^C-S^f iU~?
;*$*
*/%****<• £' ' * ^^^ **
t
\ *•• -
* « *
A FULL
VINDICATION
OF THE
People's Right
T O
Eled their own Pastors.
WHEREIN
A Discovery is made of the falfa Reafon- ingSy Miffeprefe?2tations% Inconjifv . : &c. of the Author of two late Tamj let The one intituled 3 A modeft andhtfmble 1 iquirjjt concerning the Right and (Power of Eie£ling and Calling Minijfers to vacant Churches ; The other, The fublick Teftimony made i/iore fublick.
By Mr. John Currie Minifter of the Gofpel at
KING LASSIE.
ifenim impiaEccleJia fpoliatio quoties alicui pop: ^e*
ritur, Eptfcopus quern non pe tier it lei fait em libera vote approbarit. Calv. Inftit. Lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 5.
We granr, as to the Matter of the Calling of MinifterS and Officers of the Church, that to all the People be- longeth to nominate and elect the Perfons to be their Church-officers : And that to put upon a People v> I Chriftians, and in a Capacity to elect, any U officer without their Confent and Election, is ur. > rantable Intrufion. Wood againft Lochev,
EDINBURGH, Prinred by tbomas Lumifden and John Roterff ^
fold by David Oliphant and other Book-felU;
( J)
READER,
THE Modefi; ancUhumble Enquiry hath been mightily applauded by Jome, as a> learned and complete Tiece of its Kind> a *Piece which hath beat the Bottom out of this prefent Controverfy of the People's Right to eleA their own Pallors ; and hath been ear- nejlly recommended byfome, who have boajiedof the ^Performance as unanpxerable. Upon read- ing thereof, my Sentiments differed vafily from- thefe Gentlemen ; and, bei?2g apprehenjive the- Slighting of it *witIoout^ an Anfwer might have the bad Effects of leading Jome afide, and con- firming others in their erroneous Opinion as to this Subjeff-, therefore I judged it tDnty at this Seafo?i to contribute my' Mite for vi?idi eating "Truth in the prefent Affair.
I know, 'tis i neon fider able with fome, who ba the Electors of Gofpel-minifiers ; but, as in Mr* Calderwood'i Efieem, fo to me, this is a Bufinefs of great Moment : And tho' it was of leffer Im- portance, yety if the Truth of God is to be cm- tended for, there may be Truth in what (Pro* fejfor Jamefon fays (a), " They who conteitl and fuffer for thefc that are commonly reckon ned fmall Truths and of little Moment, pro* viding always they be Truths, are more gene* rous and heroick, in fome Senfe, than thofe which fuffer and contend for Truths that are acknowledged to be great, and nearer the
A 2 "JFoim*
(a) Preface to ^/iSuro, /. 15.
cc €€ CC €C <C
cc Foundation ; becauje the Temptation to defert a thefe, that are falfly named fmall Truths, is €C by far more jlrong and fubtile than is the €C Temptation to drive Men from thefe Truths €C that approach nearer to the Foundation"
Perhaps it may be thought, fuch Writings have a ma7iifefi Tendency to break the *Peace of the Church : But, fhould this be the EffeB, who is to blame ? We are to contend, and that ear- neftly, for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, when it is attacked, whatever be the Confequence. Indeed, Peace with Irutb is worth our Heart's Stood ; yet Truth is never to be facrificedfor the
Sake thereof.
Some may think, this Anfwer might been more compendious : "But the Length hereof needs not furprife, if they confider the Variety of *Par~ ticulars handled, and how I was obliged to tran- scribe many oj the Enquirer's Words, and that ' fometimes 1 have taken a larger Compafs for fet- ting 'Things in a clearer Light, than barely to make a Reply unto him.
I had taken another Method than to follow Mm Kara kq^os, from 'Point to 'Point, if 1 had not efleemed this necejfary for preventing Com- plaints of having pajfed over fome Tart of his Sook as unanfwerable ; and, to the beft of my Knowledge, there is nothing omitted in which there is the Appearance oj Argument. I have not replied in fuch a fuperficial Manner as he in his pretended Anfwer to Jus Pop. Div. where every indifferent Perfon may fee with Half an Eye, that for the mofi part he hath jpaft by the
Strength of the rfrgvmeaf*
In
( 5 )
In his Publick Teftimony made more publicky taking me for the Author of the Remarks upon his mo deft and humble Enquiry, he charges me as treating him in an unbrotherly Way with much Ill-nature, Paffion, Calumny and Raillery ; advifing to be [paring 0/ ^Raillery in T'ime com- ing. Sut, ftoall I think him a Brother y till he fubfcribe his Name ? for the jDefignatio?z of a Minifter may be cotmterfeited. And thd I know of no Ground the Author of the Remarks hatb to be ajhamed of any T'hing faid in them ; yety feeing our Enquirer hath charged that Author with Ill-nature, Paffion, Calumny and Raillery, Joe hath been guilty of rajb Slander, inpublifbing to the World I was the Author of this Tieoe. And, for his wholefom Advice of being fparing cf Raillery in \time coming, our Author might taken it to himfelf, who with a Witnefs, in his Modeft and Humble Enquiry, and alfo in this laft ^Performance, hath been guilty of Venting his Spleen in aftrange Manner. To fay nothing of his affirming, I feem to read Books without all manner of Judgment ; he charges ?ne (a) with bare-faced Perverfions, with fifing Art and Craft in Writing, and that with a Mind and a great Mind to deceive, aBing fo its an Index Expurgatorius (that is, the greatefi Villain) could do nothing worfe : And all this without Foundation, as afterwards will appear to every impartial Reader. And, even in this lafi Ta phlet, he cannot forbear to vent his Taffion (b)9 giving the Epithet of a Fop, which I take to be of the fame Import with Raca (c) :
A 3 there
( « )
there he hath fundry other fcurrillous Eocpref- fio?is. But, either he thinks there is no Inde- cency in thefe, or thro3 the Violence of Tempta- tion they have dropt from his *Pen, contrary to Jois Inclination ; feeing in that very Paragraph Joe fays, he is guarded againft all Inclination of Indecencies towards me.
Stit his treating the Author of Jus Populi in fuch a Manner is the lefs to he thought of, feeing our modeft and humble Enquirer treats all that have written for the ^People's Right much in the fame Way, defigning them by the contemp- tible Title of Scriblers ; and particularly , feeing te treats a worthy Gentleman, of the entireft Character and Reputation among all, after the fame fanner, charging him once and again with Want of that Candor and I?7ge?iuity which is the Ornament of every Gentleman. And whereas my two alledged Perverfions did only flumble and fcandalize our Enquirer, theground- lefs Perverfion alledged againfi that much ho- noured Gentleman hath filled him fo with A- yzazement, that he proclaims to the World he was confounded thereat- -
For the Charge of being a reciting Writer, \I take with it", I mean, I Jludy to co7ifirm what 1 fay with Citations from the Learned and Or- thodox : And it is evident \ could he adduced fuch Authorities, he had not failed to produce them ; for he cites the fame Words of Vitringa once, Again, and a third T'ime^ thoy they make little for him. Tea, having few or no Authorities, he quotes the fame Words of his mofi wife and refolute Minifters of Fife 720 lefs than five or fix
Uimesj th<? I fuppofe n is above his Kmh to
Mil
< 7 >1
**// wifo they were ; yeaM for my Tilting Ibe knows, they all complied with Prelacy. Or> if% by a 'reciting Author, he means I come over the fame 'Things I have written at different Times, I own the Charge: For Jus Populi Divinum is hut afecond Edition wiih large Additmis of Jus Populi Vindicatum. And a great fart of what the Enquirer fays in his Publick Teftimony made more publick is crambe reco&a, or nothing but a Repetition of what hefaid lafi Tear in his Modeft and humble Enquiry, as the 7720ft of his Exceptions ttgainft our Arguments are to be found in Romifh or Prelatick Writers.
yTis plain, the Enquirer^ Scope is to rob the People of all Right whatfoever in the Elettion of Miniflers ; and alfo, One would be tempted to think, to excite Judicatories and greater Ones to trample upon them, as being nothitig but Dregs or Off-fcourings ; But what further SDefign he hath is not fo eafy to divine. yTis true, in the "Be- ginning of his Book', before he lays down his Method (a), he is very pofitive that it is the Right of 'Presbyteries to elect cJPaJlors, affirm-, ing, That, after a ferious and conlcientious En- quiry, he found it to be fo ; ajferting alfo, That both Scripture and Antiquity affure us, that the Paftors of the Church are the chief Eleftors. But tho\ at entring upon his Search, he had the fullefijj/nrance of this ; yet, when he hath fini- fled his clabour ate, ferious and confeienvous En- quiry > and has come to the lafi Leaf of hi 's Book,
s full Aflurance is come down to a bare Proba- bility, to a bare Opinion, and to Lis being much
A 4 iri-
) l ■
-«■»■
( 8 )
inclined to think the Scriptures feem chiefly to give Countenance to Ele&ions by the Church Reprefentative. So it feems the Scriptures of Vfruth) which I thought had been fufficient to teach the Man of God how to behave himfelf in His Houfe, are a moft obfcure Rule, whereby Toe can only guefs at (Duty. And if, after all Jois carejul, attentive, ferious ani contentious Enquiry, his former full AfTurance is co?ne to a tare teeming Probability, and a bare Inclination to think the Scriptures feem chiefly to give Coun- tenance to Eleftion by the Church 'Reprefenta- tive, it feems our Enquirer has loft his (Pains ; and his modeft and humble Expreffions there, they feem to imply, that, after all his narrow * Enquiry, he can determine nothing pofitively in the Affair.
