as we have largely proved. Ergo, ſome believers, in a Church that hath no officers, may lawfully and warrantably ordain, without officers.
Arg. 4. If ſome believers may (with Chriſts allowance) act in other ſpecial, publick, Church-works, then alſo in a Church that hath no officers, they may ordain, unleſs ſome ſpecial reaſon can be given againſt their ordaining, more then againſt their doing thoſe works; for the Scripture doth not limit and particularize all the ſervices they may act in. But ſome believers may (with Chriſts allowance) act in other ſpecial, publick, Church-works, and there can be no ſpecial reaſon given againſt their ordaining, more then againſt their doing thoſe other works. Ergo, in a Church that hath no officers they may ordain.
The Minor we prove from Act. 15. 2. They determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, ſhould go up to Jeruſalem, unto the Apoſtles and Elders about this queſtion. A Church then hath power to chuſe, call, and depute, not onelyonly officers, but others of their members to act in ſpecial, publick ſervices, as occaſion is offered, and neceſſity requireth; and this deputation was to act in a publick Aſſembly, as the chapter ſheweth; and will our brethren ſay, that thoſe may act in a Synod, who may not act in ordination? Nay, the brethren acted in that Synod, v. 22. Then it pleaſed the Apoſtles and Elders, with the whole Church, to ſend choſen men of their own company to Antioch, &c. by which it is evident, that a Church of Chriſt hath power by an occaſional choice to authorize ſome believers to act in ſpecial, publick buſineſſes, appertaining to the Church; yea, the brethren acted in making the very decree it ſelf, v. 23. The Apoſtles, and Elders, and Brethren ſend greeting, &c. The decree runneth in the Brethrens name, as well as in the Officers name, as the Title ſheweth; and therefore, either our Brethren muſt ſay, that ſome believers may ordain, or elſe that men may act in making decrees in a Synod, who may not ordain, then they will make a Synod inferiour to a claſſical Presbytery. Neither is it material, that Officers acted in this Synod as well as Brethren, for Apoſtles acted in it alſo, and we may aſſert, that the Brethren of Churches may act in a Synodical way, without Elders, when they want Elders, as well as our brethren may ſay, that Elders in theſe dayes may act in a Synodical way, without Apoſtles.
Our Argument therefore may run thus.
Thoſe that may act (as our brethren phraſe it) in making decrees in a Synod, they may ordain. But ſome believers (who are no Officers) may act in making decrees in a Synod. Ergo, ſome believers (who are no Officers) may ordain.
That a Church may deſign fit perſons to perform ſome ſpecial ſervices, we might evidence, alſo from 2 Cor. 8. v. 18, 19. Who was alſo choſen of the Churches, v. 23. They are the Meſſengers of the Churches, &c. Let any ſhew any ſpecial reaſon, why the Churches may not chuſe and depute fit perſons to ordain, as well as to perform other ſpecial and publick ſervices, when occaſion is offered.
Arg. 5. Thoſe that give the eſſence of the call to office, may alſo give the adjunct. But ſome believers without Officers, do give the eſſence of the call to Office; Ergo, ſome believers may give the Adjunct.
The Major our brethren grant, theſe are their own words; If Election give the eſſence to a Miniſter, and Ordination onelyonly Jus Divin. Min. p. 188.an Adjunct, we ſee no reaſon why they that give the eſſence, ſhould not alſo give the Adjunct. It is in the Lords power to limit an Adjunct, more then that which is eſſential; but let any prove that in this caſe any ſuch limitation is given; if not, then they that may do the greater act, may do the leſſer, when it is about the ſame matter, and for the ſame general end; otherwiſe the diſability to do the leſſer, might render the greater act in a great meaſure fruſtraneous as to its end.
The Minor we have proved before, in ſhowing that Election is that which giveth the eſſence to the outward call to office, and that Election belongeth to a Church: and if Election giveth the eſſence, then Ordination muſt needs be but an Adjunct to that call.
Obj. As to what is objected, that if this Argument be valid, it would follow, that people might ordain their own Miniſters, not onelyonly when they want Elders, but when they have Elders.
Anſ. 1. This doth not deny the Argument, but ſtrengthen it; if our brethren will grant that, it is more then we ask of them; if the Argument will infer more then we produce it for, that doth not hinder the validity of it, unleſs it can be proved that it croſſeth ſome Goſpel Rule therein.
2. We deny that ſuch a conſequence is neceſſary; for, ſuch a duty is to be performed by the meeteſt and ableſt perſons in a Church, becauſe that tendeth moſt to edification, and it is ſuppoſed, that where a Church hath Officers, they are meeteſt and ableſt to go before the Church in prayer, and therefore they cannot be excuſed, though we know not, but if that they want help, they may be aſſiſted by the ableſt members. Alſo, where a Church hath officers, they are choſen purpoſely to take the charge of the weighty concernments of the Church, and to be chiefly active therein for the good of the Church, and therefore by their place, they are obliged to go before it in all its affairs, which are not by ſome ſpecial word of inſtitution limited unto others.
