Exod. 4. And this sending is that which is denied to the false Prophets Ier. 23. 21. I have not sent them were this meant of a providential sending this were not true for so God did send them and therefore the meaning is I did not authorize them In this sense also Christ bids us pray the Lord that he would send forth labourers into his harvest How send them for that let Christ's example interpret Christ's words He sent forth the twelve Matth. 10. i. e. by giving them Command and Commission So Luke 10. 1. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also and sent them And conformable to this was the example of the Apostles who used to send men into the Ministry by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands and this way of Sending is granted on all hands our Brethren cannot deny it But for another way of sending that remains yet to be proved Hitherto we have had no example of it as hath been seen 4. Let it be considered that our Brethren observe that this is brought in as a justification of the calling of the Gentiles and of the sending of Preachers to them by the Apostles which the Jews grumbled at Upon which I ground this inference That the cannot here How can they preach unlesse they be sent must be understood of a moral impossibility and not of a natural impossibility as our Brethren would have it For if it be taken of a natural impossibility it is false for though the Apostles had not sent them they might have gone of their own accord or some other way But if you take it for a moral impossibility it runs smoothly Whereas you Jews grumble at us for sending Preachers to the Gentiles we do no more then what is necessary for seeing God hath promised that the Gentiles shall be saved by calling upon the Lord and they cannot call on God without beleeving nor beleeve without hearing nor hear without preaching nor preach without sending i. e. not preach lawfully unlesse they be sent either by an immediate call or else by us or others who are authorized by God for that work and therefore we are not to be blamed for sending of them Exc. But say they all the other interrogations are to be understood of a natural impossibility It is naturally impossible for one to call upon him on whom he beleeves not or to beleeve on him of whom he hears not c. and that this only is meant of a moral impossibility will be hard to conclude But the Answer is easie That it is a very frequent thing in Scripture for the same word to be used in divers senses as Let the dead i. e. spiritually bury the dead i. e. corporally And to keep to the very phrase the word cannot is thus used Ier. 13. 23. Can the Aethiopian change his skin c. There is a natural impossibility then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil there is a moral impossibility So in that comparison of our Saviour A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit there is a natural impossibility How can ye being evil speak good things here is a moral impossibility 5. If this be only a providential mission by which these Preachers are here said to be sent then none at all are excluded nay the very devils themselves if they should preach Christ as they did sometimes in possessed persons must necessarily be taken into the number of the Preachers here spoken of for even such would be providentially sent then which what can be more absurd And I wish our Brethren would duly consider that there is a necessity of granting one of these two things either that the devils may be the Preachers here spoken of or that the mission here spoken of is not providential I shall adde no more upon this account only there are some Arguments which they offer to prove that this mission here spoken of is not constitutive of a Minister 1. They say The Apostles were Officers and yet had mission afterward Mat. 28. 19. Ans. 1. Officers indeed they were while Christ lived they were constituted Preachers Matth. 10. but they were not Apostles of the Gentiles untill Matth. 28. and therefore it is not strange that when they were inaugurated to that new and solemn work they had a new and solemn mission 2. This Argument is founded upon the ambiguity of the word sent or mission which sometimes is taken for a mans authorizing to a work and so they had but one mission to one kind of work sometimes for a bare disposall of them to this or that particular place or work and in this case they might have a hundred missions God sent Paul to Macedonia and to Corinth and to Rome c. yet surely our Brethren will not make all these to be several missions in the sense of the present dispute 2. Mission they say may be repealed so cannot a call to an Office Mat. 10. 28. compared Ans. That is taken off already The Apostles had in each place a distinct call to a distinct work 3. They say The seventy Disciples had mission to preach who were not Officers that we find Ans. 1. This is a contradiction for if they had a mission from Christ that made them Officers at least protempore for what is the making of one an Officer but a solemn designation of him for that work by a person impowred to authorize him 2. They might be Officers though we do not reade of it 4. They say Then the instructions of none can be usefull to work faith but of Officers only for this hearing is necessary to beleeving Ans. That follows not for though the only ordinary means of begetting faith is the hearing of a Gospel-Minister yet God is not bound up he may and doth oft times use private instructions of private men to that end And as it follows not that it is simply impossible for a man to beleeve that heareth no Preacher because the Apostle saith How shall they hear without a Preacher seeing God may work faith by immediate inspiration so it follows not that it is simply impossible for any man to be converted by hearing of one who is not ordained c. because the Apostle saith How shall they preach unlesse they be sent But this only follows from both that the hearing of a Preacher sent is the only ordinary means of working faith and salvation But we must not part thus our Brethren adde that this text is not cogent because though it did prove a necessity of a mission yet it doth not prove a necessity of ordination which was the thing to be proved seeing this mission is not Ordination Ans. I shall not contend about words nor is it pertinent to enter into a particular dispute about Ordination This is sufficient for our purpose this mission is not the bare gifting of them but it is an authorizing of them to
doth strongly justifie the use and necessity of Ordination to other Officers 2. Something extraordinary and peculiar to wit that the essence of their call did not lie in this Ordination but in the immediate appointment of God which therefore cannot be applied to ordinary Officers To say nothing of that which peradventure may be said that Paul had the essence of his Call from this Ordination and yet no prejudice to that other assertion that Paul had his Office neither of nor by man Gal. 1. for though men were used as instruments in the dispensation of the rites belonging to Pauls Ordination yet to speak properly it was not men but God that was Pauls Ordainer for the holy Ghost said separate me c. It was not men that nominated Paul to be an Officer but God did it from heaven Their third Argument is taken from the nature of Ordination Ordination say they is nothing else but the solemn separation of an Officer by prayer and fasting they after adde and laying on of hands to the work whereunto he is called It can be imagined to consist but of three things 1. Fasting and that is no act of worship 2. Laying on of hands and that was not essentiall to Ordination then and it is questionable whither it be still continuing or not 3. Prayer which therefore must be the act giving essence to Ordination seeing the others do not Now upon all this they build a double argument 1. Ordination consisteth in an action performed to God only i. e. in prayer therefore it cannot give the Essence of an externall call to office from men 2. That action which cannot be performed in faith before a man have his outward Call to office cannot give him that outward call But Ordination is such an action c. For how can a man pray in faith for his blessing upon a person in a work of an office before he can conclude that he is so much as outwardly called to that office For Answer 1. For the last clause I also would ask our Brethren one question Suppose the Essence of the Ministeriall Call did consist in Election and that Prayers are to be used for the person to be Elected before his Election which I know our Brethren will not diflike in this case I ask them their own question How can they pray in faith for a blessing upon that person in the work of his Office before he have the Call to the Office Whatsoever they shall reply with reason will serve for our use as well as theirs 2. In such cases our prayers have as most frequently in many other cases a tacit condition that God would blesse him in the work viz. if he shall be set apart for it I may pray in faith that God would go with me in a