Some havefaid, T'he Modeft and humble En- quiry was written by one, andjome have affir- med it was done by another, while others thought mo than one might have a Concern in it ; But common Fame is no (Proof \ And, feeing the Au- thor lies dormant, and has not affixed his Name ; when I tell plain (truth, thoy it ftoould refleEi upon him, it needs not be thought I have an Eye ftpcf? this or the other (Perfon in particular.
If the Enquirer think meet to reply, I affure him he Jhall have the laft Word for me, if he follow the fame Method of Mifreprefentations, confident Ajfertions without (Proof Sec at lead, iffo, J rcfolve never, to follow him a capite ad calcem,, as here.
A
( 9 )
|
kSv?35 |
^wwHjd&tfS |
|||
|
Ajr>/ %y |
I>^VW|>3^P^^H5 * |
|||
|
r^^\t .v^K-jX^^A.'. |
ii||§ |
ia^ffs!^ |
||
|
1 I'V^At^*^' |
J€&jftg$ |
tJJK^^^ J^/'l'B^* -^ |
NpS§i |
|
|
A |
Fz/// Vindication
O F T H E
People's T)ivine Right to elect their Paftors.
CHAP. I.
HAT it is the Right of
the Chriftian People to
eled: their Minifters zvu\
other Cburch-Ojficers ,and
not the Right of Pope,
Prelate^ Presbytery, nor
of Magistrates, Heritors
or Elders, excluding o-
ther People, was proven
at fome Length in Jus Topuli jDivinum ; as al-
fo by fundry others before and fince the Writing
thereof ; But, feeing the Author of the Modell
i Humble Enquiry, in that, and in another
Pamphlet
r lo )
Pamphlet intituled,7#e cPublickTefti?nony made more publick> has attempted to enervate the Force of thofe Arguments ; here I deiign to ex- amine, ifty What be hath f aid in thofe Pieces againji our Scripture- Arguments for the (People's Right, i&bfy The General 'Things advanced in his Title *Page, and Introduction to his Modefi Enquiry. ^dly3HisAJ/ertions anent the Conjiitu- tions of this Church relating to the CallofGofpeh Miniflers. 4t hly 3 What he advances in his fecond Seftion, where he pretends to flat e the £>ueftion. 5thly3 What he fays as to the Sentime72ts of the Fathers and ancient Councils, tfthiy, What he affirms as to the Foreign Churches. And> Laft- ly , Confider what he fays in his Appendix. And, by this Method, the feveral Sections of his Enquiry will be anfwered, tho' not in the Or- der laid down by him.
The Arguments adduced from Scripture by Proteftant Divines for the People's Right to elefl: their Paftors, being the main Thing in this Con- troverfy, I begin with the Vindication of thofe which have been attacked by the Enquirer ; on- ly, ere I enter upon that Subjeft, it may be pro- per, for preventing Miftakes. to premife a few Things ; as, i. When we plead it is the People's Right to chufe their Paftors, by the Teople we underftand a People already called and profeffing Chriftianity : We do not fay,that fuch as are not Chriftians have any fuch Right ; no, a Presby- tery or others, as Junius fays, may chule for j them. 2. We fay not, this is the Right of all that are Chriftians by Name and Profeffioii, but of fuch only as are Men fearing the Lord, and walking in his Statutes, A pkbs obfcqmns free-
ceptts
( II )
ceptis Tiominicis 1$ Z)etM tnetuem, as Cypri- an fays : The Privilege of iuch as have been, or (in the Judgment of Charity) for Knowledge and a becoming Coverfation might be, admitted to the Table of the Lord, 3. When we fay it is the Right of a Chriftian People, by the People we underftand not the common People only, as fome would alledge ; but under the People we include Nobility, Gentry, Heritors, Elders and Zteacons, yea, and Minifters alfo in a collegiate Charge. 4. When we fay it is the People's Right to eleft their Paftors, we mean, it is the Privilege of fuch People as are to be the Paftor's Charge, joining in full Communion with him, fubje&ing themfelves to his Miniftry in the Lord. 5. When we fay it is the Peopled Right, with Cartwright, Calderzvood, Rtitherfurd, and o- thers, we mean, it is a *Divine Right which Chrift hath purchafed for and left in Legacy to tfcem. *. We do not fay this is fo the Right ofthe People, as to exclude the Presbytery from all Con- cern in the Matter : For it is the Presbytery's Right, not only to give Advice in the Affair, but alfo to moderate the Election ; And it is their Right to examine the Candidate's Qualifications for th$ Miniftry, and to take Trial of his Fit- nefs for the Charge to which he is called. 7. The Queftion is not, Whether the Suffrages or Votes of all, or the Votes of any at all, is eflential to a Minister's Call ; for, where a Con- gregation or People agree for fuch or fuch a Can- didate, there is nothing like an abfolute Neccfli- ty for a Vote, tho', where there is Diilerence among a People, I know not how this can he determined without their Suffrages ; till then,
each
( 13 )
each Side is apt to plead they have the Majority. But, pafling thefe, I now proceed to confider the Force of the Enquirer's Exceptions againft fuch Scriptures as have been adduced by Prote- ftants for Confirmation of the People's Right in this Affair.
SECT. I.
In which Lev. 8. 3. and Deut, 1. 13. are confi-
dered.
THE firft Argument for the People's Right, which the Enquirer takes under his Confi- deration, is taken from Lev. 8. 3. where the Lord commands Mofes to gather all the Co72- gregation together to the Door of the Taber- nacle of the Co?2gregntiony at the Inftalment of Aaron and his Sons in the Priefts Office ; which fuppofes this was to be done with the People's Confent, feeing they were to be gathered tqgg* ther upon that Occafion. Who they are that argue from this Text, I know not, nor did the Enquirer think meet to tell ; yet, I fuppofe the Argument here is, what we call a jfortiori. Thus, if under the Old Teftament, when God himfelf appointed the Perfons that were to mi- nifter in holy Things, would yet have them in- ftalled in the Prefence of the People with their Approbation and Confent, much more is their Approbation and Confent neceflary inthofe Ca- fes in which there is no fuch immediate Divine Interpoiition. And, tho* God himlelf made Choice of Aaron' to be the High Prieft, and his Offspring to fucceed to the Priefthood, that will not fay the People's Choice and Confent was in
vain :
vain : For/tho God made Choice of Saul to be the King, yet he was made King by the PeopJe at Gilgal, I Sam. n. 15. where it is faid, And all the People went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgal.
And at the Instalment of the Priefts, I find it is affirmed (a)> iC There was a Covenant be- " tween them and the People, at which Time cc the Priefts promifed all Duty to the -.People, ec and they reciprocally to the Priefts ; tho* the €C exprefs V^rds of fuch a Covenant are not re- €C corded in iBfe Scriptures." And to fay, with the Enquirer, €€ The People were only gathe- (C red together at the Inftalment into their Of- €c fice, that they might be afTured that God had tc called them, and that they were no Intru- cc ders," is not fo probable ; for Mofes the Man of God his Teftimony was enough to afTure them of this : Or, if this was one Reafon, it was not the only. nor main Reafon.