And even in family-relation, a woman being without a husband, or in his abſence, may go before the houſhold in prayer and other family duties, which having a husband, it belongeth to his place to perform, when ſhe hath his preſence.
Arg. 6. If Ordination conſiſteth in, or be made up of ſuch acts onelyonly, as believers may undoubtedly perform, and theſe acts be not limited in their uſe upon this occaſion, to officers onelyonly, then in a Church which hath no Officers, ſome believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without Officers. But Ordination conſiſteth in, or is made up of ſuch acts onelyonly, as believers may undoubtedly perform, and theſe acts are not limited in their uſe upon this occaſion to officers onelyonly. Ergo, In a Church which hath no Officers, ſome believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without Officers.
The Major is undeniable, if believers may perform all the acts that are uſed about Ordination upon other occaſions, none can with any ſhadow of reaſon confine thoſe acts here onelyonly to Officers, unleſs they be limited to them on this occaſion, as they are not upon other occaſions.
The firſt part of the Minor we ſhall prove, by conſidering all the requiſites unto Ordination. There are but three things on the part of the perſon ordaining that can be proved to have been belonging to it. 1. Faſting. 2. Prayer. 3. Impoſition of hands. And we ſuppoſe the ſecond, viz. Prayer, is that which it doth conſiſt in, and is made up of, ſo far as any man doth act in it, yet we ſhall ſpeak to all.
1. That ſome believers may faſt upon ſolemn occaſions, cannot be denyed, Mat. 6. v. 16, 17, 18. 1 Cor. 7. 5. Nay that they may faſt upon this very occaſion of Ordaining officers, will (we ſuppoſe) readily be granted, and may probably be gathered from, Act. 14. 23. Faſting then belongeth to believers and not to officers onelyonly.
2. That prayer is a duty which believers may yea ought dayly to perform, is undenyable alſo; Mat. 6. ver. 6. 9. Jam. 5. 13. 1 Theſ. 5. 17. And that they may and ought to pray for officers is evident alſo, 1 Theſ. 5. ver. 25. Brethren pray for us. The Apoſtles called upon the believing Theſſ alonians to pray for them, pray [for us;] 2 Theſ. 3 ver. 1. Finally brethren pray for us, &c. This Epiſtle is directed to the Church, Ch. 1. 1. and here the brethren are called upon to pray for officers, yea for extraordinary officers, pray [for us;] and what ſhould be the end of their Praying? or what ſhould they pray for? [that the word of the Lord may have free courſe, and be glorified. Surely this is the main the chief thing prayed for, in the Ordination of Preaching officers, that the Lord would make them very proſperous in the work they are called to, that the word diſpenſed by them may have free paſſage. Let any prove any greater end of prayer in Ordination then this is. And if believers may pray for the ſame end that men do in ordaining officers, what ſubſtantial difference is there between this and acting in Ordination? indeed this is a dayly work, and that a ſolemn ſet day for the ſame work; that uſhereth them into the work of their office; this is conſtantly to be performed whileſt they are in their work; but why believers may not act in prayer for their officers upon a ſolomn ſet day, as well as they may every day pray for them, for the very ſame ends that ſuch a ſet day is intended for, we find not.
And by this we ſee cauſe to think that the Apoſtles had no ſuch low eſteem or account of the prayers of the people, as ſome have, Heb. 13. ver. 18. Pray for us; hence one well obſerveth that the greateſt Apoſtle hath need of the prayers of the meaneſt Chriſtian, and may be helped thereby, Act. 12. ver. 5. Peter therefore was kept in priſon, but prayer was made without ceaſing of the Church, unto God for him, ver. 12. many were gathered together praying. Not the officers onelyonly, but the Church prayed; and not diſtributively, but collectively, many prayed together; here is publike prayer by the Church for an officer under perſecution, and why may not believers as well pray together for an officer at his Admiſſion into his work? By this it appeareth that the people may perform the ſubſtantial act of Ordination. viz. Prayer, and that for the very ſame end that it ſerveth to in Ordination.
3. That impoſition of hands (if ſtill continuing) may be uſed by believers; we might wave this, becauſe it is ſo queſtionable whether by the will of Chriſt it be ſtill to continue or not? but if it be of uſe about Ordination, then believers may lay on hands alſo. This appeareth
1. Becauſe impoſition of hands at the utmoſt can be but an Adjunct to Ordination; our brethren in their Arguments for it, yet do not aſſert it to be any more then an Adjunct, neither is there any Scripture evidence that it was any more, in the Primitive times. And therefore, the people may lay on hands, for our brethren tell us, that they ſee no reaſon, why they that give the Eſſence, ſhould not alſo give the Adjunct. The people (as we have proved) may give the Eſſence of Ordination, viz. Prayer, Ergo, They may give the Adjunct, viz. Impoſition of hands.
