had not been an Apostle But the Disciples did chuse and then God chose also And if the Lord would grant thus much to men in the case of an extraordinary Officer let men beware of abridging the people of this liberty in the case of ordinary Officers or of making such a light matter as they do of the peoples Election 2. The second Text alledged for the peoples Election is Acts 6. 3. concerning the choice of Deacons where the whole and sole power of chusing is put into the hands of the people and therefore the choice of a Minister belongs by Divine right wholly solely unto the people Against this they have two objections Object 1. The people had not the whole and the sole choice of the Deacons but were herein guided directed and limited by the holy Apostles they were limited to the number of seven and to the company out of which those seven were to be chosen and to certain qualifications which must be in these seven as we are confident that if the brethren had failed in any of these particulars the Apostles would have refused to have laid their hands upon them Ans 1. It is plain that the Apostles referred the Election wholly and solely here to the people Ast. 6. v. 2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples unto them and said v. 3. Look ye out among you seven men v. 5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen What can be more evident the whole multitude are said to chuse 2. The Apostles guiding directing and limiting the choice doth not hinder the peoples having the whole and sole power of chusing the Deacons 1. Because those directions and limitations were antecedaneous to the Election even in order of time before it and therefore had no ingrediency into the Election as any part thereof a Judge of Assize and a Jury have the whole and sole power of determining cases and yet there were Laws and Rules prescribed before-hand by which they are to walk and which they are to observe in their determinations A Corporation hath the whole and sole power to chuse its Officers Mayor Bayliffs c. and yet there are certain rules and Laws to direct and limit them therein 2. Because the same Rules directions and limitations are left in holy Writ to be observed in all Elections to whomsoever the power of chusing doth appertain and therefore if the Apostles guiding directing and limiting the choice of Deacons did hinder the peoples having it then also it doth deny any on Earth to have the whole and sole power of Election for any that are Electors are under the same obligation to walk by those rules in all substantials as much as the people then were onely they received the directions immediately from the mouth of the Apostles others in ages since receive them mediately or by the written Word And the people may have recourse to that word for them now If they will grant that all other requisites to Election belong to the major part of a particular Church besides the prescribing of Rules and limiting to qualifications in the choice it is as much as any that we know of plead for Christ who is the onely Law giver hath prescribed these in his word already to whom alone it belongeth it is a whole and sole power of Election according to those Rules of Christ that is contended for And it is observable that when the Apostle writeth to Timothy and Titus he giveth such directions and limiteth to certain qualifications in the constituting of either Elders or Deacons 1 Tim. 3. ver 2 3 c. A bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife vigilant sober c. ver 8. Likewise must the Deacons be grave not double tongued not given to much wine c. so Titus 1. vers 6 7 c. And therefore if these things were written to Timothy and Titus as Church officers as our brethren would have it then the whole and sole power of Election belongeth to no body neither to the people nor the Presbyters if a being guided directed and limited can hinder it for as the people were guided and limited 1 Act. 6. So then were the Presbyters 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Yea if those Epistles were written unto Timothy and Titus with the reference unto Ordination then this objection will prove that the whole and sole power of Ordination doth not belong to Presbyters as much as that the power of Election doth not belong to the major part of the Church for then Timothy and Titus were guided and limited about Ordination as well as the people were Acts 6. about Election 3. If the Apostles would have refused to have laid their hands upon them if the brethren had failed in any of those particulars yet at the utmost that can prove no more but this that they should have wanted Ordination it doth not at all deny that the whole and the sole power of Election belongeth to the people Election is antecedent to and compleat without Ordination and hence it is distinguished from it Act. 6. v. 5. they chose Stephen there is election v. 6. When they had prayed they laid their hands on them there is Ordination and it is distinct from and in order of time consequential to Election and therefore if the Apostles had refused to ordain them that could not have denyed the people to have the whole and sole power to Elect them But in such a case it is supposable that by the perswasion of the Apostles the people would have revoked their first and have made a second choice when they were convinced that they had failed in the former and so may Churches do now by the perswasion of others And in case the people had refused to make a new choice and the Apostles had refused to ordain those that were chosen what the event would have been as that Text doth not so it is not appertaining to the present question to determine and how such a refusal to ordain those that were not qualified according to the word doth deny the people to have the whole and sole power to Elect such as are qualified according to the Word we see not And where such a failing is if the Election be rendred frustraneous it seemeth to be the want of a due observation of Gospel rules in chusing rather then the want of Ordination that doth make it void Besides whether such an Election be not void without Ordination and whether Ordination be not frustrate without a precedent Election seeing Election is pre-required Act. 6. are things equally difficult to determine Obj. 2. But suppose that the people had the whole and sole choice of the Deacons yet it will not follow that therefore they should have the whole and sole choice of their Ministers for it is a certain rule Argumentum a minori ad majus non valet Affirmative It is no good way of arguing to say that because a man