Willet in his Hexapla upon Leviticus (b}, having put the Queftion, Why the Co?2grega« tion was called together at the Ccmfecrdtion of Aaron and his Sons ? In anfwer to it, gives this as one of thofe which he calls the true Reafons ; cc Becaufe, fays he, according to the Apoftle's cc Rule, he that is to be ordained a Minifter, gc fhould have Teftimony of them which are tc without; and that hereby the People might <c fhew their Confent and Approbation, and pip* <c fefs their Purpofe to obey their fpiritual l9 «c thers, left any Scruple or After-thought might <c remain in any one, or Caufe of Exception."
And
(a) Cougar on Mai. 2. 8, ?. (b) p. 145.
. ( *4 )
And there he cites Origen and Tellicanm, a* being of Opinion with him. To the fame Pur- pofe (peaks Calvin (a)*
And further, tho5 under the Mofaick OEcono- my, the Priefthopd by the divine Appointment was appropriated to the Houfe of Aaron, and made hereditary to his Family ; yet the Covenant of Priefthood was only conditional as to him who was next in the Line, the Condition being, if he was meet for the PrieftY Office ; that is, if under noLegal or Moral Incapacity ^ And I hum- bly think the People were to be withered toge- ther at his Inftalment, to give their Confent un- to, and teftify their Approbation of, that Perfon who was to be confecrated, teftifying he was one to whom they cordially confented : For the next in Line did not always fucceed to the Priefthood ; hence, for the Sins of the Houfe of Eli, his Off- fpring were deprived thereof. As to what he fays (in his Teftimony made more pz^lick) of the Prophets under the Old Teftament, their being called of God RenitenU Tlebe, is true of the Wicked, but not of the Godly and Believing a- mong the People. \ And further, the Prophets being extraordinary MefTengers, they were not fent to particular Congregations ; fo it is nothing to the Purpofe.
A 2d Argument, brought by fome from the Old Teftament (b), is from the Tower and Li- berty given to the Jews,even tinder the Theocra- cy, to chufe their own Rulers, Deut. 1. 13. where Mofes fpake to Ifrael, faying, Take ye wife Men, and zmderftanding, and known among
your
»!«•
(a) Inftit. Lib. 4. Cap. 3. Se&. 1 5. (b) p. 45.
( is )
your Tribes, and I wiit make them Rulers } where we fee the Election is left unto the Peo- ple, as the Inftalling of thofe Rulers is referved by Mofes to himfelf. The People were allowed, yea commanded, to take (or give to themfelves, as the Words are according to the Original) wife Men, and understanding, and known among their Tribes ; there the Nomination and Electi- on of thefe Rulers of the People is given to them- felves. To this the Enquirer anfwers, i. Thofe were Civil Rulers, and therefore the Confequence is not valid. Anf They who argue from this Text, I fuppofe, will contend, That, in regard God allows them fo much Right in the Election of their Civil Rulers, it cannoc be denied, that, by the divine Will, iheir Conient was neceflary in the Choice of the Rulers and Overfeers of their precious Souls.
2. The Enquirer tells, cc When he confuted cc the parallel Text, Exod. 18. i j. (it (hould be €c 18. 2 5 J he learned Mofes was the fole Ele&or ; €C for there it is faid, That Mofes chofe able Men €C out of all Ifrael, and made them Heads over the €C ^People ; aflerting, That what the People did, €C T>eut. 1. 1 3. was prior to the Election ,• deny- €C ing any more is meant, but that the People €c were to confider who in their feveral Tribes cc were befl approven, giving their Certificate, €C and bringing them to Mofes, that fo, upon €f their Teftimony, he might chufe out of them " fuch as he thought fir. Anfw. Tho' Mofes be faid, Exod. 18. 25. to havechofen thofe Ru- lers, that will not prove he took the fole Ele&i-» on to himfelf; for it is not unufual in Scripture*
when a Thing is done by many, to afcribe it to
chc
( i6 )
the chief Director, as Nvtnb. 11.21. where it is faid, And Ifracl fent Mejfengers to Sihon King cf the Amorites ; and yet, 'Dent. 2. 26. Afcjes is faid to fend thofe Meflergers : The Meaning leems to be. The People chc-ie thofe Rulers by the Dire&ion of Mcfes, he prtliding in the Ele- ftion ,• for, even according to our Author, rhe People were to confider who were molt fit for that Office, and their Teftimony as to the Quali- fications of the Candidates was needful. I think then it is plain, the Nomination and Election were given to them. He cites Henry on Jzxod. 18. 15. faying, Mofes did not leave the Ele&ion of the Magiftrates to the People, but chofe and appointed them. By his not leaving the Electi- on to the People, the Meaning muft either be, He did not leave the Election fo to them, as not to prefide and direct in it, or not to have a Sh^re therein ; elfe we muft fay, Mr. Henry contradi&s himfelf : For,, when commenting on jDeut. f . 13. he fays, €C Mofes was not defirous cc to prefer his own Creatures, or fuch as fhculd cc under-hand have a Dependence upon him ; 5C for he leaves it to the People to chufe their cc Judges,to whom he would grant Commiflions : <c —Thus the Apoftles directed the Multitude^ cf to chufe Overfeers of the Poor, and then they €C ordained them, ABs 6. 3.—— Their Choice €t muft be dire&ed purely by the Qualifications <c of Wifdom, Experience and Integrity : Chufe cc fuch, faith Mofes, whofe Praife is in your cc Tribes 3 and with all my Heart I will make (C them Rulers." Thus far he. And Wilkt on the parallel Place, Exod. 18. 25. (where it is faid, Mops chufecfthofe Rulers) fays, * Thofe Offi-
" cers
€C cers or Magiftfates were taken out from the cc reft of the People by Elefiion' - 'Mofes is " faid to have cholen, becaufe he confirmed the €C People's Choice, and admitted thole whom <e they prefented ; for he faid to the People, cc String ye Men of Wifdom, &c. and I will €C make them Rulers over you : For it was the fafeft Way for the People to make Choice of them, becaufe they were better known unto them, and they would the more willingly o- €t bey them. " And there he cites Tbjiatus, as being of his Opinion : And the London Minilters cite this Scripture, to wit, 2)eur. i. 13. affirm- ing, that it clearly defcribes unto m the Jsatare of Election, to,wit, of Minifters (a).
In Conclufion to this and the former Argu- ments he fays, " When fuch Arguments as thofe " are produced (and I can meet with no other €C from the Old Teftament) I muft think, that u the Aflerters of this Do&rine muft be exceed - cc in&ty pinched for the Proof ; and truly thofe €C Divines who bring them, fpeak with great <c Diffidence of them, and lay no great Strefs <c upon them." Anfjo. 1. He might have met with Cyprian, and an African Synod with him, arguing for this, from the Old Teftament, name- ly, from Numb. 20. 25. where the Lord com- mands Mofes to take Aaron and Eleazer his Sc up to the Motility in the Sight of all the Co^ gregation, &c. 2. Whereas he fays, 'They 1 bring fuch Arguments muft be exceedingly pinched for 'Proof, and yet fays, T'heylay no greet Strefs upon them. For Anfwer, It is no
B rare
(a) Jus div. Mimf p. 135.
( i8 )
tare Thing to find judicious Writers adducing Arguments on which they lay lefe Strefs than u- pon others : And it needs not furprife our Au- thor to find Presbyterians now arguing from the Old Teftament, feeing Origen, Cyprian, WiZ- lety and others have pleaded from fuch Old-Te- ftament Topicks, or to the fame Purpofe, tho* they lay not the greateft Strefs upon them.
SECT. II.
In 'which the Argument from A<Ss r. anent the JEle£lion of Matthias is vindicated and confir- med.
C\ U R Author fays (&), e After a due weighing ^ c the Arguments adduced ffom the New c Teftament for proving the Peopled Right to r eleft their Paftors, he is llrongly inclined to c be of Opinion, that the Paflages adduced ra- c ther fight againft, than eftablifh or fupport, it ; c or at leafl;, that the Right of Election belong- c ed, for the firft Century, to the Church Re- c prefentatives, and that they only exercifed it. " As for his ftrong Inclination to be of this Opini- on, who can help it, tho' it fliould carry him to think, that Zuinglim, Calvinfleza^Zanchy , 2V- ter Martyr, and other Reformers, were a Com* pany of poor, weak, deluded, deluding Men in this Point, and that the Papilts whom they oppofed underftood the holy Scriptures better i And who can help his Inclination to think, the Epifcopals, Silfon^Sage, &c, have been founder in this Mat- ter,
(a) Tage 4*.