journey that God would blesse me in the exercises of the Lords day c. Although I do not certainly know that I shall live either to go one step in my journey or to do one exercise upon the Lords day 3. All their Argument proceeds upon a grosse mistake and unacquaintednesse with our principles In a word we hold that the Essence of Ordination consists in none of those three things mentioned neither in fasting nor prayer nor laying on of hands all which are only the modifications of the work but in something else to wit in this the designation of fit persons by Officers unto the work which designation indeed is signified by imposition of hands and deservedly introduced with fasting and prayer as being a work of greatest weight yet still the Essence of it lies not in this 4. For imposition of hands it is granted by most Presbyterians that I know of that it is not so Essentiall to Ordination as that they will pronounce that Ordination null which wanted it although they conceive in being a rite instituted by Christ cannot without sinne be neglected by men Whether imposition of hands ought to continue in the Church is excentricall to our present question and therefore I shall wave it leaving onely this Memorandum for the Readers consideration That the great Argument used for the abolition of it because it was used in those daies for the collation of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost hath to me very little cogency in it both because by the same reason Preaching must be now laid aside because when Peter preached the holy Ghost fell upon them that heard him Acts 10. 44. And because it continued all along in the old Testament notwithstanding this that sometimes it was used in those times for the collation of extraordinary gifts as Deut. 34. 9. And Ioshua was full of the spirit of wisdom for Moses had laid his hands upon him But I must recall my self and remember that it is not now my task to meddle with that point but only to shew that our Brethrens Arguments are not unanswerable And now that we have seen the weaknesse of their Arguments alledged to prove that the essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Election not in Ordination I shall consider whether we cannot find stronger Arguments to prove the contrary That the essence of the call doth not lie in the Election of the people but in the Ordination of the Ministers CHAP. XIII I Shall confine my self to one Argument which I shall desire our Brethren to chew upon which is this The essence of the call to the Ministry must lie in the act of those only who by divine appointment are and ought to be in a capacity to give it But the people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry Ergo The essence of the call doth not lie in the act of the people i. e. not in Election For the Major it is a plain case Wherever God puts a man upon a work he requires that he be fit for it God will have no man to undertake any work of Magistracy Ministry c. for which he is not fit The Teacher must be apt to teach c. And if it be one of the works of a Minister to send forth other Ministers then God requires this of him that he be in a capacity to do it And so doubtlesse if Election be the priviledge of the members of the Church as such and the Essence of the Ministeriall Call lies in it then by divine appointment this is a necessary qualification for every Church-member to be in a capacity to give it For the Minor which is this That the people neither are nor by divine appointment are necessarily required to be in a capacity to give the essence of the call to the Ministry This I shall prove from those things which are requisite to put men into such a capacity And thus I argue Authority and ability to judge of the fitnesse of a Minister are necessary to make a man capable of giving the essence of the Ministers call But people neither
speak properly their masters joy enters into them and a man is said to be in drinke though drinke be in him So it cannot seeme strange if an office be said to be in a man though in propriety of speech he be in his office For the third branch 1. An extraordinary office might be conveyed in this case by ordinary officers For 1. It is commonly thought that Paul did concurre in this ordination with that Presbytery 2. They ordained him by divine direction And as it was no dishonour to Paul and Barnabas that they were ordained to that work Acts 13. 1 2. by persons inferiour to them seeing those persons did it by the immediate appointment of the Holy Ghost so neither is it any prejudice to the extraordinarinesse of Timothies office that it was conferred by ordinary officers seeing they conferred it by the conduct of propheticall designation 3. What more ordinary both in state and Church then for a person to have an office conveyed to him viz. Ministerially by such as are inferiour to him as the King by some of his subjects the Arch-Bishop by Bishops the officers of a Church in our brethrens way by the people whom I hope they will allow to be inferiour to their officers at lest they professe that they do so For the last clause I say two things 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places besides this Acts 13. 7. God brought Israel out of Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an high hand as it is elsewhere phrased So Acts 19. 27. They told what things God had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them i. e. by them especially seeing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other place which our Brethren suppose to be parallel that puts it out of doubt And the reason wherefore the Apostle rather useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was onely for better sound sake which the Apostles were not neglective of it had been unhandsome to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he elegantly varies the word and puts in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you will needs have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in another sense then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. for with and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood of a gift then why may we not acquiesce in this sense which will both fully take off all your objections and yet no way praejudice our cause neglect not the gift c. with the laying on of hands i. e. neglect not the gift c. nor the laying on of hands used in ordination whereby thou wast solemnely set apart for and obliged to the discharge of thy Ministeriall gifts and office Do not slight forget disregard that injunction c. And this sense I am sure the Greeke will beare very well and the English doth not exclude it Againe if this satisfie not it may be further added that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the gift in 2 Tim. 1. 6. forasmuch as the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary Officers and the same word 1 Tim. 4. 14. may be understood of the office the conveyance of which did fall within the verge of the ordinary Presbyters And if you take it thus then you may groundedly suppose that the laying on of Pauls hands was not done at the same time nor to the same end with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but that this latter did convey the office at one time which is said most properly to be neglected 1 Tim. 4. 14. and the former did convey a gift at another time which he is called upon to stirre up 2 Tim. 1. 6. And this fully takes off all the difficulty Nor can any wonder at the different sense of the same word and same phrase for that is so common a thing not onely in divers Epistles but in the same Epistle yea the same Chapter yea the same Verse sometimes that one and the same word or phrase is differently to be understood that none can justly stumble at it here But lastly it must be remembred that if this place were to be understood in their sense and did not contribute any thing to our cause the truth we assert doth not so depend upon this place that it must needs fall if this place do not uphold it forasmuch as it is founded upon divers other important places as hath bin shewed The Assembly argued further The persons ordaining were Apostles Prophets Evangelists and Presbyters whom it is not likely that Christ would appoint to convey onely the adjunct of the Ministeriall call and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power to the people To this they say two things 1. In stead of giving an answer they offer an argument that because one relate gives being to another therefore the people must needs give being to the Minister Reply This is a meer fallacy Relata are considerable two wayes as I may say in esse constituendo in esse constitute either as they are to be constituted or as they are compleatly constituted It is true Relata considered in esse constitute do give being one to another the Father is not a Father unlesse he have a son But then consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them when they are relata the one gives being to the other but there must be some other person or thing which puts them into that relation and it is that which we speak off For instance The husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband But there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the Act of the Justice or the Minister A Vice Chancellour is the Correlate of the University yet the Chancellours act doth constitute him in the relation and gives him the essence of his call 2. They say Though Ordination be but an adjunct yet it consisting chiefly if not onely in prayer Christ might imploy the Elders in adding such an adjunct Reply But what sober man can imagine that if this were all The Apostles should take so many journeyes about Ordination and should leave Titus who could ill be spared in Crete to ordain elders What would he leave him onely to pray for a blessing upon persons to be constituted by others It is strange he should leave him to a worke no way peculiar to his office and a worke which a brother might performe as effectually as an officer And this shall suffice for the second Question CHAP. XV. THE third and last question is this Whether ordination may be done by the people Wherein I shall need to say little because indeed