2. Becauſe the people did with Gods allowance lay on hands in old Teſtament dayes, Num 8. ver. 10. And thou ſhalt bring the Levites, before the Lord, and the children of Iſrael ſhall put their hands upon the Levites.
This Argument will be of the more weight becauſe, as our brethren aſſert, impoſition of hands is not a proper Goſpel duty, never uſed but in the new Teſtament, but is a Rite and ceremony borrowed from the old Teſtament, &c. from hence we infer, that we have more reaſon in this then in other matters to look to the old Teſtament for a warrant about the uſe of it, eſpecially in a caſe where the new Teſtament doth not clearly direct us, (as muſt needs be the caſe when a Church wanteth officers) becauſe it was borrowed from the old Teſtament; neither can a National Church or other old Teſtament orders be inferred from our uſing this Argument, becauſe it cannot be proved that National Churches, &c. are by Chriſt made Goſpel inſtitutions, as impoſition of hands is, if it be continuing. Saith Maſter M…ther, An example in the old Testament of a Mr. Mather of the power of Synods, p. 95.practice not aboliſhed in the new as Ceremonial, typical, or of ſome peculiar reaſon ſpecially concerning thoſe time, and …, but of moral equity and reaſon▪ ſuch an example we think a ſufficient warrant unto us for the like practice upon the like occaſion in theſe dayes, &c.
And they that were appointed to ſay hands on the Levites were the children of Iſrael, as the Text expreſſely ſaith, And as Maſter Mather alſo obſerveth this term is uſed in the ninth verſe immediately preceding; and in the eleventh verſe immediately following, and fifteen or ſixteen ſeveral times in this Chapter, Num 8. and yet of all theſe not ſo much as one, where it can be underſtood of the elders and officers as ſuch, but is uſed to ſignifie all the Congregation as he rightly thinketh. The people might lay hands on officers in old Teſtament dayes, from whence the Rite is borrowed, Ergo, The people may lay hands on officers in new Teſtament dayes (if the Rite be ſtill of uſe) in caſe a Church hath no officers in it.
Our Brethren object ſeveral things againſt this, which we ſhall briefly anſwer.
Objeb. 1. Here Aaron and his ſons were preſent, and if it proves any thing, it proves that the people may Ordain, where there are elders.
Anſw. If it will prove that the people may impoſe hands when elders are preſent, then much more when they are wanting. This is not againſt our aſſertion, but more for it, and much againſt our brethrens principles.
Object. 2. The children of Iſrael were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites. But in the new Teſtament we meet with no ſuch command laid upon the people. We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery are to lay on bands, but not a word of command for the people.
Anſw. 1. The command was immediate to Moſes, but not immediate to the children of Iſrael, Num. 8. ver. 5, 6. And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes ſaying, take the Levites, &c. verſ. 10. And thou ſhalt bring the Levites before the Lord, and the children of Iſrael ſhall put their hands upon the Levites.
The command was mediate to the children of Iſrael i. e. by Moſes. Thus whoſoever the perſons be, whether officers or the people, that in new Teſtament dayes are to ordain and lay on hands, they are commanded by God to do it, as immediately as the children of Iſrael were here to lay on hands upon the Levites, for the Lord gave forth thoſe commands immediately to the Apoſtles as he did this to Moſes; and therefore this objection will as much deny that officers may ordain or impoſe hands on officers, as that the people may do it.
2. If the children of Iſrael had been commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites, yet ſeeing this was the firſt inſtitution of the Levites office, it would not deny it to be a pattern: For, the inſtitution of a new office muſt be given forth by the Lord immedediately to ſome perſons or other.
3. If impoſition of hands was uſed in old Teſtament days by the people, and in new Teſtament dayes, there can be ſhewn no repeal of that Rule by which they did it, then they may ſtill uſe it. Let any ſhew a repeal in the new Teſtament, if they can. We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery laid on hands, but at the utmoſt that can onelyonly prove an enlargement of the power, or that more perſons may do it, it doth not prove that the perſons who formerly did it, now may not do it. It can onelyonly ſhew that ſome officers may lay on hands, it doth not ſhew, that the people (who formerly might) now may not lay on hands.
Object. 3. When it is ſaid that the children of Iſrael laid on hands, it is not imaginable that all the Iſraelites did put on hands, but it was done by ſome chief of them in the name of reſt, &c.
Anſw. That is ſufficient to our purpoſe, for ſo ſome of the chief men, in a Church; ſome of the moſt eminent believers may lay hands on. Officers in the name of the reſt; we do not ſay that every member in a Church muſt lay on hands.
Obj. 4. The Levites were taken by God in ſtead of the firſt-born, as appears, Numb. 8. 16, 17. and hence it was that the children of Iſrael, that is, the firſt born of Iſrael, were to lay on hands upon them, for the Levites gave an atonement for them, and were offered up to the Lord in their ſtead, and as the Rabbins ſay, every firſt born laid on hands on the Levite that was for him; which if it be ſo, will afford us two other anſwers to this Text.