speaketh of are called Watchmen vers 8. And the prophet himself is mentioned as one of them Rom. 10. 10. Answ 1 The prophet declareth what acceptation such should have amongst the people who brought good tidings who published peace and salvation but what mission they had whether ministerial or providential the prophet doth not there determine To use their own similitude If a private person should report a pardon to a condemned malefactor how beautiful would his feet be though the same applied under the broad-Seal by a person delegated from the Supream Magistrate differeth from that If persons had onely a providential sending yet all this might be said How beautiful are their feet when they bring good tidings of peace and salvation But we assert that the King of Saints hath commanded persons gifted to go and publish these good tidings and this may make the news double welcome 2. It is promised that their Watchmen shall lift up their voice and sing vers 8. But that all who are said to bring the good tidings vers 7. are called Watchmen vers 8. is not proved Some think that by Watchmen there are understood onely Apostles and those that were eye-witnesses of what Christ did and suffered for the redemption of sinners because it is said For they shall see eye to eye which is like that 1 Joh. 1. v. 1. Which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes and then there are more preachers spoken of ver 7. then there are ver 8. 3. If all of them be called Watchmen it is a figurative term taken from those that stand in Watch-Towers who foreseeing dangers forewarn of them and foreseeing approaching-mercies give notice of them And why gifted men may not do this we know not though Officers are put in trust in an especial manner to do it in which respect though all preachers of the Gospel be Watchmen yet the term may be appropriated to Officers in a special sense Ojb. 2. If providential sending were sufficient then women-preachers are as much sent of God yea a tyrant robber or murtherer may justifie himself in his wickedness as being sent by God providentially Answ 1. For women we have answered the Objection often 2. More then a providential sending is asserted viz. a command of Christ 3. The consequence is feeble to say If a providential sending be enough to allow a man to preach then it may justifie men in stealing murthering for preaching is a lawful work but robbing and murthering are acts in themselves sinful When by an ordering hand of providence Christians do meet together they may exhort one another and pray one with another Mal. 3. 16. Hebr. 3. 13. But it will not follow that they may rob and murther one another Obj. 3. They are called preachers or heralds the participle in the Original Rom. 10. 14. notiâ—… the Office as Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17 c. and the people are blamed for not hearing them Rom. 10. 16 21. but the not hearing of such as are not sent is no fault but a vertue Joh. 10. v. 5 8. and by this they would prove it to be an Authoritative mission not providential Answ 1. The words in the Original in those places Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. are not the same with that Rom. 10. 14. which we note lest the unlearned Reader should think those places a proof that the word used Rom. 10. 14. should necessarily connote Office whereas other words are used there and therefore they prove nothing to the case in hand 2. For the participle in the Original Rom. 10. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that doth not denote Office necessarily for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Mar. 1. 45. He went out and began to publish it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he was no Officer nor had mission to preach or publish this for Christ forbad him publishing of it vers 44. See thou say nothing to any man So Mark. 7. 36. Luk. 8. 39. Which sheweth that nothing can be concluded from the Original word to prove them to be Officers because it is applyed to such as were no Officers 3. They may be called Heralds who preach the Gospel because they usually do publish it openly as Heralds do their messages Similitudes must not be stretched beyond the scope nor be made to agree in all things Let it be proved that preachers are called Heralds to connote their being authorized to publish the Gospel 4. We apprehend that people are to be blamed for not hearing gifted men as Rom. 10. v. 16 21. If it be their duty to preach then it is a peoples sin not to hear As for Joh. 10. v. 5 8. Christ asserts himself to be the true Shepherd and the door by which men enter into life and attain salvation vers 9. I am the door by me if any man enter in he shall be saved And if he intendeth there to assert himself to be the door by which men must enter into the work of preaching or any Office in the Church gifted men enter in by the door of his command Christ saith vers 5. And a stranger will they not follow but will flee from him for they know not the voice of strangers Such as preach false doctrine or have wicked lives are not of Christs flock but are strangers and it is a vertue not to hear such And Christ saith vers 7 8. I am the door of the sheep all that ever came before me are theeves and robbers but the sheep did not hear them All that in their teaching deny Christ to be the door or who shew any other door to life and salvation besides Christ they are not to be heard Ante Christum venire non est tempore Christum praecedere sed aliam Ferus