Assembly gives such satisfying Answers that I wonder how our Brethren could resist the evidence of them and indeed their Replies are so inconsiderable that I count it but lost time to make a rejoynder and all that I shall desire of the Reader is this That he would but use his reason and lay aside his passion and prejudice and compare what is said on both hands together and I doubt not he will see that all their assaults against them are but like the dashings of the waves against a rock whereby they break themselves to pieces But if all that satisfie not I shall adde two Answers more 1. Extraordinary instances are no presidents for ordinary cases This was apparently an extraordinary case The Levites and Church-Officers were not yet instituted and to argue thus that because the people did lay on hands before those Church-Officers were created who were afterwards to do it therefore they might do it when such Officers were created and appointed for that work It were as if a man should argue Gifted men may preach where there are no Apostles nor Ministers to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers Or thus David might eat the shew-bread when he could get no other therefore any man may eat it when his table was spread with other bread 2. Forasmuch as it is ridiculous to think that all Israel did lay their hands upon the heads of the Levites therefore this was onely some of them and those some no doubt were the first-born Now it must be remembred that as the Levites were taken instead of the first-born Num. 8. 16 17. so the first-born till then were in stead of the Levites and till God instituted the Ecclesiasticall Offices and Officers in Israel the first-born were Officers and so it concerns not the people at all nor proves any right in them to do the same thing In the next place they come to answer some Arguments which are urged by the Assembly to prove that Ordination did not belong to the people Their Answers to the two first are nothing else but repetitions of what hath been already discussed and therefore I here wave them For the third the Assembly observed That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the party ordained is mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers not in those Epistles which are written to the Churches They answer 1. Charges may be directed to Officers and yet the people required to concurre as Rev. 2. and 3. If Timothy and Titus were to act these alone as Evangelists then they are no presidents for us if with others why not with the people as well as the Officers Reply They were to act alone in Ordination as Evangelists and yet are a president for us For here are two things to be considered 1. The work viz. of Ordination which was common and ordinary and this is imitable 2. The manner of doing it which was extraordinary i. e. by their single power and this is inimitable You will say If the manner of this Ordination was extraordinary then Timothy's practice in Ordination is no more a president for ordinary Officers Ordaining then for the people Ordaining I answer Yes There is a different reason because Timothy was one of the Officers or Persons ruling and an extraordinary one who alone might stand in the room of all other Officers it may be there were no Officers present when Timothy did ordaine however his acting in this as an Officer though extraordinary may well be president for his successors such as are Officers for the doing of the work which is ordinary though not for the doing of it by his single jurisdiction which was extraordinary But now on the other side for the people or the persons rulled Timothy was not one of them but sustained a distinct person from them and there were people at that time unquestionably present when ever Timothy and Titus Ordained and the people even in the dayes of those extraordinary Officers did retain their distinct liberties and exercise those things which did belong to them as people as is plain in the case of Election which they injoyned and practised And had Ordination belonged to the people as well as Election certainly notwithstanding the agency and presence of the Apostles therein yet we should have heard somewhat at least concerning the peoples concurrence which because we hear not a syllable of we therefore justly conclude that Election did and doth belong to the people but Ordination doth not I adde onely this That look what reasons our Brethren have to look on the Apostles c. Baptizing c. to be a president for Ministers Baptizing and not for the peoples baptizing the very same reasons have we to conclude that their Ordaining is a president for Officers Ordaining not for the Ordination of the people 2. They say All may be written to Timothy and Titus because they were to direct others how to act in them And therefore the Apostle writes to them about other things which yet were not to be acted by them alone but by the people as the making of prayers for Kings clothing of women in modest aparrel c. Reply By this Rule all things should have been written onely in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus for they were to direct the people in all other things But it is not simply the putting of a thing in this Epistle which makes that act peculiar to Officers But this is it which is justly insisted on and which our Brethren should do well againe to consider that Paul who was so carefull to order the affaires in every Church yet in all his Epistles to those Churches speakes not a word about the businesse of Ordination Surely the Scriptures silence is argumentative as well as its speech and it is oft urged in Scripture Melchisedek is said to be without Father c because the Scriture is silent as to his geniallogie so Heb. 6. our Lord sprang of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Preisthood And surely it is not to no purpose that the Scripture is so silent as to the point of direction about the mission of Ministers in all those Epistles to people but insinuates thus much to impartiall Readers that the Holy Ghost looked upon the people as persons not intrusted with that work The last thing urged by the Assembly was this That Ordination is an authoritative mission an act of jurisdiction an act which gives the essentialls of the Call Private persons can no more conveigh power to another to administer Sacraments then they can do it themselves They answer That Ordination is no act of jurisdiction nor would it be so though it did convey the Office-power Freemen do convey Office-power to their Bailiffs c. yet do no act of jurisdiction Reply 1. This hath been answered before to wit Freemen have that power by a Constitution but there