( *9 )
ter, than Calderxood, Rntherfurd, Gilkfpie>For- refler. Rule, <5cc. Our Author hath the Ho- nour of being the firft among 'Presbyterian 2Ji- vineSy for what I know, that ever wrote againft the People's Right in this Affair. And, by the fecond Branch of his Alternative, he teems to doubt, whether or not Apoftolick Preface in the firft Century is to be a Rule to the Church of ChriCi in After-ages ; but, if in the firft Century the Right of Election belonged to the Church- Reprefentatives,and was only exercifed by them, I think it ought to be fo ftill : And, were I oi his Mind, for as great a Slave as he fancies I am to Popularity % 1 w:ould defire to contend for it, tho' all the People on Earth3 whether of higher or lower Rank, fhould be difpleafed ; for appro- ved Apoftolick Practice in fuch Matters is to me of equal Authority with a Divine Precept.
But I proceed to the Vindication of thofe Ar- guments which are adduced by Protectant 2)i- vineSy efpecially 'Presbyterians, from the New Teftament; and to begin with Affs i. from the 15. v. and downwards, where we have an Ac- count o{ the Election of Matthias to the Apoftle- fhip. Here, 1. 1 will give you the Argument as ftated by the Enquirer. 2. Show wherein he doth Injury to it. And, 3. Anfwer his Cavils or Ex- ceptions againft it: And then proceed to confider other Scripture- proofs much in the fame Method. The Argument as ftated by him is in the follow- ing Words,
c The firft Argumertt is taken from the Call c of Matthias to be an Apoftle, which we have c related, Aits 1. from v. i<9 co the Clofe. I
1} 2 ihall
( 30 )
fhall propofe it, fays he (a)> in its full Strength , and with all its Advantages. The Difciples to the Number of One hundred and twenty did nominate and chufe two of thofe who had ac- companied Chrilt in his Miniftry, that one of them might be a- Witnefs of his Refurre&ion ; and accordingly the One hundred and twenty appointed two, hrmctv JV© ; Here is the Choice of the Church ; And v. i6. it is faid, Matthi- as was numbred with the eleven Apoftles'; vvyK&Tz*\,wt£rH, which Seza renders fimul Juf- fragiis e/e£lus; and Erafmtts thus, commnni- bus fuffragiis eleEius, i. e. he was chofen by common Suffrage: Here is the Confent exprel- fed by a Word of ftrong Import and Significa- tion, for the Word *\x$& ngnifies a Stone or Counter. And with thefe it was the Cuftom of old to give their Suffrage in palling of Judg- ment and granting Commiflions : And the in- fpired Hiftorian alludes to this Cuftom. Thus he had the Choice and Confent of the Church, that this might be a Precedent for future Ages ; and if there was the Content and Concurrence of the People to the Election of an extraordi- nary Church- Officer, much more fhould this be had in the Calling of the ordinary Paftors thereof. Thus I have done Juftice to the Ar- gument ; and, becaufe all Writers on this Sub- ject ufe it, and it is now in the Mouth of every Body, I fhall pay a due Rgard to it, and con- fider it with great Attention. But has he performed hisPromife by propofing the Argument in its full Strength ? No furely;
for
m~m*m i ■ i i ■ ■■» ■■■■ « »
(*) P- 47.
( « )
for, i/?, He tells not that we fay,. The 120 noc only nominated and made Choice of the two Per- fons that were to be upon the Leet, that one of them might be an Apoitle, but alfo they were cal- led fo to do by the infpiredApoftle 'Perer, ha- ving a Divine Warrant for it. 2.ily3 He tells not, that as we own Matthias to be an extraordinary Officer ; fo there was lomething extraordinary in the Choice, viz. That it was referred to God's imraediateDecifion by Lot. And we plead, That, as he was to be an Officer in the Church, fo the Choice and Confent of the Church was required who named him and Joseph as a Leet, judging ei» ther of them meet tor that great Work. $dly3 He tells not, as we argue from this, as the firft In- flance of the Choice of an Office-bearer in the New Teftament Church, wherein Men were con- cerned, and had the Nomination ; as we judge it was defigned for a Precedent : So, had that not been, we may rationally think Chrift would have called Matthias immediately, as he did the reft oi the Apoltles. But *Peter, being directed to re-» quire the Hundred and twenty to name orprefent Two, that one of them might be chofen by Lot, appears to have been defigned as a Precedent to the Church of Chrift in all future Ages. qthly$ We fay, That, if in any Cafe Church-members might have been overlooked _, this v as a proper Occafionj when the Eleven Apoitles w«re prefent,and going about the Choice of an Apoftie, who was not to be fixed in any particular Charge; and yet they are required to make the Nomination, jtbly, He neglects to tell, that we argue the People did all that could be done by Men in the Affair; they elc* &ed Two, and^ did not nominate the individual
JB 3 Per-
( M )
Perfbn; not becaufe they had not a Right to do
ib, but becaufe the Perfon was to be put into the Apoftolick Office,, and fo behoved to be elected in an extraordinary Way, and, in fome Sort, im- mediately by Jeftis Chrift. The People's being called to nominate in this Cafe, was more than to eledt many ordinary Paftors ; as to have a Power to nominate Two,One of which is to be an Admi- ral or General, is more than to have a Power to eleft many Siibaltem Officers. .
But now, let* us confider the Enquirer's Anfwer to this ; And, fince he promifes to pay the Argument all due Regard, and praifesGod in the Clofe of his Argument for helping him to reafon after fuch a Manner, no doubt his Manner of Reafonirig mult be very Angular, and fo it really is: For, from the 47th Page, to the 5 2d Page, he fcarcely has a Word againft our Argument, but fpends his Four Pages to little or no other Purpofe, than to make the World believe he has faid a great deal. Indeed he fays, ff God1 had already made * c the Choice, before the One hundred and twen- cf ty did any Thing about it : And this, fays he, c< the Apoftle Teter had Knowledge of by Re- " velation."
A7ipw. 1 ft, True; God had chofen Matthias before the Hundred and Twenty did any Thing about it, in refpedl of Purpofe and Decree ; but the Decree was not the Rule by which the Hun- dred and twenty walked in their Choice; nor was God's fecret Purpofe of chufing Matthias notified to IPeter, or any among the Hundred and twenty Difciples : Or, if fo, to what Pur- pofe were two nominated, that one of them might be chofen by Lot ? And why did they pray,, That
the
t n ) h
the Lord, who knows the Hearts of all Met:s would Jhew which of thefe Two he had chofen^ feeing, according to the Enquirer, he had fhown this already ?
He fays (a), Cf Had that Reafon been goo d, <c 'Paxil, who had been a Blafphemer, a Perfecu- cc tor and Murderer^ had never been called to the €C Apoftolate." But I cannot comprehend how any Reafoning here could have kept him from that Office* The?, had God required them to chufe fuch as they judged meet, Paul, before his Con- veriion, could never have been chofen by them without Sin.
He (ays, " The Apoftle did not pray that the Lord would direct them to make a right Choice* as certainly he would, had they been to make the Eledtion." But he fights with his own Shadow ; for none of us fay they were to make the Ele&ion of the Apoftle in particular, for that was to be left to the lJivine immediate 2)eterminati+ on which of the Two fhould be the Apoftle j Yet we may fuppofe, at this Meeting, they being together ivith one Accord in 'Prayer and Stip$li~ cation, v. 14. before they entred upon the Aftairj they prayed for Divine Conduct in all that mighc be under their Deliberation.
In/. 51, 52. he grants all we plead for, namely* That the Lord gave the making the Leet, or No- mination of the Two to the Hundred and twenty, which was all that could be done by Men in the Aftair, as was faid, Matthias being to be an ex- traordinary Officer. And whe^gas he fays,Eithe£ they a&ed by their own Skill S Men, or by the
B4 Di-
"»- - '<»■. „ ■ ky
<0 Va& 48-
( H )
Dire&ion of the Holy Ghoft ; I think thefe Two are not inconfiftent : The Lord might be their Direftor, and yet they might exercife their Rea- fon in the Nomination.
He yields the Hundred and twenty made the Nomination. This is no more than what was yielded long fince by the Popifh Cardinal Bellar- mine. Our Enquirer fays, " The Meeting fure- cf ly confifted of the Eleven Apoftles, and the cc Seventy Difciples, and thefe make Eighty oneJ" But that all, or yet the Half of the Seventy were there, the Scripture gives us not the leaft Hint ; And, for any Thing the Scripture fpeaks, they might all be dead before that Time : But, tho* they had been then alive, and in that Meeting, it makes nothing againft our Argument ; for the Office of the Seventy was only temporary. I afferted this in Jus 'Poptili, Sec. The Enquirer falls a query- ing upon that, asking, Who told me this ? put- ting a round Dozen of .Queftions much to the Tame Purpofe, no doubt with a Defign to make his Reader believe this is a Fiftion of my own, and that I was the firft ever faid fo.