quà m Christi Doctrinam docere It may be expounded of those which teach false Doctrine and not of those which enter without sending Here is mention made of mission or of a Presbytery to give mission and therefore it doth not prove that it is a vertue not to hear such as are not sent by a presbytery Men might be blamed if it were but a providential sending as men are often for not hearing Gods voyce in other providences Amos 4. ver 6 7 8 9 10 11. And thus they may be called Heralds because they publish the Gospel openly and people may be blamed for not hearing and yet no authoritative mission from a presbytery may be intended Object 4. All that have gifts are not sent of God there are many gifted blasphemers and hereticks Answ 1. Some men ordained may and do prove such and so if Ordination were mission they might be such and yet be sent this will fall as heavy upon such a sending as upon the other 2. By turning such I suppose it will bâ—â—â—â—id ordained men lose their commission and so do gifted men forfeit their power and mission Matth. 7. 15 to
Jus Divin Min. p. 8 8. Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. and of the two the preaching of the word is the greater work this the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the Gospel The negative partiticle is here as in many other places taken for the comparative he was sent rather to preach then to baptize and by this manner of expression it appears that to preach was his more proper and especial work Answ 1. This argument is as strong against themselves as against us for they allow and frequently put men upon preaching as probationers who are not ordained yet they will not allow them a power to baptize or administer the Lords Supper so much as once until they have taken Orders as they call it or have received Ordination By which it is evident that themselves do separate between the power of preaching and of baptizing If they give liberty to preach but one Sermon before Ordination yet if they will not give liberty to baptize one person or to administer the Lords supper once then they separate those works which are joyned together in the same commission as well as we and when they answer the argument for themselves they do it for us also By the same argument and their practise we may prove that their Minor is false and may justify men out of Office in their administring the Sacraments for that we may argue thus All that may preach may baptize for there is the same commission for preaching and for baptizing Mat. 28 19 20. and preaching is the great if not the greatest work of a Minister 1 Cor. 1. 17. But according to our brethrens principles and practises some men un-ordained may preach as probationers which is the greater work Ergo some men un-ordained according to our brethrens principles and practises may baptize which is the lesser work 2. It is judged by some that Matth. 28. 19 20. is a commission given to the Apostles as officers and so belongeth onely to those that succed them in Office-power and that gifted men preach not by vertue of that but another commission as 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. 1 Cor. 14. c. And if it be taken this way then their Argument runneth thus If none may administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto then neither may any preach Office-wise or by office-Office-power but he that is lawfully called and ordained And this we may grant and yet may assert that some may preach by gift and by vertue of another commission who may have no allowance to administer the Sacraments As the seventy Disciples had power to preach Luk. 10. Yet we do not read that they had power to baptize and yet the twelve Apostles did baptize as well as preach John 4. v. 1 2. Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John though Jesus himself baptized not but his Disciples So that it is no new thing for some as Officers to preach and baptize and for others by another commission to preach only and not baptize 3. The Argument is built upon this mistake viz. That the commission whereby men are authorized and empowred to preach is holden forth Mat. 28. 19 20. Whereas this as we conceive is no Office-making commission but an enlargement of the commission of Officers It is not that which authorizeth either to preach or baptize but it is that which empowereth preachers and baptizers to put forth such acts towards such persons It was not that which made them preachers or baptizers who were spoken to but that which made the Nations the Gentiles capable of being preached to and baptized For the Apostles were long before this made Officers and were authorized both to preach and baptize See Mark 10. vers 5 6 7. These twelve Jesus sent forth vers 7. Preach saying The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand And Jesus baptized by these Disciples John 4. vers 1 2. And therefore they could not again be constituted Officers or empowered to preach or baptize they could not in propriety of speech be said to be made Officers by any new act who were Officers of the same kind before that act they could not be twice constituted unless the former constitution were lost before they received the later The Apostles received as much power by this commission or command of Christ as any of their Successors can receive by it for it is directed to them expresly Matth. 