is to preach with all Authority Strangers are as well obliged to obey him as his own people 2. Even Heathens are bound to hear Ministers preaching to them and that not only ex vi materiae because of the matter they treat of but virtute muneris by vertue of their Office He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. 16. And therefore as the Jews and Heathens were bound to hear Christ not only in regard of his message which he brings but also in respect of his Office as he was the Mediator and the great Prophet in the Church Deut. 18 15 19. So also it is with Ministers who act as in Christs stead they are to be heard even by Heathens for their Office sake as well as for their Doctrine And those Jews or Heathens which disobeyed the Doctrine of the Apostles are not only charged with the guilt of rejecting the truth but also of contemning the Persons and Offices of the Apostles which could not have been if the Apostles had not preached as Officers to such And surely it must needs be reputed strange doctrine to say that a Minister yea an Apostle preaching to Heathens doth preach no more authoritatively than any woman or child that is occasionally discoursing to such of the things of God The Apostles might challenge Maintenance of those Heathens to whom they preached Mat. 10. 10. 1 Cor 9. which such women and children could not pretend to which clearly demonstrates that the Apostles preached not as gifted persons but as Officers to them The Apostles preaching to such had a power authoritatively to pronounce pardon or to denounce wrath to them upon their believing or disobeying which are the two acts of the Keys and which to do requires an Office-relation to them If it be objected that this may be true of the Apostles that they were Ambassadors and preached as Ambassadors to Heathens and yet not true of ordinary Pastours I answer either ordinary ministers are Ambassadors or else Christ hath not had any Ambassadors in the world since the daies of the Apostles But Christ hath had and hath Ambassadors still in the world therefore Ministers are ordinary Ambassadors the Major is plain for if only extraordinary Officers be Ambassadors then where there are no such extraordinary Officers there are no Ambassadors The Minor also is no lesse clear that the Office of Gospel Ambassadors was a continuing Ordinance and it is most ridiculous to think that while the design and work of the Ambassador lasts his Office should not continue and besides Christ hath perpetuated the Office Mat. 28. 19 20. If it be said they are Ambassadors indeed but it is to their own people not to Heathens I answer yes rather they are Ambassadors to Heathens for as the great work of other Ambassadors is to make peace so also Gospel-Ambassadors their great businesse is to beseech men to be reconciled to God and therefore their principal object is not the Church who are already supposed to be reconciled but Heathens and Strangers who are yet unreconciled and seeing ordinary Ministers preaching to Heathens have a power upon their repentance to remit sin i. e. To declare their sins remitted officially it must needs follow that they are Ambassadors to such And the Apostle in this place ascribes both the name and work of Ambassadors unto ordinary Ministers speaking in the plural number We then as Ambassadors c. And he attributes the name to himself upon a ground common with him to ordinary Ministers i. e. because he besought them as in Christs stead to be reconciled to God and as we rightly infer the assurance of salvation of ordinary believers from the Apostles assurance because he fixeth his assurance not upon any peculiar revelation but upon grounds common to all Christians so may we that are ordinary Ministers justly take to our selves the Name and Office of Ambassadors because the Apostles assum'd it upon such grounds as are common to all Ministers and not upon such as are peculiar to the Apostolical Dignity And this may suffice for the enforcement of this second argument but there is one block that must be removed It is plausibly objected by Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepheard in there answer to the nine Questions That Ministers though Officers to their own Flock yet may do the acts of their Office towards others as a Steward of an house acteth as an Officer in the entertainment of strangers c. And thus Ministers may preach as Officers to others and yet be only Officers to their own Congregations To this I answer 1. This concerns not our Brethren here who do possitively determine that Ministers preaching to others do preach only as gifted men not as Officers p. 18. So that I might without disparagement wave this Objection 2. This is a meer fallacy the resemblance it self is misunderstood or mis-applied for a Steward of an house it is true he acts as a Steward in the entertainment of strangers but how he acts as the Steward of that house not as a Steward to them whom he entertains But a Minister preacheth as an Officer with authority not only in relation to his own Church but any others that occasionally hear him as hath been proved And yet 3. If the similitude were well laid there is a further dissimilitude in the case in hand for a Steward of an house is a Steward only to that particular Family but Ministers are Stewards to the whole Church all which is called one family and one houshold 1 Tim. 3. 15. How thou shouldst behave thy self in the house of God Gal. 6. 10. Do good to all especially the houshold of faith Eph. 2. 19. You are fellow Citizens of the Saints and of the houshold of God And the reason why the Steward of an house is no Officer to strangers is because the Lord that makes him a Steward hath no authority to make him a Steward over strangers nor further then his house or jurisdiction reacheth But Christ who makes Ministers Stewards hath authority to make them such over the whole Church yea over Heathens and indeed so he hath done as the former Arguments have proved and he requires of the world to own his Ministers as Ambassadors and will severely punish their rejection and contempt of them The third and last argument shall be this If the conversion of Heathens c. be the principal ground and end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted and the principal work of the Ministry then the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens But the conversion of Heathens c. is the principal end why the Office of the Ministry was instituted and the principal work of the Ministry so instituted Therefore the Office of the Ministry is related to Heathens For the major it is evident from the very terms every Minister is unquestionably related to those among whom his work lies And as it is plain in Christ Jesus our great
would follow in that case would be this that this place must be laid aside both by our Brethren and by us as not demonstrative to the point in hand This being premised I come to our Argument which is taken from 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. where the Prophets are enumerated amongst Officers and which is most considerable placed before the Evangelists I know our Brethren think to blow away this with a breath They say Nothing can be gathered from the order of the words seeing oft-times the worse is placed before the better as Priscilla before Aquila the woman before the man p. 93. And thus far it is true that the bare order is no sufficient argument to prove a priority in dignity and that the same things are sometimes in Scripture placed first sometimes last so that in all cases the order is not to be regarded and yet in some cases it is not to be slighted especially when it is punctually observed that wherever Prophets in concrete are mentioned they are placed next after the Apostles and that this is done so solemnly and with such emphaticall words 1 Cor. 12. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And as it may fairly be collected that the Apostles are the chief of these Officers because generally they are placed first and that the Pastors and Teachers are the lowest of them because generally they are placed last so also it is considerable and I doubt not our Brethren would make good use of it were it for their cause as much as it is against it that Prophets are generally placed in the second order For what they adde If Prophets be Officers 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. then those places must be understood of extraordinary Prophets who did foretell of future events as Acts 11. yet this hinders not but this prophesying 1 Cor. 14. may be only by gift c. Ans. 1. It was not the sole work of Office-Prophets that I may accommodate my discourse to our Brethrens conceptions to foretell future events for Iudas and Silas as Prophets did exhort Acts 15. 32. 2. To say that there should be two sorts of New-Testament-Prophets the one by Office the other by gift as it is but a begging of the question so it will by wise and indifferent Readers be lookt upon but as subterfuge and why may we not as well make two sorts of Apostles two sorts of Evangelists c. the one by Office the other by gift It had been somewhat tollerable if these in 1 Cor. 14. had been said to Prophesie but not called Prophets seeing as our Brethren say the doing of some Acts occasionally as v. g. ones teaching occasionally doth not denominate a man a teacher but seeing they are also called Prophets impartiall men will easily gather that they are the same which are known by that name in other places Thus much for the first Proposition which being dispatched I now come to the second and shall try whether that succeed better in our Brethrens hands and that is That Prophesying is an ordinary gift and still continuing in the Church This they undertake to prove as followes Arg. 1. Prophesying was in use and no Gospel Rule can be shewed for the repeal or ceasing of it p. 96. Ans. A gift may cease in the Church two waies 1. Either by a positive act of God in his Word forbidding it or 2. By a privative act of God in his Providence withdrawing it Who knows not that the gift of Tongues praediction and infallible explication of the Scripture is ceased and yet it would be a most vain Argument to dispute against the cessation of it thus because there is no Gospel-rule for the repeal of them Arg. 2. This Prophesying is ordinary Ergo still continuing Ans. The