But for Anfwer, I/?, I learned this from Mr. Forrejler, who, in fundry Places of his Writings, affirms (a), That the Seventy were chofen for a tranjient 'Preparation, be'wg fent Two and Two ittto'Places whither the Lord was to come. And he calls their Million a Tranfient Miflion, citing the Selgick T)ivines as being of this Opinion : And alio, to this Purpofe, he cites the Univerfity ofSaumur. Mr. Jamefon(b) alfo afTerts, Their CommiJJion was oply temporary, and when that
ex-
(a) ghieries, p. 6i, 14$, 147. (b) Sum of
JEpiJl. Cord. p%4i, 88 v
expired, they were of 720 Order at all. <c If Jo- cc feph and Matthias, fays he, belonged to the cc Seventy, is altogether uncertain ; it is nothing cc to the Purpofe of our Adverfary, feeing their cf Commiffion had not been renewed after the cc Refurreaion/' Affirming alfo, iC The Eleven €C A potties were all the Gofpel-minifters in the " World at the Time of Matthias his Election." I give him alfo Calvin's Teftimony, who, fpeak- ing of the Seventy, fays, Nulla iilis prvprie comrnijfa fuit legatio, &c. Cf No proper Em- €C bafly was committed unto them, but they were cc fent, as Chrift's Forerunners, to prepare the
People's Hearts to receive his Dodrine." So Seza, and others ; and Srokesby charges the 2)ijfenters in England, as maintaining the Office of the Seventy was but temporary.
idly, I learned it from Dr. Whithy on Luke 10. who fays, "c Nothing is more certain, than that cc Commiffion,which is recorded Luke 10. did con* €C ftitute the Seventy only temporary Miflionaries fC for that Errand ; and which could not poffibly €C be more than temporary. That Commiffion Cf carries in its own Bofom clear Evidences that it €C did not inflate them into any ftanding Office in " the Chriftian Church, which was not yet in " Being when they got it." Mr. Sage affirms (a), The Seventy had no ftanding Miffion or Of- fice, but fuch as was tranfient only, and pafTed off with that Exigent.
Here Popifh Authors might be cited to the fame Parpofe, as the Bifhop of Spalato, &c. but I pafs this ; only, I cannot eafily reconcile our Enqui- rer's Conduct with a fair Reprefentation, feeing
he
■» ■ ' ' »i — » - 1,11 »ii
(a) VindiEl. of prinap. Cap. 6.
( a* )
he infinuates all the Seventy Difciples were prefenr. The Seventy are never mentioned in all the New Teftament but in Luke 10. And had they at that Time been at Jerafalem, efpecially if in the Qua- lity of Church-officers, it is very probable they had been •mentioned in the 13. or ^14. Verfes of this Chapter, where it is faid, Thefe all (to wit, the Eleven Difciples) continued, with one Accord in 'Prayer and Sup-plication with tht Women, and Mary the Mother of jfefm, and with his Bre- thren. He asks, " Can we think the unchange- €C able God is fo fickle, as to take their Commit €C fions from them, and repone them in a few €€ Days i And*asks further, If he did not on the (C Day of cPemeccft3 which was but ten Days af- €C ter our "Saviour's Afcenfion, qualify them in an u extraordinary Manner?" I reply, It argues no Mutability in God, if he gave a Commiffion only for a particular Bufinefs, to take it away when that Work is done. And, for his qualifying them in 'Ten 2)ays after Chrift's Afcenfion by the Jllapfe of the Holy Ghoft, that cannot be fhown from any Place of Scriptures : Nor can we tell who they were on whom the Holy Ghoft defen- ded in the Days of Pentecoft, except the Twelve Apoftles. Now, having fhown the Improbability of the Seventy's being at that Meeting, at leaft of their being conftant Church-officers, it is incum- bent on the Enquirer to* prove that they were there, and conftant Officers, elfe he muft quit the Argument. The Enquirer allows the Thirty nine were the People and private Difciples, and asks, f< If this can be a Precedent for Election in " future Ages of the Church by the People, fince
u fo few of them were there ? Why did they not
"af-
. ( *7 )
rf afTemble the Five hundred Brethren, who were fC Witnelles lately of our Saviour's being alive a- :i gain r might not thefe be aflembled again at Je- c rufalem, as well as they had been in a Moun- :c tain of Galilee \ \ Cor. 15. 6." Anfiv. ijl> We Tiould not curioufly enquire why the Lord or- iered it fo, he is infinitely wife.
And, 2dly, Whereas he asks. Why was not the Five hundred" Brethren aflembled, who lately were Witnefles of our Saviour's being alive again? I mlvver, As profcftbly the Hundred and twenty lere mentioned w£re of that Five hundred, our lord having told his Difciples by an Angel, Mat. :fc. 7. to go into Galilee, for they Jhould fee him e: So, as fome think, it is not improbable iofe Hundred and twenty were the Men in Jeru- ilem who at that Time did openly own Chriff, •eing received into full Communion with the )ifciples, partaking of fealing Ordinances : And : is very probable mod of that Five hundred who iw our Lord at Galilee, had their Refidence near nto that Country, which was at a great Dittance# "om Jerufalem, being, fay fome, about Eighty r a Hundred Miles diltant from this City ; fo that without the greateft Fatigue they could not come hat Length.
Mr. Henri , commenting on Mat. 28. 7. gives wo Reafons for that general Meeting which Chrift ppointed with his Difciples at Galilee, iff, * It was out of Kindnefs to thofe Difciples, fays he, 1 who remained in Galileey who did not, and perhaps could not, come up to Jervfalem* idly, in Confideration of the Weaknefs of his Difciples chat were now at Jerufale?n, who, c as yet, Wf re afraid of the Jew* aad durft not
" aP-
cc
CC CC
( ** ) €C appear publickly ; and therefore this Meeting
ec was adjourned to Galilee. Chrift knows our €C Fears, and made his Appointment where there was leaft Danger of Difturbance." And on John 4. 45. he fays,The Galileans lay very re- mote from Jenifalem; their Way thither Jay cc through the Country of the Samaritans, €C which was troublefom for a Jew to pafs, €C worfe than Baca's Valley of old/'
(a) He asks, cc If the Difciples of our Lord ce could not meet with Safety in. fo great a Com- fC pany near Jerufalem, why went they not cc back to that Mountain in Galilee}" To which I might anfwer, That, tho* the Lord is not obliged to give an Account of his Matters to us, yet we fee he had more Pky upon his Difci- ples, than without Neceffity to carry them back to Galilee, where they had lately been. And, whereas he asks, €C Were there no mo in the €C City of Jertifalem but 39 private Difciples?" I fay, There were 109 who joined in full Com- munion with the Apoftles. ♦ In order to prove there was a great Num- ber of private Chriftians in Jerafalem, ift3 He cites John i. 25. where it is faid, When Jefus was at Jerufalem on the Feaft-2)ay, many belie- ved in his Name, when they faw the Miracles which he did. To this I anfwer, That the Context fhews they were Hypocritical Believers, fuch as Chrift put no Trull in ; as is the Opini- on of 2)iodati, Grotius, 'Pifcator, and other Commentators.
idly, For Proof of |this he alfo cites John 7.
31. where
(a) Td& 54.
i.ilW* ■ *■
( 5* )
Si. where it is faid, Many of theTeople believed mi him> and faid > When Christ cometh, will he do more Miracles than thefe which this Man hath done ? Anfw. The Words themfelves give Ground to queftion, whether they were true Believers or not. Grotius on the Text fays, € They believed in him, not as in the Chrift, c for of that they doubted ; but as in an eminent c Man fent from.God,, and almoft to be compa- c red with the Mejfias. * And what if many of them who believed were Night-'DifcipleSy who as yet kept themfelves clofe or hid for Fear of the Jews, not being as yet received into full Communion, partaking of fealing Ordinances ? As for the Three thoufand mentioned, Acts 2. 41. and the otherThoufands mentioned^*??* 4. 4. it is owned their Converfions were after the Ele- ction of Matthias.
As to what the Enquirer fays (a) againft the Force of the Word l.vyKATi^^1^ in the laft Verfe, which our Tranflators render Numbred, I fhall not infift upon it, feeing he owns all we plead for from it ; namely, that it intimates their joint Acknowledgment and cordial Acceptance of him.