28. vers 16. Then the eleven Disciples went away into Galilee vers 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying All power is given unto me in Heaven and earth Verse 19. Go ye therefore and disciple all Nations baptizing them Yet the Apostles could not receive power to preach or baptise or become Officers by it for they had such power and were Officers before and therefore the intent of Christ herein is this That he having obtained all power to give salvation not onely to the Jews but also to the Gentiles now he would have the Nations of the Gentiles preached to and upon believing be baptized Whereas formerly he said to them Go not into the way of the Gentiles Mat. 10. vers 5. now he commandeth them to go into the way of the Gentiles This mission doth not make men lawful preachers or baptizers as we shewed formerly who had not such a power before but it warranteth lawful preachers and baptizers in their preaching to and baptizing of Gentiles It did then and doth now make Gentiles capable Objects of preaching and capable Subjects of baptism when they are made Disciples As for example Suppose the Lord should have said to preachers or Officers in New-England Go not to the Indians but go to the English and preach and baptize and after some years should have said to the same preachers or Officers Now go to the Indians and preach and baptize them this latter mission to the Indians could not rationally be deemed an Office-making act nor that which gave them power to preach or baptize because they were Officers and had such a power before neither could it be argued that all who might preach to the Indians might also baptize because both works are in the same commission but onely it might be concluded that such as had power to preach might now lawfully preach to the Indians and such as had power to baptize might now lawfully baptize Indians when converted and so is the case alledged as may be seen by comparing Mat. 10. v 5 6 7. and Mat. 28. v. 19 20. together Suppose a man were an Officer to a Church in New-England many hundreds of the Indians should be converted and added to this Church the addition of members maketh him an Officer to more then he was before but doth not make him more an Officer then he was That place is not intended to shew who have power to preach and baptize but to shew who may be preached to and baptized by those that have
to the former objection will serve here also Possibly a Presbytery may be heretical and so the Presbytery will not consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister they will not deny that an Orthodox Eldership may act in an Election because an heretical one may not and why should they deny a Church sound in the faith a power of Election because an heretical one hath it not 2. Let them prove that the Gospel owneth any Congregation as a true Church of Christ capable of having Officers set over it by a Presbytery if the Major part be heretical Are not men to be cast out of the Church for heresie did our brethren ever read of a true Church of Christ the Major part of which consisted of Heretiques if not why do they put the case 3. By the same Argument we may prove that the power of Ordination doth not belong wholly and solely to a Presbytery for the Major part of that possibly may be heretical Because an heretical Presbytery may not ordain they will not infer that therefore the whole and sole power of Ordination doth not belong to an Orthodox Presbytery and because an heretical Congregation may not Elect Pastors why would they infer that therefore the whole and sole power of Election doth not belong to the Major part of a Congregation which is sound in the faith Obj. 4. Sometimes there have been great dissentions and tumults in popular Elections even to the effusion of blood as we read in Ecclesiastical story sometimes Congregations are destitute of Ministers for many years by reason of the divisions and disagreements thereof Ans 1. In cases of want of Pastors who can shew any Scripture rule to warrant their obtruding Pastors upon a Church without Election if dissentions in Churches be sinful a Presbyteries obtrusion of Pastors upon Churches would be sinful also 2. We say with Dr. Ames We never read that dissentions and tumults did arise among those that were Orthodox in the chusing of Pastors qualified according to Christs appointment 3. If dissentions and tumults even to the effusion of blood have attended some popular Elections yet they were but accidental to them the giving the whole and sole power of Election to a Church doth not necessarily cause but only occasion such evils and so this is no argument against popular Elections Rom. 7. 8. Sin took occasion by the Commandment yet this doth not speak against urging the Commandment Christ is a stone of stumbling to some and the Gospel an occasion of tumults when it was preached by the Apostles Asts 14. 19. the people stoned Paul for preaching the Gospel But this will not prove that the Apostles had not power to preach Christ and the Gospel Saith Dr. Ames Instituta Dei non sunt mutanda propter incommoda Ames Beller Enerv. F. 2. l. 3. c. 2. quibus sunt obnoxia sed illa incommoda sunt cavenda curanda propter instituta quae observare tenemur So much for the first Proposition CHAP. XII Concerning Election as Essentiall to a call to Office THeir second Proposition is Proposit 2. That the whole essence of the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election without Ordination Before we proceed to any Arguments we shall premise three things Premise 1. That if we should grant that the essence of a call to Office doth consist in Ordination and not in Election Yet 1. This would not overthrow the Congregational way it would not deny Congregational Churches to be true Churches for they must be true Churches before Officers can regularly be set over them whether by Election or Ordination Nor would it deny Officers in those Churches to be true Officers of Christ or to be rightly constituted for Ordination as well as Election is used in the Congregational way and so the Essence of the call is not wanting there whether it consists in the one or the other Indeed if it could be proved to consist in Ordination then one principle of most Congregational men would fall but the way would stand still It is not such an inseparable principle as the Congregational way standeth or falleth with it 2. This would not deny the lawfulness of gifted mens preaching without Ordination for though the Essence of the call to Office did consist in Ordination yet something else might give the Essence to a call to preach The written word may warrant gifted men in their preaching though unordained as well as it doth in their hearing praying private