proposition is altogether needlesse for if it be ordinary that is sufficient and indeed that is the Antithesis of the assertion of the Provinciall Assemby that this Prophesying is extraordinary And therefore let us hear what they have to say or what they alledge to prove it ordinary For the self-contradiction they say God hath left us to p. 97. I shall only say this Wise men before they had made such a bold charge especially making use of the dreadfull Name of the Lord would have understood the grounds of it which indeed are none at all for the Authours of the Ius divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici were only three or four reverend City Ministers whereof one or two are since gone out of the City and not one of them was a member of the Provincial Assembly when the Ius divinum Ministerii came forth And being different persons though agreeing in the main of this controversie it is no disparagement to any of them to differ in some circumstance however all of them do agree in that which our Brethren here oppose i. e. that the gift was extraordinary Besides I suppose our Brethren would be hard put to it to prove that there is any contradiction for these two may very well consist together to say that these Prophets were extraordinary Officers in respect of their gift and yet the ordinary Pastours of Corinth in regard of their Office and relation And seeing there was a competent number of extraordinary Officers residing in that Church it was most fit they should be the ordinary Pastours of that Church quoad exercitium muneris And in this sense we may safely embrace both what the worthy Authors of that excellent piece Ius divin regim affirm and also what learned Mr Rutherford asserts i. e. that these Prophets were the ordinary Pastours of that Church and yet both grant that for their gifts they were extraordinary and that is the thing now in question So that in stead of a contradiction feigned here is a real agreement found out all of us agreeing in the two principles which our Brethren here oppose and all asserting 1. That these Prophets were Officers 2. That they were extraordinary as to their gifts To which their special relation to Corinth and residence there and doing the acts of Pastours is no more a prejudice than it was to the Apostles who though they were extraordinary Officers yet some of them at some times were as Pastours to some Churches c. which occasioned that apprehension that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem c. That this Prophesying was ordinary our Brethren offer some Arguments to prove Arg. 1. The rules to regulate the work are ordinary p. 100. Ans. I see no rule but what may very well agree to extraordinary Officers Extraordinary Officers 1. Must act orderly 2. Must speak in a known language 3. Must speak to edification 4. Must be subject to the trial of other Officers yea people also as the Provincial Assembly fully proves of which our Brethren take no notice Paul commends the Beraeans for examining his doctrine Arg. 2. The work of these Prophets is ordinary i. e. to speak to edification and exhortation and comfort Ans. 1. This
that also is the Office of a Gospel-Minister Ioh. 20. 23. Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted However it is sure I am the Lord Jesus doubts not to preferre Iohn the Baptist before all the old Testament Officers and that in regard of his work and to preferre the meanest New Testament Minister before him 2. If the work of the high Priest was higher and that must be weighed on the one hand then let it be weighed on the other hand that the gifts of Christ were more glorious And this assertion I may venture to lay down that Jesus Christ had more warrant to undertake the highest Office in the Church without a call than one who is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man hath to take the meanest Office without a call The third and fourth Arguments I shall omit because there is nothing that I find in our Brethrens Answer which will need a Reply The fifth Argument is taken from those rules laid down about the calling of men into the Ministry and about the tryall of their qualifications and one main reason of it was this that false Doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1. 3 4. T it 1. 5 9 10. To this they Answer 1. This concludes for the ordaining of Officers only not against the preaching of gifted brethren who lay no claim to the Office Reply The best clew for the guiding of us in the interpretation of every Law is the reason of the Law Now if one great reason why the Apostle was so carefull to try and approve of Officers c. was this to prevent false Doctrine then upon the same account he was obliged to be as careful to try all Preachers for else he had made a hedge about the sheep and yet left one gap open which indeed was enough to frustrate the design of the hedge What if none be allowed to be shepheards by Office but such as are called will it not be of as bad consequence if the wolves be allowed to take upon them the exercise of the shepheards work We see by experience some gifted men preaching occasionally and disseminating their pernicious opinions have done more to poison the people than an able Minister by his instant and diligent labours could do to preserve and nourish them What is the ground of the Apostles strictnesse in admitting men into the Ministry Lay hands suddenly on no man but this the difficulty and importance of the work And what work is more difficult and important than that of preaching to do it as becomes the Gospel Paul prefers it before the rest 1 Cor. 1. And in regard of this work it is that he cries out Who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2. 16. So that it were a strange incongruity and self-contradiction for the Apostle to use so much care in the constitution of Office-Preachers and yet to be wholly carelesse as to another sort of Preachers who may preach frequently yea as often as the other according to our Brethrens Principles without coming under such a harsh and ungratefull examination and ordination 2. They say There ought to be care to chuse Officers that are sound in the Faith but this the people must look to in election Ans. But this relieves them not for what care shall be taken as to their gift-Preachers who may preach without the Churches election nay are under a command to preach as they are pleased to expound 1 Pet. 4. a command of God I say which no man can dispense with I know our Brethren say that to a mans exercise of his gifts in this or that place there is required a call from the people or the Magistrate p. 149. But this will not help them for I demand whether in case the Apostles had neither been called by people nor Magistrate Whether that had been a sufficient discharge to them from the execution of their Office I trow not Nay they preached when they were forbidden and why but for the reason now mentioned to wit that they were under a command of God which no mortal man could dispense with And therefore if gifted men are under a like command pressed with the highest penalties to preach as our Brethren say they may and must preach though they have no call neither from people nor Magistrate The sixth Argument I am sure will stand upon its own legs taken from that confusion which will necessarily come into the Church by this means which indeed the sad experience of our Church in these daies doth so unquestionably demonstrate that I shall need to confute him that denies it only as the Philosopher did confute him that said there was no motion by walking before him so I shall only point him unto reall Arguments and desire him to make use of his own eyes reason and observation and he will quickly be of the same opinion But these Arguments were not directly levied against our Brethren whom we acknowledge to be more sober but against such as pleaded for a promiscuous assumption of the Office The next Position laid down by the Provincial Assembly indeed doth more nearly concern them which is this That none may do the work of the Ministry without Ordination CHAP. IX ANd to this purpose they urge eight Arguments which to me still seem very considerable and my perswasion is that if any judicious man of another minde could but redeem himself from the prevailing power of prejudice and duly ponder our Arguments and their Answers he will find that all the assaults they make against them are vain and ineffectual But it shall not be taken upon my word I will 1. propound our Arguments 2. Take notice of their Answers wherein I promise them not disingenuosly to conceal or neglect any thing wherein their strength lies 3. I shall adde something where it is needfull for the vindication of those Arguments Arg. 1. That work for the doing of which God hath designed special Officers of his own neither ought nor may be done by any others But God hath designed special Officers for this work of preaching The minor is granted but all the doubt lies about the major and that is the Proposition which our Brethren deny and they give three instances to the contrary Prayer is the special work of Ministers Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves to prayer And so is exhorting and reproving c. T it 1. 5 c. Distribution of worldly goods is the Deacons work and yet others may Pray Exhort and Rebuke give Almes c. Reply 1. For Prayer it is true it is the duty of all men and of Ministers more than others but that it was a work for which the Office of the Ministry was appointed neither doth this text assert nor did ever any man dream and so that is wholly impertinent to the case in hand One may as well say that the Office of the Ministry was designed for the work of hospitality because they especially must be given to hospitality 1