I had almoft forgot another Query he puts, JKz. {b) " Why is the Right of Election daim- * ed now-a-day* as the Property of the People, u in Exclufion of Minifters, who, according to cf the prefent Doftrine, are the Court that pre- a fides in the Election ? Did the Apoftles and Se- cc venty invade the People's Right, l$c?y Now, for Anfwer, he takes it for granted, that the Se- venty
- •*->
(a) p. 53. (£) p. 5
*
( 30 )
venty were all among the Hundred and twenty here, and that they were Chut 'ch-Officers, which we deny. But for a more diredt Anfwer, i. As I faid, we allow and plead it is the Right of Presbyteries to moderate in the Eleftion ; and I am humbly of Opinion, that the Moderation fhould rather be by the whole Presbytery, than one or two of their Number; for the whole Col- lege of the Apoflles prefided in the Ele#ion of Matthias, and of the Deacons, Atts 6. 3. 2. We allow a Negative in the Affair to the Presbytery, in cafe a Parifh fhould ele6fc a Perfon of unfound Principles, a vitious Pra&ice, and wanting fuita- ble minifterial Gifts. We allow the Presbytery to try his Parts and Qualifications for the Work: of the Gofpel in that Charge to which he is called.
In the Conclufion of his Argument, our An- gularly modeft and humble Enquirer fays (a), c Thus I have delivered my Thoughts and Sen- c timents on this Argument ; and, before I pro- c ceed further in my Enquiry, I thank the only ? wife God, who affifted tm and enabled me to c reafon after this Manner ; Not unto me, not c .unto me, but unto him be the Glory : And I c humbly implore his Direction in what remains r of my Enquiry/ O Father of Lights, graiA that i7t thy Light I may fee Light, and lean?- the Truth as it. is in Jefus Chrift* . Who can queftion his Modefty and Humility, who faid, God, I thank thee, I am not like other Men (b)?
But pray, for what is our Enquirer fo thank- ful, why he hath lent Cardinal Bellarmine and
other
«W— — — — > I yl ■
«t«
(a) Tage jtf. (b) Luke 18. n»
( 31 >
other Romanics the beft Lift fie can ? and done all that is in his Power to fbp the Mouths of fuch as vindicate our Reformers, who difturbed the Peace of Mother-Church, pleading Grill ic was the Right of the People toeled their Pallors, and that their Calling was good and valid, tho' they wanted Ordination by a Diocefian Biihop, in regard they had the Call of the People, where :hey ferved in the Work of the Gofpel ? Has he not GrAund to be thankful, that he has de- nolifhed fuch weak and well-meaning Presbyte- ians, as Calvin, Seza, Junius, Chamier, 'Pif- >ators Tareus, Rivet, Walletis, turret ine, Wende- ine> EJfeneus, ifnrkitis, Pictet, Calderwood, Rtitberfurd, Gillefpie, Fcrrefler, Jamefon, Ruk ; and I know not how many other Pro- ors of Divinity, who have all argued from his Text ? Hath he not Ground to be thankful ? dt now he hath fet them right, to ufe his own ;hrafe. The Enquirer, in his 'Ptiblick 'Tefiimony inade rcpublick (a), adduceth a Citation from Ru- rfurd, to prove the People did not nominate itthias, affirming, That, according to him, hey were only Confenters. But, for Anfwer, ic >ou!d be confidered in that Place cited by him* lutherfurd is only arguing againft People's ha- ing a Right to ordain Minifters ; which is the >odxine of Independents, who adduce this E!e- Hon of Matthias as a Proof of their Right for )rdination. But, as in other Places of his Wri- ng, Rutberfurd argues for the People's Right ) chufe their Paftofs, from this Elc&ion o(Mat~
thias ;
(a) Page 40.
***«■
thiasi So, in the very Place cited by the Enqui- rer, he fays, * All the Hundred and twenty did 4 nominate and prefent him. 2. They did chufe
c him. 3. Says he, Here is no Probation, that
c only a Company of Believers, wanting Paltors, c are Ordainers of Matthias to the Apoftlefhip ; c and this is the Queftion/' Now, Words can- not make it plainer, than thofe do, that Ru- therfard gives the Choice of Matthias to the Hundred and twenty, or to the People, and to none elfe. There alfo the Enquirer cites Profef- for Wood to the fame Purpofe ; but it would be alfo confidered, that, in the Place cited, Profet for Wood is far from arguing againft the People's Right ; for no Man was ever clearer and more pointed upon this Head than he is : For, in the very Place cited, arguing againft Lockier the In- dependent, he fays, c For his firft Inftance of E- € leftions of Officers, we grant, that the Ele- € ftion of Officers is to be done by all ; but, fays € he, Election is no Ordination. ' And in the hoi Page of that Book, he fays, ' To put upon c a People who are Chriftians* and in a Capaci- € ty to eleft, any Church-Officer without their * Confent and Election, is unwarrantable Intru- fion;'* and there he affirms, It belongs to all the People to nominate and eledt their own Church-Officers. And, in the Place cited, his Scope is plainly to fhow, that Right for People to ordain a Minifter, is what can never be proven from any Thing done in the Affair of Matthias ; which we readily grant. An4 whereas he cites Cawdrey to the fame Purpofe, tho* I have not feen the Book ; yet, I doubt not, the Cafe is the fame wath him ; yea, it is evident from his
Words,
( 33 )
V/ords, as given by the Enquirer, t that the People propounded the Two, tho* it was not in their Power to nominate a particular Man.
SECT. IN.
In which the Argument for the 'People* s Right to eleSl their Rafters, drawn from their ele* Bing the 2)eacons> A&s 6. is vindicated and confirmed.
C\ U R Proteftant Divines, Jn pleading for the V* People: Right againft Roma?zifts, and fome high-flying 'Pretatijls, have ftiU argued from the Right given them by the Apoftles to chufe their Deacons, Atts 6. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This our Au~ Chor comes next to coniider. Our Argument according to him, is in thefe Terms (a) ; < Nowj if the People had a Right to chufe their Dea- cons, then a fortiori, or much more, they have a Right to chufe their own Paftors : If they had a Right to chufe thofe to whom they were to entruft their charitable Benevolence, for the Relief of the Necelfities and Wants of the Poor, .much more have they a Right to chufe thofe to whom they are to commit tho Ore of their Souls/ And then he adds, ' I. am exceedingly miftaken, if I have omitted any Thing that <idds Vigor and Life to the Argu- ment ; no, I fhall deal fairly, and ada candid € Part in this Enquiry/ Here are fair Promiiesj, but the Performance hath not anfwered : Should be not have told his Reader, that jhe Apoftles left the Election td the whole Multitude, clain.
C ing
x v . »* »- « - « ■ ■» . ■ ■ " m ■ — 1
( 34 )
ing no more as their Rights but to moderate in the Meeting, and the Ordination of the feven Perfons whom the People (hould chuie t And he fhould, have told, how we argue, That no Ground nor Reafon can be given, why the Apo- :!es did not nominate and ele& the feven Dea- cons' themfelves, but that they knew this to be the People's Right from Cfcrifl to ele<5t their own Office- Bearers : And, if fuch a Truft as this,- of depurfing the People's Alms, was judged by the Apoftles neceffary lo require the PeopJe's Choice, the far greater Truft of tbeit immortal Souls much more required it, their Concernment beipg far greater in this than in the other. As a Man has a Right to chufe bis Servant, and therefore much more hath he a Right; to chufe his Wife* becaufe his Intereft and Happfoefs depends m^ch more upon this than upon the bther; furely;it TKtfref afar lefs Matter, thoJ the People were'impofed u- pon in the collecting ordiftributing of their Cha- rity, than in the Choice of aPaftor for their Souls. But now, the Enquirer obje&s againft the Ar- gument ; i. CI underftand, fays he, that a Body € of learned Minifters reafon quite btherwife,^ I € mean,the Minifters of London in their jfzis-Div. c Min.p. 129. they fay, That an Argument a nii- € nore ad majt/s is not good and valid; and Jcis cer- c tainlyfo. The Free-holders of a County have a ' right to chufe their reprefentatives in parliament^' c but they have not a Right to chufe their Sove- c reign, nor any Officer of State ; nay, not the € Sheriff of a County/ Anfw. Tho' fundry of Prelatick Principles join with the Enquirer in opi- pofing the Peopled Right in the Affair, yet I lee not how any of them can argue againlt this ;
becaufe
becaufe they affirm, The Deacons chofen here were called, not barely to take Care of the Poor, and ferve Tables, but alfo to teach, preach, bap- tize, and officiate pubJickly in all holy Things, excepting only the Adminiftration of the Sacra- ment of our. Lord's Supper : They alledge, The Deacons were to preach in the Name and Autho- rity of the King ot Kings, befeeching Sinners, in Chrijl's Steady to be reconciled to Qod. Is not this the higheft Dignity, to be Ambafladors of the blejjed and only 'Potentate! To me, fays the Apoitle, is this Grace given , that I Jbovld -preach among the Gentiles the tinfearchable \Ricbes of Chrift (a). Was not Praying and Preaching the chief VVork of the Apoftles (b) ?