exhorting c. If Ordination doth constitute an Officer that doth not speak against the preaching of gifted men who do not assume the Office of the Ministery Unlesse they can prove all preaching to be an incommunicable work or act of Office this if granted will not forbid their preaching They are without the Essence of a call to Office yet have what is essential to a call to preach Premise 2. By Ministerial call in their Proposition we understand a call to Office and we suppose so they take it because they restrain the very work of preaching to Officers Premise 3. That though we deny Ordination to be of the Essence of the call to Office yet we assert it to be a necessary adjunct of such a call Officers ought not to be wholly or altogether without Ordination yet the Essence of a call to Office is compleat without Ordination These things being premised we shall give some grounds to evidence that the whole Essence of a call to Office doth consist in Election i. e. with acceptation and then answer the Arguments used against it Our Proposition is this Propos That the whole Essence of a call to Office doth consist in Election without Ordination Arg. 1. If Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before then it gives the whole Essence of the call to Office without Ordination But Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before Ergo Election gives the whole Essence of the call to Office without Ordination The Major they cannot deny it being clear in it self and also because they use such a Medium to prove that Ordination gives the Essence of the Ministerial Office because they say it makes a man a Minister that was not one before Jus Divinum Minist p. 164. The Minor That Election makes a man an Elder that was not one before we prove from Act. 14. 23. And when they had chosen or created them Elders by suffrages in every Church c. Whence we observe 1. That Election or chusing here mentioned made them Elders who were none before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to chuse by lifting up of hands and it is not said when they had chosen men afterward to be made Elders but when they had chosen them Elders which plainlysheweth that it was this chusing that made them Elders And our Brethren say that the word sigfieth to chuse or to appoint or to ordain and they tell us they could cite multitudes Jus
becoming no Officers do take up office a new again though the Scriptures do not mention it under the notion of an iteration of Ordination but under the notion of ordaining Officers at their first entrance into office Take it thus Major All that assume office in the Church ought to be ordained All the Scriptures that prove Ordination of Officers to be necessary do prove this and our brethren cannot deny this Proposition unless they will give up the whole case and say that some may assume office in the Church without Ordination and surely then gifted brethren may preach without it Minor But those that remove to take the charge of a new Church they assume office in the Church For upon a removal they became no Officers because their office extended no further then their particular Church and now they become Officers again in taking a new charge Conclusion Ergo Those that remove to take the charge of a new Church ought to be ordained When the person ceased to be an Officer his Ordination which was an adjunct of his office ceased also and then he was considered as without Ordination and he taking up office again is ordained again because else he assumeth office without Ordination as really as if he had never been ordained 3. If any example could be shewn of an ordinary Officers removal from one Church to become an Officer to another Church we do suppose it would give an example of the iteration of Ordination 4. Ordination is not a setting apart to the office of the Ministry but of such as are already Officers to the work of their office We do not say that Ordination is a setting apart to the exercise of office in such a place but to such persons or to such a Church that Church may remove to another place or meet at a great distance from the place where now it is seated yet he acteth as an Officer towards it there 5. As for Act. 13. 2 3. thus much may be concluded from it viz. That when Officers are called by the Lord to the work of office amongst a people not before committed to them or when they take a new charge upon them they are to be ordained If this example hath not the force of a Rule in the grounds and ends of it what use is it of to us for our direction or imitation if it doth not oblidge us to use Ordination upon an occasion of like nature it is binding as an example in nothing for what may be alleadged against its being exemplary in this will as well deny it to be exemplary in other things and then why do our brethren alleadge it at all for Ordination If Ordination were needful for Paul and Barnabas upon their taking a new charge for office-work when yet they ceased not to be Officers upon the coming of this new call but onely had their Commission inlarged by it then much more is Ordination needful for ordinary officers upon their taking a new charge seeing they do cease to be Officers upon such removals If this Ordination of Paul and Barnabas were as they say by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost that may speak that in these dayes we are not to expect such an extraordinary immediate call to ordain Officers but it doth not deny it to be a a binding example to us in all that was ordinary in it Now it is ordinary for Officers to have a call to a new charge as Paul and Barnabas had here and the ends of this praying for them were ordinary viz. that the Lord would afford his special presence to and blessing upon them in office-work in their new charge and therefore it doth warrant the iteration of Ordination in case there be a removal to a new charge Object 4. If the whole essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in popular Election then will two other great absurdities follow 1. That Ordination