they offer manifest violence to the Text so they will be judged by indifferent persons meerly to take it up in favour of a praeconceived opinion And therefore our Brethren do well take up and at last come to this faint conclusion Though this do referre to the Apostles yet the people may be comprehended in it So that whereas in the first canvasing of this Text we had much adoe to get in the Apostles and this Text hath been often alledged by our Brethren to shew not that the people may but that the people must ordaine and chuse themselves Elders now all that it amounts to is a mâ—y be they may be included here All the answer it deserves and that I shall give is this The people may not be included here At lest non liquet it appears not from the Text at all that they are comprehended here However let the question lie here between us and our Brethren whether this Text and this Ordaining belong to the Apostles who are here expresly said to do it or to the people of whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a word is spoken here and I suppose impartiall Arbitrators will quickly end the difference But say they who ever did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be meant of Ordination seeing it is mentioned as distinct from Ordaining by prayer and fasting when they had chosen and had prayed with fasting and if Ordination were intended here were a Tautologie Reply I would ask our Brethren this question whether in case the people were they who are here said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse Elders whether they did not manage that work with prayer and fasting and whether this Text doth not sufficiently speak for it self that this prayer and fasting was used in relation to the choice of Officers If they assent then the Tautologie remaines on their part as well as on ours 2. But indeed we must take heed of calling it a Tautologie when ever we find the same thing expressed in divers phrases which is a familiar practice in Scripture 3. Albeit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when put by it self did signify to ordaine by fasting and prayer and laying on of hands yet common reason and frequent use will teach us that when fasting and prayer are expressed then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be understood onely of imposing of hands 4. Our Brethren forget the present work we did not alledge this place or this word to prove that Ordination is to be done by fasting prayer and laying on of hands nor were we drawing any argument from this Text But we were upon the defensive part and our work was onely this to maintaine that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not here signify a creating by the suffrages of the people which being proved our Brethrens attempt from this Text is frustrated and the place sufficiently vindicated These three places being cleared and redeemed from misinterpretation there is but one thing remains to be done which is a little to inforce those absurdities objected by the Provinciall Assembly against their opinion I shall take notice onely of the first as being most materiall which is this Every one that is to be made a Minister must first be tried 1 Tim. 3 10. whether he be apt to teach able to convince gaine sayers Now in many Congregations the major part are very unfit to judge of Ministeriall abilities To this they answer That true Churches are fit to judge of Ministeriall abilities Christs sheep know his voice John 10. and the Church could judge of the qualifications of Deacons Act. 6. Reply 1. I dare venture the question upon this point and although I shall not determine it concerning every congreâ—ation whereof possibly some learned men may be members by accident yet for the generality of Congregations including such as are constituted according to our brethrens principles I say they are not able to judge of a mans soundnesse in the faith and his ability to convince gaine-sayers I will onely suppose that which generally is true a Congregation to consist of such as are unacquainted with the affaires of learning and I will suppose a crafty heretick to come before them I say he may most easily conceale his heresies so that they shall never discover it nor be able to try his soundnesse in the faith I might instance in divers cases suppose a Socinian is to be tried by the people they ask him whether he believe Christ to be God he will Answer yes I believe him to be the true God to be one with the Father to be equall with God How apt would a company of honest soules be to be cheated with such pretenses and how readily would they be his compurgators whereas if this man were to be called by Ministers they know that these are but words and that though he acknowledge Christ in word yet in deed he denies him and allowes him to be God onely as the Magistrate is a God so there are many other weighty points wherein it is impossible for the people to try a mans soundnesse in the faith How many grosse errors are there about the providence of God the Person and Natures of Christ the fall of man which any learned man may so hide under ambiguous expressions that it shall be impossible for an ordinary Congregation to discover them unlesse they plow with the heifer of Ministers or Scholars So for a mans ability to defend the truth and convince gain-sayers how unfit people are to judge of that no man can be ignorant that considers how sadly and frequently the judgements of people of all sorts and opinions and waies are misplaced applauding some highly for their sufficiency that way who are known to understanding men to be miserably defective therein and vilifying others who are unquestionably far more sufficient To convince gain-sayers is a great part of learning and that unlearned men should be able to judge of a mans learning will then be believed when it will be credited that a blind man can judge of colours or a deaf man of sounds or an ordinary ignorant man of the great affaires of State 2. For that in Iohn I hope our Brethren will be ashamed to alledge it to this purpose when they shall consider that it is a character given by Christ to all his sheep My sheep know my voice It is true of wise men and weak men of men women and children which are the sheep of Christ So that unlesse they will say that the silliest woman in a Congregation who is godly is able to judge of a Ministers ability to convince gain-sayers then which nothing can be more highly absurd they must confesse this Text was impertinently alledged 3. For the peoples fitnesse to judge of the Deacons abilities it is a strange instance that because people are able to judge of a mans prudence faithfullnesse piety c. therefore they are able to judge of his learning and
sufficiency And you may as well argue thus that such a man is able to build an house well therefore he can mold a State And thus much shall suffice to speak of the first Question which when a judicious and candid Reader hath duely weighed I may groundedly hope that he will be thus far convinced that the necessity of Popular Election is not so clear as hath been conceived nor indeed so manifest as Ordination And sure I am if we had no better evidences for Ordination then such as these we should have sufficiently heard of it from our Brethren CHAP. XII THE second Question is this Whether the Essence of the Call to the Ministry lie in Election or Ordination And here also I must take the same liberty I have used and that is not to transcribe every word nor to take notice of such passages as are inconsiderable but onely such as have most strength and most appearance of truth in them In the doing of which as I have the witnesse of God and my own conscience so I doubt not I shall have the attestation of any disinterested person who shall compare both together But before I come to handle the point I must needs do my Brethren that right as to let the world know how far they are from that generation of men that despise and deride Ordination they say we do highly esteem of Ordination as an appointment of Iesus Christ p. 275. Onely here they differ They give Election the praecedency to Ordination and they place the essence of the Ministeriall call in Election not in Ordination But good reason we should not condemn them unheard I shall therefore do them the justice as to consider what they offer by way of Argument and that is onely this Ordination doth not give