But, idly, It is ftrange the London Miniliers fhould have excepted againft this Argument ; for jfometimes we find them arguing from the ltfs to |:he greater ; and even from this very Text, \/4fts 6. As when they fay (c)> * In the New Te- (lament we read, that in the very Choice of Deacons, which was but an inferior Office, and ferving only for the Diftribution of the temporal Eftates of the People, the Apoftle requires, that they fhould, not only be elected by the People, but alfo ordained to this Of- fice : Much more, fay they, ought this to be done in the Choice of Perions who are Called to the Work of Preaching, and difpenfing fa- cramental Myfleries, a Service of all others of greateft Weight and Worth/ And in the bregoing Leaf they lay, c The mediate ordinary
C 2 Way
(a) Epb. 5. 8. (b) J#s <S. 4, (0 7«i Z>
( 3* )
* Way by which God would have all Men to € enter into the Miniftry, is by Ele&ion and Or-
* dination ; and then they add, They are both.of
* them diltin&ly fet down in the Choice of the € Deacons, AEis tf. 3, 5,6.' Surely by this they intend, as in the Call of the Deacons to their Office, firit there wras Election by the Multitude cr People, and then Ordination by the Apoftlesj fo it mult be in the Call of Golpel-Minifters : And thefe learned Divines declare, they reckon it a Presbyterian Principle, That the People have Right to eJed their Paftors (a)y affirming, It is an Excellency of the Presbyterian Government that it is fo. And again and again, they argue from this Text ©f Scripture for the People*! Right, as in their Jus 2)iv. Reg. where the} lay, c Ecclefiaftical Officers are both.ele&ed and c ordained by the Church, without Coinmiffion c from the Civil MagHtratey by vertue of Chriftt c Ordinance, and ki his Name/ They fay
* People may chufe Presbyters or other Church- € Officers, but the Presbytery is to ordain, AEti € 6. 3, 5, 6. Look ye out Men whom we may
* appoint ; (b that the People's bare Ele&ion is nc c Scripture-Ordinanation.' Again, in their Ju. SDiv. Mn. (b) they aflert, c That the People':
* Call may determine a Perfon's Miniftry in at c efpecial Manner to themfelves ,• the regulai € Call confifts not barely in the Suffrages of th( € People, which makes a Perfon their Minifter c not a Minifter.—— A Probationer preacheth € that fa the People that are to chufe him ma]
€ hav<
■•<*
(a) In the Preface to Jut Z)iv, Reg. (b) p,
( 57 )
€ have Experience of his Gifts.** And there they declare, they are much and very much fox popu- lar Elections, as well as their Brethren in Ne\y England, and many in Old Englaid. Again, when fhewing that the People's Ele&ion gives Dot the Effence of the Minifterial Call, they fay, That, in Scripture, Ordination is held forth as the greater, and therefore not given to one and the lame Perfons, as appears from AEls 6. 3, 5.
But, %dly, As to this of arguing from the lefs to the greater, if the Enquirer had pleafed to notice it, he had a direft Anfwer to it in jfus fopuli> where he was told, 1. That Deacons, as well as Paftors, arc Church-officers ; and in this they arealike. 2. It is a lefler Matter that People fhould be impofed upon in the* Choice of their Deacons, than in the Choice of their Pa- llors,- and, if they are to be latisfied about the one, much more about the other, which is of far greater Confequence unto them. But the Enquirer gives no Anfwer to that. If a leflet Intereft give me a Right, a greater Intereft doth it much more. Men of Learning and Judgment, who knew the Rules of juft Reafoning, have argued from this Topick; as Cyprian, and a Sy- nod withjhim : So the judicious T>urba?n (ays, This Scripture is a clear Evidence of the People's Intereft in their calling of a Minilter : So Calder- , Rntherfurd. And Grotius, tho* no great Friend to the People's Right, yet, upon Atts 14. 23. lays, Se.i o EkjBioni de qua agitur acceffijfje con(enftt7n plebis ere dt bile ob ii quod in re minor i intra habuimus, Acts 6. *> 3. ■ If the Confent of the People was requiftte in a lefler Aftair, to wit. the Choice of the Deacons,
■ ' c 3 ' i*
. ■ ( 38 )
Afls 6. a, g. it is credible their Confent was re- quifite in the Choice of Paltors. And many o- thers might be cited to this Purpofe.
He lays, € The Freeholders of a County have f a Right to chufe their Reprefentatives in Par- f Iiamept, but not to chufe their Sovereign, nor f any Officer £>f State/ Anf. I/?, The Confe- quence, according to himfelf, p. 45. is not good, being drawn from Civil Aftairs to Ecclefiaftick.' Men may give away of their Civil Right, which they cannot do without Sin in Spiritual Con- cerns. AsChrift's Kingdom is not of this World, fb his Houfe is not to be ordered accor- ding to the Pattern of Civil Government. And fo fays TiBet on this very Subjeft of electing Pallors, ■ affirming, < In Civil Society, where c their temporal good Things are under Confi- c deration, nothing hinders but People may re- € Ggri their Right abfolutely, to evite Confuli- * #on ; but, in that which concerns their Salva- c tion, the Faithful cannot abidutely part with ? their Right, without being criminal/ And tho' he thinks the People may allow the Right of Election to Minifters ,• yet, if they abufe the Power given them, he fays, I'he people may re* fime their Right of EleBion.
As to what he fays of the People's being qua- lified for electing fuch as are to manage the Poor's Money, and yet not fit to judge of a Minifter's Aptnefs to teach them. Aiifiv. The People in- deed are not t6 try and judge of Qne's Learning and other Qualifications for the Miniftrv, this tore grant is the Presbytery's Right ; yet they can judge whether a Pallor's Gifts are futted to edi- fy them. And* as this was Selhrrnine's and
: SHfon't
:( 39 )
fiilfon's Qbjt&iw of old, fo the Enquirer had
an Anfvvef to ic in jfm Topuli llivinam, confi- ning of fix or feven Pages ,• yet, feeing he could not overthrov .at .is there4 he hath wifely paft it by.
He lays , "But thh^ I j>afs3 and come to that w,. be jv. Aged to be fatisfying (it feems
he t nought v. hut he had (aid is not fo) And c our L ord, fays ke> had no fuch Officer, tho' c he had a i realurer ; that- theie was no fuch 1 Officer undtrth^Qld TeiiyHiciit, and that the e Apt gave up the Car Poor, becaufe
' they could no: get that Work attended/
hat he means by ail this, I know not ; and he hath not told us. Tho'our Lord had no fuch Offi- cer,noVVonJer; for then there was noconfrituted N ew-Tef tangent Church. What he fays of their having none fuch under the Old Teftament, is not to the Purpofe either ; for what was under that Difpeofation is no Rule to the Church in New-Teftament Days, elfe we behoved to have a 'Pontiff or high 'Priejl. 5. He fpeaks of the Apoities giving up the Care of the Poor. This is refufed ; the Deacons were to a6: in Conjun- Lion with them, their Office was defigned for their A (fi fiance.
te. f He wants much to know whom c we are to underftand by the Multitude of the c Dilciples who were afTembled at this Time, to f whom the Apoities gave the Election, and c, He cannot think thefe could be their own c Converts, t r by that Time they were about f Eight thoufand, &c. A .41. Is it likely ' fo many Thoufands of People ihould be con- ! veen'd to chuie Seven PerionS to adminiflcr the
C 4. Church's
( 40 )
f Church's finall Revenue ? Was it to be expe- f fted fo many different Perfons, of differen:
* Tongues and Nations, would agree in fuch an f Ele&ion, when fcthey wefre divided by their
* Murmurings? May it not b£ thought, adds € he, that the Multitude pf Difciples now aC- f fembled were Chrift's Difciples, the Hundred
* and twenty mentioned, Am i. 1%.' Vitringa tells him for certain; That the Multitude, there fpoken of, were the whole Chriftian People. Certe 2)iaconorum eleftio tota plebi Chrijtia- p# ab 4poftolis commiffa fuif, ipfis ekftos appro- iantibus i3 confirmantibus* Cyprian, who li- ved nearer the Apoftles Days, fays, Et convo- carunt Hit totafn plebem difcipukrum. And the Wefttninfter ' Affembly calls it the' Church which eleited ; for, in Anfwer to the 2)ijffen- ting Brethren, they fay, As for that Ordination, Atis 6. itie doubt not to fay, that in it they atted, fsfrtly as Apoftles, partly as Elders. In confli- cting an Office in the Church which "was not be- fore, they did att their Apojlolical Authority : But, in ordaining into that Office Men whom the Church had chofen, they did att as Presby- ters (a). '
Put the Enquirer will not fland to this, for he obje&s, € T^hat the Multitude of the People
* at this Time was upwards of Eight thoufand,
* aiid cannot think all thefe could be aflembled
* to eleft feven Perfons to adminifter their Cha-
* rity.' For Reply, I fay, Tho* we read of Three thoufand, Afts 1. 41. that were added t(3r $he Church, and of Five thoufand, Affs*. 4-
yet
(a) Pig. 5f.