1. The children of Iſrael had not onelyonly a ſpecial command, but a ſpecial reaſon alſo for what they did. And wherefore this example cannot be made a pattern for New Testament practice.
2. That this laying on of hands upon the Levites, was not for them to ſet them apart for the ſervice of the Lord, but rather a ſetting them apart for a ſacrifice unto the Lord. It was the command of God that the children of Iſrael muſt put their hands upon the ſacrifices they did offer unto the Lord, &c.
Anſw. 1. That the firſt-born onelyonly, did lay hands on the Levites, is not proved. It is true, they were taken inſtead of the firſt-born, but it was the Lords command that warranted the perſons to lay hands on the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. and that runs in general to the children of Iſrael, and therefore did not authorize the firſt-born, more then any other perſons to do it. Hence,
2. If the firſt-born did lay hands on the Levites, it was not by vertue of any office, but in the name, and by the appointment of the children of Iſrael, for the command did run to them in general.
3. If the children of Iſrael had laid their hands upon the Levites, upon the account of that command of God, which required their putting hands upon the ſacrifices they did offer, then every man of them muſt have laid hands on them, for ſo that command injoyneth, Levit. 1. v. 2. When any man of you ſhall offer, &c.
V. 4. [He] ſhall lay his hand upon the head of the burntoffering, &c. Not a ſubſtitute, not another for him, but [he] every one to whom the offering belonged, ought to impoſe hands upon it himſelf: and this would overthrow their third objection, which ſaith, It is not imaginable that all the Iſraelites did put on hands, &c. and alſo this denyeth that it was onelyonly the firſt-born that did impoſe hands, and ſo deſtroyeth a great part of this fourth objection.
4. It is not proved that this laying on of hands upon the Levites was a ſetting them apart for a ſacrifice unto the Lord, and therefore the objection is altogether groundleſs: we do not read that hands were to be impoſed on all ſacrifices or offerings, no not on the firſt-born, in whoſe ſtead the L…vites were taken; neither do we remember that the people were to impoſe hands on any but the burnt-offering, Levit. 1. v. 4. He ſhall put his hand upon the head of [the burnt offering] and it ſhall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him; other Sacrifices Aaron and his Sonnes, or the Elders, &c. impoſed hands on, when that ceremony was uſed about them at all. And that the Levites were not ſuch a ſacrifice, the very name [burnt offering] will truly evidence.
Nay, it is plain, that the end of their offering before the Lord was, that they might execute their office, Numb. 8. v. 11. And Aaron ſhall offer the Levites before the Lord, for an offering (not of the firſt-born onelyonly, as our brethren would have it, but) of the children of Iſrael, (not as their propitiation and atonement, or as a ſacrifice, but) that they may execute the ſervice of the Lord; ſo v. 15, 16. They were indeed to make atonement for the children of Iſrael, but not by offering ſacrifices for the peoples ſins (for that was done by the Prieſts onelyonly), nor by being a ſacrifice to make atonement for them, (becauſe no ſuch end of Aarons offering them up is proved, and another end is mentioned, v. 13, 14, 15, 16, 21.) but by their other ſervice in the Text, and this the words following do confirm, [That there be no plague among the children of Iſrael, when the children of Iſrael come nigh unto the Sanctuary]. Their making atonement was after they were offered, not by being offered for an offering unto the Lord; And by many verſes it is plain, that their ſetting apart was for the ſervice of the Lord, v. 11, 15, 19, 21, 22. and therefore the objection vaniſheth.
Our brethren obſerve, That notwithſtanding this impoſition of hands, the Levites were not thereupon inveſted into their office, it was Aarons waving of the Levites, and ſeparating them from among the children of Iſrael, that did conſtitute and make them Church-officers.
If this be fully granted, nothing is gained againſt us, for we are far from thinking that Ordination doth conſtitute or make Church officers, much leſs do we imagine that impoſition of hands doth it. But from hence we gather thus much, That it was not the intendment of impoſition of hands, in Old Teſtament dayes to confer an office; and therefore ſeeing the ceremony was borrowed thence, it is very unlikely that in New Teſtament dayes it ſhould be intended for ſuch an end.
And thus we have proved the firſt part of the Minor of our ſixth Argument, viz. That believers may undoubtedly perform all the acts which Ordination (ſo far as any man acteth in it) doth confiſt in, or is made up of.