the essence Ergo election doth for their first Argument from Acts 14. vers 23. hath been discussed before That the essence of the Call lies not in Ordination they indeavour to make good by three Arguments Their first Argument is this That which doth not set a man over a Church of Christ or commit it to his charge that doth not give the essentials of the Ministeriall office But Ordination doth not set a man over a Church of Christ c. because without Election a man cannot be over any flock I answer to the Minor and the proofe 1. That it is but a begging of the question and hath been before disproved that without Election a man cannot be over any flock 2. Although a man could not be over a flock without Election and Election were necessary to his Call yet the Essence of the Call may lie in Ordination Election may be necessary as the causa sine qua non and yet Ordination may be the causa formalis of the Call to the Ministry Suppose by some ancient Charter the People of such a City are invested with a right to chuse their own Minister So that without their Election he is not their Minister Yet so as that it belongs to some Gentleman to present the person so Elected unlesse he can shew reason to refuse him in this case Election is necessary and yet the Essence of the eivil Call lies in his Presentation Or suppose 〈…〉 of Canterbury had been to chuse the A 〈…〉 shop of Canterbury yet notwithstanding the n 〈…〉 of their Election the Essence of the Arch Bishops C 〈…〉 did lie in another thing to wit civilly in the gift of the King Ecclesiastically in his consecration by the Bishops So though the Election of the people were necessary yet the Essenâ—e of the Call may lie in the Ordination of the Ministerâ— 3. Although Election determine a mans imployment to this or that particular place yet Ordination sets him over a Church of Christ viz. over the whole Church His Ordination sets him over a Church indefinitely his â—â—â—â—tion sets him over this or that particular Church As the Act of the University makes a man a Doctor of Physick but the choice of such a City or such a noble Family makes him the Physitian of that City or Family The second Argument is this Ordination is to be consequentiall unto a mans having the whole Essence of the Call to the office Acts 13. 3. Paul and Barnabas had the Essence of their Call before from God they were not of men Gal. 1. And this example is a binding rule to us Answ. 1. I might say as Divines say of Vocation That there is a Calling ad foedus to the Covenant and ad munus to an Office So likewise for Ordination there is a double Ordination the one ad munus to an Office the other adopus to a Work The Ordination which we spake of and wherein the Essence of the Ministeriall Call doth consist is an Ordination to an Office and such an Ordination the Apostle never had Gal. 1. 1. And such an Ordination this Text peradventure speaks not of but of an Ordination to a Work nor is there any ground to wonder that men should be solemnly Ordained to such a work as this a work so great so uncouth so difficult so much exposed to contradiction nor was it unusuall in the Church either of the Old or New Testament to use fasting and prayer or laying of hands as well in the designation of a person to a work as to an Office 2. This Argument will fall as heavy upon Election as Ordination It must be remembred that they assert that the essence of the call lies in Election and to prove this they urge the Election of an Apostle Acts 1. Now from hence I thus argue against them If this was the prerogative of the Apostles that they had their call neither of man nor by man c. then the essence of their call doth not lie in Election But this was the prerogative of Apostles that they were neither of men nor by men so that although Ordination and Election were both used in reference to the Apostles yet the essence of the call did lie in neither of them And it is certain that in Acts 1. the essence of Matthias his call did not lie in the election of the people for that Barsabas had as well as Matthias but in the designation of God And therefore as our Brethren would say for themselves in that case that we are to distinguish between what is ordinary and what is extraordinary between what was peculiar to the Apostles and what was common to other Officers and that this was common to the Apostles with other Officers to be admitted by Election which therefore is a president for us in the call of other Officers but that the essence of their call should not lie in Election but in Gods designation this was peculiar to them and so is no rule to us the same Liberty I hope they will allow us to say that in this Ordination here was 1. Something ordinary and common to the Apostles with other Officers which was to be ordained which therefore
consist of persons baptized and baptize them none can but he that is a Minister Christ therefore chose Apostles before Churches and the Apostles ordained elders to gather Churches To this they answer 1. A Church must needs be before an officer because he that is an officer is made an officer onely to a Church and therefore the Church is presupposed Reply This is a meer begging of the question and we have already at large confuted it and shewen that a Minister is an officer and acts as an officer even to such as are no Church 2. The Apostles were extraordinary officers and therefore that instance proves not that ordinary officers must be before Churches Reply Our brethren must take heed of denying the exemplarinesse of the Apostles to ordinary Ministers in the administration of Church affaires They themselves do oft make use of it And it cannot be denyed by any rationall or ingenious man that the Apostles as in some things they did act as extraordinary officers and are no president for us as in single and absolute jurisdiction c. so in other things their acts were ordinary and there examples binding as to us as their preaching baptizing c. And that this case is of the same nature may appeare from hence because the same reason which made it necessary foâ— Apostles to be before Churches made it also necessary for other Ministers to be before them For the reason why the Apostles were to be before Churches was this because by them Churches were to be gathered and baptized And thus it was with the ordinary Ministers of those times they also were instituted then and are so now by that lasting institution Eph 4 11. c. not onely for the building up of Churches already constituted but also for the bringing in of those who are not yet gathered and therefore it was and is necessary still that Ministers be before Churches 3. They say Acts 14. 23. When they had chosen them elders in every Church the Churches therefore were before the chusing of elders Reply 1. That instance doth not at all enervate our assertion for although some Churches may be before some elders which we never denyed yet in the generall a Minister must needs be before a Church And thus much shall suffice for the vindication of those arguments which the Assembly used to shew that the essence of the call doth not lie in election It now remaines that I undertake the defence of those arguments which they used to shew that the essence of the Ministeriall call doth consist in ordination Wherein I must still crave the continuance of the liberty I have used i. e. not put my self or the reader to unnecessary trouble in animadverting upon every passage but onely to observe such things as are argumentative and have not yet falne within our cognizance CHAP. XIIII THE Assembly urged 2 Tim. 1. 6. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. They answer 1. It is questionable whether laying on of hands be here meant of ordination for that ceremony was used in the collation of gifts also Reply But forasmuch as this laying on of hands was done by an ordinary Presbytery which had not such a power of conferring gifts by the laying on of hands that being the peculiar priviledge of extraordinary officers therefore it cannot here be rationally supposed to be so used in this place but onely for ordination And therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here said to be conveyed must needs be rather concluded to be an office which we often read to have been conferred by ordinary officers then a gift which we never read that an ordinary officer was intrusted to convey But that our brethren will not beare with For 2. They say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an office and here they repeat Mr. Hookers reasons so that in answering one I shall answer both and I must needs acknowledge that what is spoken upon this place is said very plausibly 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most commonly signifies gift not office 2. A man is not said to forget the office that is in him he is in his office rather then his office in him a man is said to stirre up his grace not his office 3. An extraordinary office such as this was could not be collated by ordinary officers Lastly they observe that this gift is said to be given not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of