can in no case precede such Election 2. That there must be Churches before there be Ministers Answ We know no absurdity in asserting these but let us hear how they would prove them to be absurdities We conceive many cases may be put in which Ordination may lawfully go before Election we shall onely give two instances 1. When an ordained Minister removes upon warrantable grounds from one charge to another the people to whom he removes chuse him not as one that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister c. 2. When there is a necessity of sending men as there is now in New England for the conversion of Heathen people we think it very agreeable unto Scripture rules that these men should be first ordained before they be Elected by the Heathen to whom they are sent And the reason is because that the conversion of souls is the proper work of the Ministery When Christ went up into heaven he left not onely Apostles Prophets Evangelists but also Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4. 11 12. And the office of ordinary Ministers is to be Embassadors for Christ and in Christs name or in Christs stead to beseech people to be reconciled unto God Where it may be had there we conceive it is most agreeable to the Word that men should be first ordained before sent hereby they shall go with more authority and shall have power to baptize those whom they do convert which otherwise they cannot lawfully do c. They grant liberty to preach as Probationers before Ordination yet here they say men cannot lawfully baptize without he be ordained whence we infer 1. That according to their own principles baptizing is more limited to Officers then preaching 2. That men may act as Embassadors of Christ though they be not ordained for if they preach but once as Probationers either they act as Embassadors of Christ and then Ordination doth not make them such or else there is some preaching warranted by Christ not as his Embassadors and then gifted men though no Officers and without power to baptize and though they be not Embassadors for Christ yet may preach 2. They assert a Mission here which is no part of Ordination for they say it is most agreeable to the Word that men should be first ordained before sent There is a sending then which is distinct from and may be subsequent to Ordination and why then do our brethren so often assert sending and ordaining to be all one or how will it appear that any other sending is intended Rom. 10. 15. then this which themselves grant Ordination may be before 3. When an Ordained Minister removes upon warrantable grounds from one charge to another he is to have a new Ordination but a new Election is to precede this new Ordination The Gospel knoweth no difference between making a man a Minister and making him their Minister if by Minister they
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—ffice that is in you a man is not onely 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 onely said to be given with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery it is seldom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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 onely 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-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 onely 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 onely 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-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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely of the call Object 3. The blame laid upon
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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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
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 onely 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 onely 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 Church-rulers 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 Church-officers 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 office-Office-power 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 onely 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
duty may not be neglected or that command broken Our Brethren grant that men ordained have not power to administer the Ordinances of Christ without a special call Jus Divin pag. 144. Gifted persons have power to preach and the Churches calling or desiring them to exercise their gifts may be sufficient to give an opportunity to preach yea the desire of a particular person sometimes may be enough Act. 8. 34 35. And the Eunuch answered Philip and said I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself or of some other man Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus The Eunuchs request I pray thee was sufficient to give Philip an opportunity to preach Yea the desire even of an unbeleeving Magistrate in some cases may give opportunity to exercise ones gifts in a way of preaching Act. 13. ver 7. The Deputy of the Country Sergius Paulus a prudent man called for Barnabas and Saul and desired to hear the word of God and ver 12. Then the Deputy beleeved being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord. So Act. 13. ver 15 16. The rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them saying Ye men and Brethren if ye have any word of exhortation for the people say on Then Paul stood up c. The desire or call of a Magistrate or Minister yea the desire of the people as Act. 13. ver 42 44. may be call sufficient in some cases to exercise a mans gifts in a way of preaching But when a gifted person hath no such call to exercise his gifts he doth not sin in not preaching though possibly others may sin in not desiring him to preach 3. In such cases there ought to be a waiting in the use of means to satisfie the Church before the exercise of gifts though it be a duty in it self and a Church may sin in hindring a man from preaching either in the Church or elsewhere yet at this or that time it may not be his duty to doe it until other duties be