The ſecond part of the Minor, viz. That theſe acts are not limited in their uſe upon the occaſion of Ordination, to Officers onelyonly; we prove thus, becauſe none of the Texts which ſpeak of Ordination do limit it to Officers onelyonly, let our brethren prove any ſuch limitation, and unleſſe they can do that (which we ſuppoſe they never can) it will neceſſarily follow, That in a Church which hath no Officers, ſome believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain, without Officers. If they may perform the ſame acts upon other occaſions, and they be not limited and confined to Officers upon this occaſion, then they may perform them here alſo. And for the clearing of this, that there is no ſuch limitation, we ſhall examine briefly our brethrens Arguments againſt Ordination by the people, without Miniſters.
They tell us, That they might argue from what is recorded by Jewiſh Jus Divin. Min. p. 184.Writers, concerning the cuſtom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin; and they tell us, That when a Succeſſor was to be provided for Moſes, God commands him to take Joſhua, and lay his hands upon him, &c. and accordingly it was done, Numb. 27. 18. And ſo for thoſe ſeventy Elders, it is certain from the Jewiſh Writers, that the ſucceſſion of theſe was continued through all ages, by their creating others in the place of thoſe that died, by this ceremony of impoſition of hands, &c.
To all which we anſwer,
1. That theſe things (except that of Moſes) are not recorded in Scripture (as themſelves confeſs) and therefore are no cogent Arguments to evince the neceſſity of ſuch a ſucceſſion.
2. The uſe and end of Impoſition of hands by Moſes on Joſhua, was, the conferring of gifts, Deut. 34. 9. And Joſhua the S…n of Nun, was full of the Spirit of wiſdom, [for] Moſes had laid his hands upon him, &c.
3. We may far better argue for the peoples impoſing hands on Officers, from their laying hands on the Levites, then they can for Officers doing it, from Jewiſh Writers.
4. If ſuch a line of ſucceſſion be neceſſary, how can any in theſe dayes prove their own ſtanding to be legitimate, for we are perſwaded they cannot evidence that this line of ſucceſſion hath holden all along from the Apoſtles dayes, until themſelves were ordained; and if it were ever broken, they are as ill as ordained by the people, for then ſome unordained perſons did ordain thoſe that derived Ordination to them. But they wave this way of arguing, and would fetch four Arguments from Scripture againſt the peoples ordaining, without officers.
Obj. 1. From the conſtant practice of the Church of Chriſt, as it is ſet down in Jus Divin. Min. p. 185.the Apoſtolical Writings. We challenge any man to ſhew any one Text in all the New Teſtament for the juſtification of popular Ordination. We read of Ordination by Apoſtles, Act. 6. Act. 14. and by Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13. and by Evangeliſts, Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. 22. and by a Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. but for Ordination by the people, we meet not at all with it; may we not ſay to ſuch Churches that uſurp upon this work, as it is ſaid, Mat. 21. 23. By what authority do you theſe things? and who gave you this authority?
Anſw. 1. There is not one example amongſt all theſe alleadged, which proveth that ordinary Officers ordained ordinary Officers; If Apoſtles ordained, Act. 6. Act. 14. and Evangeliſts, Tit. 1. 1 Tim 5. 22 theſe were extraordinary Officers; and ſo were ſome of thoſe Teachers, Act. 13. 1. as Barnabas and Saul, and ſo might all the reſt be; however the perſons ordained, and the call to ordain, was extraordinary, v 2 the Presbytery is not proved to conſiſt of ordinary Officers, 1 Tim. 4. 14. and however it was an Evangeliſt that hands were impoſed upon, and the call to it extraordinary (as we have ſhewed); ſo that our breathren cannot find an example of ordinary Officers ordaining ordinary O…ficers, amongſt any of theſe inſtances; and therefore they are at as great a loſs for an example of their practice, as the people are for an example of theirs in ordaining.
2. None of theſe examples do ſpeak of Ordination in a Church that is without Officers: we may grant that where a Church hath Officers, they may ordain, but the queſtion is, whether the people may not ordain without Officers, in a Church that hath no Officers in it? Not one of the Texts alleadged do give us an example of Ordination in a Church that had no Officers, no Presbytery in it. The Apoſtles were Officers in all Churches where they acted in Ordination, and ſo Evangeliſts, and ſo the perſons ordained by them, received Ordination from ſuch as were Officers in the ſame Churches where they were ordained; and it cannot be proved that the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. conſiſted of ordinary Officers of divers Churches.
We may turn our brethrens own words upon themſelves; We challange any man to ſhew any one Text in all the New Teſtament, for the juſtification of Ordination by a Presbytery conſiſting of ordinary Officers of any other Churches; beſides that, where the perſon ordained is an Officer. And may we not ſay to ſuch a Presbytery that uſurpeth upon this work, as it is ſaid, Mat. 21. 23. By what authority do you theſe things? and who gave you this authority? ſo that ſtill our brethren are at as great a loſs to warrant their practice out of the Word, as the people can be.
3. We have given divers Scriptural Arguments to prove, that in ſuch a caſe the people may ordain without Officers, and ſo we have anſwered the challenge.