their hands as the cause but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with noting onely the concurrence and connexion To all which I reply 1. That both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in scripture for office as well as gift our brethren themselves will grant so that the word being indifferent we must see which way other considerations will determine it For the second where most difficulty lies I reply 1. A man may properly be said to neglect his office or to disregard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carelesse in his office or in the execution of his office I know no absurdity in it either in the English or in the Greeke Tongue If a Magistrate be slothfull carelesse c. we may properly say he neglects that Office that God hath put him in he neglects his place And as a man is said to neglect himselfe when he neglects those things and those actions which concerne himself so a man neglects his office that neglects the works of his office So for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strip it of the metaphor and it is no more but this put forth actuate exercise thine office Pauls bidding him stirre up his Ministry is no more then what elsewhere he bids him fulfill thy Ministry do the work of an Evangelist He that neglects the work of his Ministry invalidates his office disuseth neglects his office and he that fulfils the works of his Ministry stirres up his office For that other criticisme that a man is in his office not his office in him the office is adâ—oyned to him not inhaerent in him that is hardly worth taking notice of because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so variously sometimes for one preposition sometimes for another sometimes for that which is inherent in him sometime for that which is adjoyning to him as all know that are not wholly strangers to the Greek Tongue that it is a vanity to lay any stresse upon it Sometimes it is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and sometimes in for apud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for a man to be apud se for a man not to be besides himself so here the Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apudte with thee which is committed to thee And as men are said to be in sin though indeed it is sin that is in them and they are said to enter into their masters joy though to
they say little to the purpose and what they do say is for the most part either nothing else but a repetition of their disproved principles or so infirme that I may safely leave things to any ingenuous reader who shall compare our arguments and their Answers Neverthelesse I will not wholly omit this task also but where I can pick up any thing that requires an answer and hath not been already dispatched I shall here take notice of it They offer divers arguments to prove this proposition That in a Church which wants officers some beleevers may lawfully ordaine without officers 1. Else ordination were unattainable for there is neither precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in ordination out of the particular Church he is over In the places which speak of ordination to wit Acts 6. and 13. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. the persons ordaining were all extraordinary and so no president for ordinary officers And for 1 Tim. 4. 14. we see nothing to convince us that it was an ordinary Presbytery Answer 1. There are divers practises lawfully used even in our brethrens judgment which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in I will instance but in one and that is excommunication which we never read practised but by the authority and concurrence of an extraordinary Officer Paul practiseth it I have delivered him to Satan And the Church of Corinth practiseth it but not without Pauls expresse command and positive warrant and concurrence 1 Cor. 5. 3 4. For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit having judged already c. when ye are gathered together and my spirit And yet our Brethren allow and inferre this as a president for the practise of excommunication by ordinary Churches and ordinary persons And therefore good reason they should allow us the same liberty 2. And the rather because this makes against our Brethren as well as us It is their own grant that Ordination is an Institution of Christ now in force and that it is to be managed by the Officers of the Church where there are such So that both they and we are thus farre agreed that ordinary Officers may ordaine Now if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the Ordaining of Officers and so it followes from hence not onely that none but Officers may ordaine which we assert but also that Officers may not ordaine at all unlesse they will say Officers may do that for which they have neither precept nor president so that our brethrens argument either doth not praejudice us or else it enervates their own principles 3. The true way therefore to discern what acts of extraordinary Officers are presidentiall to ordinary and what not is this Those actions which were proper to those times those actions which were the results of extraordinary gifts those actions which were appendants to an extraordinary jurisdiction those are no presidents for us The Apostles healing the sick by anouncing with oyl their preaching without study their ordering of the Church affaires by their single jurisdiction these things are unimitable by us But now on the otherside Those actions of extraordinary Officers which are common to all the ages of the Church those which may be transacted by ordinary gifts and ordinary jurisdiction those are presidents for us The Apostles publick praying and preaching administring the Sacraments authoritative rebuking ruling censuring c. I say their acting of those things is and was ever by the Church taken to be a president for ordinary Officers acting the same things Now forasmuch as Ordination is allowed by our Brethren to be one of those New Testament practises yet to be continued by virtue of these instances c. It followes that the practice of the Apostles therein though they were extraordinary Officers is a president for us onely here is the difference wherein I am willing any indifferent man should be umpire whether it is a president for the peoples ordaining who though in things belonging to them they did act distinctly from and concurrently with the Apostles as in the businesse of Election yet never do we find them ordaining or joyning with the Apostles in the work of Ordination or whether it be not rather a president for Ministers Ordaining who are the undoubted successors of the Apostels and who did act with them in such works 4. And Lastly for that 1 Tim. 4. 14. how faintly and impertinently do they speak What if you meet with nothing that convinceth you that this was an ordinary Presbytery sure I am you meet with nothing that convinceth you they were extraordinary And it is a great deal more rationall for us to think they were ordinary persons of whom we read nothing which was extraordinary then to fancy them to be extraordinary of which we have no evidence at all the proof lies upon their side I need no positive proof to perswade me to take a man for an ordinary person he is justly presumed so to be till some indicia or discoveries of an extraordinary state break forth But now if one will assert that another is an extraordinary person he must have positive proof for it which if our brethren can bring to prove this Presbytery to be extraordinary we shall submit to them but till then they must not take it ill if we believe them to be ordinary Thus much for their first and principall Argument 2. They argue thus Those that may act in making Decrees in a Synod they may Ordaine But Believers who are not Officers may act in a Synod c. Acts 15. 2 22 23. I answer to both Propositions 1. The Major may be questioned because all those things are to be regulated by Scripture now if we have Scripture precept or example for the one i. e. for acting in a Synod which they say here is and not for the other which we have proved there is not then believers may do the one and not the other 2. For the Minor I deny that the brethren may act in making Decrees in a Synod I deny they did so in this place we read not a word of it All that we read is that the whole Church consented to the decrees and resolved upon the execution of them which they might do though they neither acted nor were present at the making of the Decrees Even as thousands consent to Acts of Parliament that have no hand in the making of them And if our brethren think to prove this they must bring better Arguments then any they have yet brought Another Argument they urge is this That Ordination consisteth in such Acts is may be done by the people The people may fast and pray and which may seem to be most doubtful they may impose hands if that be a rite still to continue as appeares from Numb 8 10. where the children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levities To this Instance the