done It is his duty to use means to satisfie the Church that he may act in it without offence to that and until this be done we conceive it is not immediately his duty in case of a Churches dissatisfaction about his ability to preach Obj. 3. This will prove that women may preach if every one that hath gifts may Mr. Collings Ans A particular exception is enough to restrain any general rule Women are expresly forbidden and that is one limitation of this general rule 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. But let it be shewn where all men not ordained are forbidden preaching without such a particular exception every gifted man may preach and find a warrant for it from that general rule It 's said Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man saying Of every tree of the garden thou mayst freely eat But will Mr. Collings say That this will prove that Adam might i. e. lawfully eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it is said Of every tree doth not the particular exception v. 17. limit that general rule v. 16 It 's said 1 Cor. 14. v. 31. Ye may all prophesie will he therefore say Women may prophesie in the Churches and doth not all bring them in here as much as it doth 1 Pet. 4. 10. Every gifted man not excepted by some particular rule may preach Obj. 4. If all that have gifts and abilities to preach may do it then those who are fitted with abilities to be Generals of an Army or Captains or Parliament-men or Pleaders at the Bar may do the work of Generals Captains and Parliament-men and plead at the Bar. Answ 1. Those that have abilities for civil or military imployments may exercise those abilities if a King or Supream Governour doth command them to do it He that hath abilities to be a Captain may do the work of a Captain if the General biddeth him He may do the work of a General of an Army or a Parliament-man or a Pleader at the Bar being fitted with abilities if the King or those who are to appoint unto such works do impower him thereunto Now Christ the King of Saints and the great Captain-General of our Salvation who had all power in Heaven and Earth given unto him he hath commanded every man that hath grace and is gifted to preach and therefore every man who hath Grace and is gifted may Preach 2. He that doth the work of a General of an Army assumeth an office in the Army the General is the chief Officer there And he that doth the work of a Parliament-man assumeth the office of a Magistrate and so the Argument is impertinent We grant that Election and Ordination both are necessary in Order before the exercise of gifts Office-wise 3. Our Argument is not taken from a general Rule onely but from a particularizing of Preaching gifts therewith when a general Command is given to every man who hath a gift to minister with it unto others and one gift is particularly mentioned then it is undouted that every man who hath that particular gift ought to minister with it unless he falleth under some special prohibition and let our Brethren shew any such prohibition else their consequence is not good And let this alwayes be observed it is not Gifts but Christ by Gospel-Rules that warranteth and giveth the Authority or power to gifted persons to preach Gifts do qualifie and enable a person to the Act. Christ by Gospel Rules warranteth the acting in that way Gifts with graces are declarative that the person is warranted or authorized to Preach Charity bindeth to follow Gospel-Rules in the exercise of gifts for the good of others Obj. 5. Every one is to use his gift with respect to the gift it self and to his place and calling and no otherwise These spiritual gifts are to be exercised by every one in his own Sphere Jus Divinum pag. 102. by private persons privately by those that are in Office publickly and in the Congregation Aquila and Priscilla private persons yet of eminent gifts insomuch as they knew the way of Christ more perfectly then Apollos himself kept their own place they as gifted Christians did not undertake to preach publickly but took him to them and privately expounded to him the way of God more perfectly Act. 18. This is a notable pattern for private Christians even of the highest form to walk by in this way that they may find imployment for all their gifts Those women whom the Apostle honours with the Title of Labourers with him in the Gospel Phil. 4. 3. they laboured not by publick preaching for this the Apostle permits not to women 1 Tim. 2. but by private Advertisements and Admonitions as opportunities were administrd Therefore it follows not that because all gifts are to be improved therefore a gifted Brother may preach for first there are other ways of making use of our most excellent
argument as urged by Mr. Collings if that 〈◊〉 Rom. 10. 15. be means of Officers only then we 〈…〉 hi◠Minor to be universally true Preaching is either ex officio or ex dono we grant that none may preach Office-wise but those that are sent and according to that interpretation no more is intended by the Apostle And then some may preach by gift who are not sent without crossing this Text. We deny the Major of his first and Minor of his second Syllogism and we assert That persons gifted which he calleth private persons because nor ordained though their work be publick and desired are sent For the clearing of this we shall endeavor to declare what mission or sending it is And because this is so much insisted upon we shall shew 1. Negatively What the sending cannot be 2. Affirmatively What sending according to the acceptation of the word in other Scriptures it may be Quest 1. What is not Mission or sending Answ 1. Mission or sending is not a call to Office or any act which doth constitute a man an Officer or preacher it is not sutable to our Brethrens own principles nor to ours to assert it 1. Because some that were Officers and had a call to preach before yet had mission afterward the Apostles were Officers had a call and did preach before the death or resurrection of Christ yet they had mission after it Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations For Christ to say Go. is for him to send those that are spoken to They were Officers preachers before and therefore could not be constituted such by this act which was subsequent to it A call to Office and sending may differ as prius and posterius and therefore they cannot be the same 2. Because mission may be iterated and repeated without losing Office but according to our Brethrens principles so cannot the call to Office or that which constituteth a man a preacher they judge that there ought to be no iteration of that once an Officer and alwayes so unless deposed But mission was iterated Matth. 