4. None of theſe Texts do limit Ordination to Officers onelyonly, and therefore they ſpeak not againſt the peoples ordaining, without Officers: If ten or twenty examples could be given of Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, yea, and ordinary Officers ordaining, yet theſe could but conclude Affirmatively, that officers may ordain, they would not conclude Negatively, that none but Officers muſt ordain: as, there are many examples in the New Teſtament, which ſhew, that profeſſing believers and repenters were baptized, Mat. 3. 6. Acts 2. 41. Acts 8. 12, 37, 38. Act. 18. 3. but they are far from concluding, that none elſe may, for then no Infants might be baptized: So here, becauſe Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets, Teachers, and a Presbytery did ordain; to ſay, Ergo, none elſe may ordain, or therefore believers may not ordain without Officers, the conſequence is ſeeble.
If Apoſtolical practice be of the nature of a Goſpel injunction to us in ordinary actings, yet it muſt be affirmatively onelyonly, that ſome perſons may in ſuch caſes act in the ſame duties, but it doth not hold negatively, that no other perſon may in other caſes act therein. We may argue as ſtrongly from the Texts againſt ordinary officers ordaining in a Church that hath no officers in it, as they can againſt believers ordaining without officers, it they will conclude negatively from them as thus, we read of Ordination by Apoſtles, by Prophets and Teachers, by Evangeliſts, by a Presbytery, upon an extraordinary call, and in the Churches where they were officers; but for Ordination by ordinary officers we do not certainly read of that, and for Ordination by ordinary officers upon an ordinary call, or in Churches that had no offic…rs in them, we meet not at all with it; and therefore as well may we conclude hence that ordinary officers may not ordain in ſuch caſes, as they may that believers may not, without officers; for there is as little ſpoken of the one as of the other in thoſe Texts, and therefore they can gain nothing by this Argument.
Obj. 2. Ordination by the people is not only not written in Scripture, but it is against the Scripture. For to what end and purpoſe ſhould Jeſus Chriſt appoint officers extraordinary and ordinary, for the doing of that work, which the people themſelves may do? to what purpoſe did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain elders? why was Titus left in Crete to appoint elders in every city? might not the people ſay, what need Paul leave Titus to do that which we can do our ſelves? Fruſtra fit per plura, &c.
Anſw. 1. In this time of the firſt plantation of Goſpel Churches, extraordinary helpes were neceſſary for the giving a knowledge of that Goſpel order which Chriſt would have obſerved in his Churches; and as Phyſical rules may be known in the Theoretical part, and yet it is needful to have direction in and about the practical part; ſo when the Apoſtles had converted people to the faith, it was needful that they or Evangeliſts, &c. ſhould give them a knowledge of Church order, what Officers they ſhould have, and alſo direct them how to put in practice ſuch Goſpel Rules as are left about the attaining of Goſpel Officers, and although Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus, had not acted at all in the Ordination, yet their going from place to place had not been unneceſſary, becauſe their guidance and direction was advantageous in coming up to Goſpel order.
2. We might as well ſay, to what end and purpoſe ſhould the people ordain in thoſe dayes, when there were Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, who might (by their office) go from place to place, and ordain? many works that men lawfully may do, yet if others be put in truſt to do ſuch things, they ſay to what purpoſe ſhould we act in them, when they need no help, we will not take the works out of their hands; yet this hindreth not acting in them, when help is wanting, which is the caſe when a Church is without Officers.
3. It is not proved, that the principal or chief end, of Chriſts appointing Officers, either extraordinary or ordinary, or of Paul and Barnabas in going from place to place, or of Titus in ſtaying at Crete, was to ordain Elders; that was but a little parcel of their work, whereas our brethren ſpeak of it as if it were the chief intendment of their journeyings too and fro. And unleſs it were their main buſineſs (which cannot be proved) what colour of reaſon is there in it againſt the peoples ordaining? becauſe Paul and Barnabas went about confirming the ſouls of Saints, &c. Act. 14. 22, 23. and ordained Elders in ſome Churches in their journeyings, and becauſe Titus was left at Crete to ſet in order things wanting, Tit. 1. 5. and where they were without officers, did ordain elders, therefore it was to no end and purpoſe that they went from place to place, or that Titus ſtayed at Crete, if the people themſelves might ordain. Who will not diſcern the weakneſs of ſuch an Argument? it may eaſily be anſwered, that if they had not ordained one elder, or if the people had ordained all in their preſence, yet there were other neceſſary ends and purpoſes that they were ſent from place to place about, viz. to Preach the Goſpel and confirm the Saints, &c.
4. Chriſt hath appointed officers to do ſome works, which others may do who are no officers, & yet it was not in vain, or to no end and purpoſe that officers were appointed to do them: officers are appointed to viſit ſick, the Jam. 5. 14. Is any ſick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, &c. and yet will any ſay, to what end and purpoſe are elders appointed to viſit the ſick, if others may be called for, and may viſit them? will our brethren ſay here, fruſtra fit per plura, &c. There might be ſome officers its like in ſome of thoſe Churches where they ordained elders, and Paul and Barnabas Preached where they went, but will any ſay, to what purpoſe did they Preach, if the officers that were before in thoſe Churches did Preach? fruſtra fit per plura, &c. This Argument would be as ſtrong againſt Apoſtles and Evangeliſts Preaching, where officers were who might Preach, as againſt the peoples ordaining without officers.
The Apoſtles and other officers might be appointed to do it, and yet the people might have liberty to ordain in a Church without officers, and we can find no Scripure that this will be againſt.
Object. 3. All that is written in the Jus Divin. Min pag. 186.Epiſtles concerning the Ordainers, and the qualification of the ordained, &c. is all written in the Epiſtles unto Timothy and Titus, who were Church-officers. In the other Epiſtles which were written unto the Churches, there is no mention made of theſe things, which doth abundantly prove unto us, that the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Miniſters and not to the people.
Anſ. 1. It is uſual to direct charges unto officers, when yet the duties required are to be performed by the people, at leaſt when their concurrence with the offices is called for in coming up to the duties; ſo Rev. 2. the Epiſtles are dedicated to the Angels of thoſe Churches, and yet our brethren grant that they are to be underſtood as meant of the whole Churches, as appears, Revel. 1. 11. Revel. 2 ver. 7. 11, 17. So, although thoſe charges be directed to Timothy and Titus, yet as Maſter Hooker obſerveth, It never was intended they ſhould act them alone, &c.
Either theſe things were to be acted by Timothy and Titus with company, and then, why not by the people as well as by officers? there is as little mention made of the concurrence of officers as of the people; and if we fetch the Rule for it from other Scriptures, then the qualifications of officers, being laid down in thoſe Epiſtles, as they were before the people to regulate their Election, Acts 6. ver. 3. hence we may ſafely conclude, that the people are intended, and are to be acters in following theſe charges as well as officers.
If Timothy and Titus were to act them alone, then they are written to them as Evangeliſts, or elſe it muſt be granted that it belongeth not to a Preſbytery only to ordain; one Presbyter may do it, and if to them as Evangeliſts, then they are no Preſidents unto us.
2. All may aptly be written to Timothy and Titus, although they acted not at all in the Ordinations, becauſe they were to give directions unto others how to act in them. They might be directed to them, becauſe they were to ſee the things done, although many of them were to be done, not by themſelves, but by others hands, as Titus 1. 5. Surely Titus himſelf was not alone, nor with officers, to ſet in order all things that were wanting. If Deacons were wanting, was Titus and other officers onelyonly to act herein? ſurely, the people were to chuſe them, according to Acts 6. ver. 3, 5. and therefore the things written about, were not to be acted onelyonly by Church-officers, but ſome of them by the people, with the guidance and direction of theſe officers which they had. So 1 Tim. 2. ver. 1, 2. I exhort, that first of all, ſupplications, prayers, interceſſions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for Kings and for all that are in authority, &c. will any ſay, that onelyonly Church officers are to pray for Magiſtrates and thoſe in Authority? ſurely ſuch Subjects as are no Church-officers may pray for their Governours, as well as for other men, and yet this charge is given to Timothy, as well as that about Ordination, 1 Tim. 2 ver. 9. 11. In like manner alſo, that women adorn themſelves in modeſt apparel; let the women learn in ſilence with all ſubjection. This charge is given to Timothy alſo, as well as that about Ordination, and yet the things given in charge were to be acted by women, not by Church officers; but Timothy was to give forth directions unto women to put them in practice.
By all which it is evident, that the writing to Timothy and Titus (who were Church-officers) about Ordination, doth not prove that the work of Ordination belongeth to Miniſters, and not to the people; for in the very ſame Epiſtles, the Apoſtle writeth to Timothy and Titus about other matters, which undoubtedly were to be acted by the people, and cannot be reſtrained to Church-officers. It is alſo conſiderable, that it is ſaid, Tit. 3. v. 15. Grace be with you [all]: and therefore more then Titus or Church-Officers, even all the Saints in thoſe places where Titus was, are written to. And Tit. 2. v. 15. Theſe things ſpeak and exhort, 1 Tim. 4. v. 6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of theſe things, thou ſhalt be a good Minister of Jeſus Christ. Whence we conclude that the deſign of the Apoſtle in directing theſe Epiſtles to Timothy & Titus who were Church-Officers, rather then to Churches, was not to reſtrain the acting of thoſe matters contained in the Epiſtles unto Church-Officers, but to excite Timothy and Titus to an exhorting and putting ſuch in remembrance to whom it belonged, to do them: and what is written about Ordination, may be acted by the people, as well as other matters in the Epiſtles, and the writing of them to Timothy and Titus, will not forbid the one more then the other. If no other ſpecial reaſon can be produced out of the Epiſtles themſelves, we muſt have recourſe unto other Scriptures, to find out to whom it belongeth to ordain, and what is the uſe of theſe qualifications which are required to be in Officers, and we find that they are to regulate the peoples Election as well as Ordination, Act. 6. 3, 5. Some things are written to them as Evangeliſts, others to them either as Chriſtians or as Officers, to give directions about the acting of them, & are to be acted by Chriſtians who are no Officers; let it be proved that the rules about Ordination are to be put in practice by Officers onelyonly. They might hold forth, that ſome Officers might ordain, and yet be far from holding forth, that the people may not Ordain.