10. ver 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying Goe not into the way of the Gentiles ver 6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ver 7. And as you go Preach Here is mission or sending to preach and they were the twelve Apostles that were sent who are named ver 2 3 4. and yet the same persons had mission again Matth. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach and v. 16. it was the eleven Disciples which he spake to And hence also our Brethren must either grant that Ordination may be iterated or else that mission and Ordination are not the same because mission is repeated 3. Because some had mission to preach who were not Officers that we can finde viz. the seventy Disciples Luk. 10. ver 1. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two Let them prove that these were Officers who will assert it here is sending and yet we finde not that any Officers were constituted thereby and therefore sending is not a constitutive Office-making act 4. Because then all that are instrumental to others conversion would thereby be proved and evidenced to be Officers and all that are undoubtedly no Officers would be left hopeless that their instructions should ever take place to the conversion of others for it is made as impossible for any to beleeve without a preacher sent as it is for any to preach without being sent the interrogation runneth through all Rom. 10. v. 14. How shall they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and how shall they preach except they be sent Therefore if some doe hear the word and beleeve there is a preacher sent or else the interrogation hath not the force of a negation and then their whole argument against the preaching of gifted men falleth That gifted men unordained may be instrumental to bring others to beleeving Scripture and experience hath witnessed and this evinceth that they are preachers sent and Officers according to their own arguing 2. Mission or sending is not Ordination sending and ordaining are different things 1. Because no Scripture that yet we can finde doth make mission and Ordination one and the same thing 2. Because if sending be ordaining then Deacons are sent for they are ordained Act. 6. 6. But we read not of their mission 3. Because mission may be iterated Matth. 10. ver 5. Matth. 28. 19. But according to our Brethrens principles Ordination may not be iterated or repeated 4. Because the nature of the act if men be the senders forbiddeth it for if a Church hath a Presbytery within it self then undenyably that presbytery may ordain other officers for that Church and then they send to themselves if ordaining be sending for they ordain them Officers to themselves else in case any of the ordainers should deserve censuring the ordained cannot as Officers censure them And our Brethren say Jus Divin Minist pag. 69. The same person cannot be the person sending and the persons sent unto And sending necessarily implyeth distance between the party sent and those to whom he is sent if the usual acceptation of the word sending be followed in a proper sense Now if a Church hath a presbytery and that ordaineth Officers the Church being present as it was when they ordained Deacons Act. 6. 6. how can it be said that the presbytery doth by the act of ordaining send them unto that Church which is present at the same time 3. Barely the gifting men for the work of preaching is not sending Matth. 10. ver 1. He gave them power against unclean Spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease Here the twelve were gifted yea had authority given them for the performing of such acts for it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave them authority or right or a lawful power to do these works the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet as a distinct act afterward ver 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them saying Go not into the way of the Gentiles ver 6 7. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and as ye go preach Here was their mission and it is distinguished from and subsequent to their being gifted and receiving a lawful power to exercise those gifts and therefore sending can neither be a gifting nor an authorizing men to preach but presupposeth them to be gifted and authorized Sending doth not make them preachers but supposeth them to be preachers before and hence Mar. 3. 14. He ordained twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach It is made the end of his ordaining constituting and making the twelve that he might send them forth to preach and
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 onely 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 onely 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 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
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 onely 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 Church-affairs 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely of extraordinary officers and yet aptly be called a Presbytery for they were Presbyters If the Apostles onely ordained Deacons Act. 6. yet they might be called a Presbytery or else that will evidence that it doth not belong to a Presbytery onely to ordain and why may not that be called a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. though it consisted onely 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