Object. 4. From the nature of Ordition. It is a poteſtative and authoritative Jus Divin. Min. p. 186.Miſſion. It is an eminent act of juriſdiction, not onelyonly confirming a Minister in that office which he had before by Election, but conveying the very office-power of preaching and administering the Sacraments. It is that which gives the eſſentials of the Miniſterial call; and therefore by the rule of the Goſpel it belongs to Officers, and not to private perſons. The Scripture doth accurately diſtinguiſh between Churchrulers, and private believers, Heb. 13. 17, 24. 1 Theſs. 5. 12. Private perſons can with no more lawfulneſs convey power to another, to adminiſter the Sacraments, then they can themſelves lawfully adminiſter the Sacraments. Church-power is firſt ſeated in Chriſt the head, and from him committed to the Apoſtles, and from them to Churchofficers. And they alone who have received it from the Apoſtles can derive and tranſmit it to the other Miniſters, &c.
Anſ. 1. We deny that Ordination is a poteſtative and authoritative miſſion. We have ſhewn that there is a vaſt difference betwen miſſion and Ordination.
2. We deny that Ordination is any act of juriſdiction at all; much leſs is it an eminent act of juriſdiction: They would prove that the people may not ordain, becauſe ordination (ſay they) is an act of juriſdiction, and that it is ſuch an act, they have not proved, and therefore the Argument falleth of it ſelf.
What they have added, is far from proving it, as appeareth by what followeth.
3. We deny that Ordination conveyeth the Officepower of preaching and adminiſtring the Sacraments, or that it giveth the eſſentials of the Miniſterial call, the grounds of this denyal we gave before.
4. If Ordination did convey office-power, or gave the eſſentials of the Miniſterial call, yet that doth not prove into be an act of juriſdiction. It is an ordinary thing for the Free-men of a Corporation to convey office, power, or to give the eſſentials of a call to office, to their Bayliffs and other Officers, and yet the Free-men are no Officers, nor cannot be ſaid to put forth an act of juriſdiction herein. And as it is without Scripture-proof, that if private perſons may convey power to others to adminiſter the Sacraments, then they may adminiſter the Sacraments themſelves, ſo it is againſt the very rules obſerved in civil ſocieties, where it is ordinary for ſuch to have a lawful power to give the eſſentials unto the call to office, who have no power to execute the places of thoſe Officers which they make, but ought to be ruled by that power ſo communicated. In civil Corporations the Officers are as clearly diſtinguiſhed from the people governed, as in Church-affairs they can be, and yet the perſons governed convey the power to the Governors, and this without any act of juriſdiction, by voluntary ſubjection; and ſo in Church-matters the people convey office-power, not by an act of juriſdiction, but by voluntary ſubjection or promiſing reverence, ſubmiſſion, and obedience in the Lord to ſuch perſons, in things wherein they act according to the Laws of their places, and the perſcriptions given unto Officers by Jeſus Chriſt.
All Church-power is firſt ſeated in Chriſt the head, and ſome was from him committed to the Apoſtles, and ſome power alſo is committed to other Church-officers, but that the derivation of it, is by Ordination, or by any act of juriſdiction, is not proved; and therefore the Argument is of no force againſt the peoples acting in Ordination. Our brethren tell us of ſome that renounce and diſclaim all Ordination from Miniſters, as unwarrantable and Antichriſtian, and take it up from the people as the onelyonly way of the Goſpel. Who theſe are of whom they ſpeak, we know not.
If ſome have renounced Ordination by Biſhops uſurping power above ordinary Elders, and others have aſſerted that the people may ordain in caſe a Church hath no Officers in it, yet they do not hereby, either renounce Ordination it ſelf, or all Ordination by Miniſters (one of which they muſt intend by the Ordinance of Chriſt, which they ſay is renounced) and hence they are far from running upon the evils which our brethren mention, or plunging themſelves into ſuch an inextricable difficulty as to renounce all the Miniſter; and Churches in the Chriſtian world, and turn Seekers; and therefore theſe objections concern not us.
And now from all the premiſes we ſhall conclude (until we receive further light) that the Scriptures do witneſs the eſſence of a call to office to conſiſt in Election, and that in ſome caſes the people may ordain their own Officers, and that ſuch as are furniſhed with preaching gifts and graces, may exerciſe them publickly without Ordination.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Martin, The Preacher Sent (1658)