•
( 41 ) '
yet fundry Divines of Note have thought the Five thoufand mentioned AEis 4. 4. were not di- fUnft from the Three thoufand mentioned Acts %. 41. but that they are included there ; as Ca- rnero, Tifcator, 2)ow72hame, and others. And Dr. Hammond takes the Five thoufand there to be, not the Number of Converts, but of the Hearejrs at that Time. The 'Dutch Annotati- ons (ay, either the Three thoufand Atts %. 41. being reckoned therein, or befides them Five thoufand more. But grant they were full Eight thou&nd converted at thofe Times, which was at the folemn Feaft of 'Pentecoft, when all the Males in Ifrael were to appear before the Lord at 'Jerufalem ; yet this will not fay they were all In- habitants in and about Jerufalem. Such as com- £ut<* the Number of them that came up from the and of Ifrael to the folemn Feafts, they reckon fhofe were mo by upwards of nineteen Parts than the Inhabitants of the- City Jerufakt Ht- car ens reckons the Inhabitants of Jerufalem to have been 120000; whereas the Whole of thofe who were prefent at the folemn Fe- flivals, have been computed ro be Three Mil- lions. Now, grant the Namber of Converts was far greater than Eight thoufand, yet, before fhe Election of the Deacons, moft of thofe Con- verts might be departed,, and gone to their re- fpedive Places of Abode, and fo the Meeting might not befo numerous by far as the Enquirer thinks.
Indeed it is faid, Afis 2,. 5. That there ivere duelling at Jerufalem Jews, devout Men out of every h 'at ion under Heaven. But, as Dr. Wiw-
( 4* )
moni, Mr. Mead, and others have obferved, that the Greek Word kcltqikqvvtk, there rendr A to dwell, it fignifies not only 10 abide in ia PLice as Inhabitants, but alfo to fojourn. And to fake the Word for fuch as were Inhabitants,, would make the Scripture fpeak inconfiflentlyj'for/in the ninth Verfe of that Chapter/ it is feid of thofe devout Jews, that they were Dwellers in Mefopotamia, Judea, Capfadoclct^'Pontus^Afia^ *Phrygia, Paraphilia, &c. Now, they could not be Inhabitants in thofe Countries, and- at jferufa- km alfo : And, if Enfebins arid Epiphanius are to be credited,thep Forty Years after this th#C,iH- ftians in Jcrufalem were no more than what the fmall City Pella could contain, together with its own Inhabitants ; for thither they both teftify all the Chriitians fled, being warned by an Ang^l a little before the Deftru<5hon of jferufalem by the Romans.
But farther, for Anf*er, TW we fhoul J grant all thofe Eight thoufand were preferit, and rrtade up the Multitude, I fee no Difficulty at all, or nothing that could occafion fuch Confufion or Diforderas the Enquirer fpeaksof ; for,upon the Apoftles enjoining them to look out and chufe Seven Men full of the Holy Ghoft, might not fome ftand up in the Ailembly and propofe a Leet immediately, or propofe that fome Jess and fome Grecians fhould withdraw a little, in order 'to name a Leet of Tuch as they judged meeteft for that Office i which Leet the Multitude might alter at their Pleafure, putting out, and putting in,«s they thought meet: And, if all agreed to their Leet, then, without any formal Vote, thofe might be prefented to the Apoftles.
The
( 43 • )
The Enquirer fays, c It may be thought the r Multitude here fpoken of, were the Hundred c and twenty mentioned, A£ls t. 15. and that f which makes it probable, according to him> • is the Advice he gives them to look out Seven c Men among them/ull of the Holy Ghoft ; and € it doth not appear that the Holy Ghoit fell u- € pon others/
Anfwer, What may be m2y not be, and thus to expound the Scripture might make ftrange Work. And that the Hundred and twenty were the only Perfons on whom the Holy Ghoft fell In the Days of fentecoft, is as uncertain. We mult not think thefe only <^n be faid to be full of the Holy Ghoft, who had the Spirit gi- ven in an extraordinary Manner at the Feaft of Pentecofl. I wonder what the Enquirer wTiH make of the Apoftle's Exhortation, Epb. j. 18. where itl Chriftians are*commanded to be filled with tm Spirit. Rntkerfurd fays, This was to be a Rule to all Deacons to the World's End ; and I think the Continuator of Pool's Animati- ons upon A Els 6. 3. fays much the fame. And whereas he fays, c If this be the Cafe, viz. that c the Hundred and twenty were the Multitude> c then the Argument will not conclude/ But he fhould have demanded anotherToJlulatwx, name- ly, That all the Seventy were among the Hun- dred and twenty: And further, That they were all Churoh-officers ; and then pofito que- libet, feqnitur qupdlibet.
€ It may with great Appearance of Reafon bq
thought, fays he (z)> that the Multitude the
f Apofth
•«•■■■■*■««■
(a) i 1
, ( 44 )
* Apoftle fpeaks to, were only fuch as contri- c buted to the JErarium, and common Treafu- c ry of the Church ; and furely the Poor who c were relieved and fupported out of \t had no € Claim to chufe/
Here he is fore pinched : Sometimes he makes the Hundred and twenty the Ele&ors, and fome- times, with Tiettarmine, he makes the Contribu- tors to the JErayium to be the Multitude who chufed the Deacons. But, may we not think that Rich and Poor contributed to the JErarium fomt more, fome lefs, as thp poor Widow her two Mites ? Befides, the giving to this Mrarinm cpuld not be the Oround of their having a Vote ; for, after their giving their Collection, it \ya$ np longer their own, as the Apoftle intimates to Antnias, Afts 5.4. While it remained, was it not your own ? and after it was fold, was it not in you* own Tower ? The Apoftle fpjaks to the Multitude, without diftinguifhing Between Rich and Poor. Tl}£ PjQqx were allowed a Share in the Choice of fuch as w^re to diftribute that Charity, to which they had a Right by their mean worldly Circumftances.
In the Clofp of His Argument, he fays, €It is certain all the Difciples did not jeled: the Dea-
c cons/
Anf. He fhould be afraid thus to contradi&thc Spirit of God, who fays, The Twelve called the Multitude of the 2)ifciples to t$em, and tht Saying pleafed the whole Multitude : Ahd they, V* the whole Multitude, chtifed, Sec. No piftinftion made between the Man with the Gold Ring and gay Clothing, and others in
ineaner Apparel, <»r lower Circumftances. K
his
•
his Argument were good, it would fay, thatf he who gave a Pound, fhould have more Votes than he who gave but a Peny to the Colle&ion on the Lord's Day.
Again he fays (a), " It may be asked, if the € Apoftles left them to their full Liberty, and to
* ufe their own Difcretion in the Choice / And ( f*yh ^ would feem not 5 for they limited 4 them to fuch as were full of the Holy Ghoft, € that is, thofe on whom the Holy Ghoft de-
* fcended in the Days of Tentecofi ; and they c ^ere reftri&ed to the precife Number of Se- c ven.JJ But, is that a Limitation, that the Ele- ftors are required to chufc fuch as they judge meet for the Office ? Are not Presbyteries left: to their Freedom in chufing Members for the Allembly, tho* they mult chufe fuch as have iigned the Formula, and only a certain Num- ber ? Saong Reafoning ! We read of fuch Li- mitations, Exod. 18. 21. where they that havo the Election of Magiftra^es are reftri&ed to chufe fuch as fear the Lord, and hate Covet on fnefs. And Titus was to ordain fuch only as were blame- lefs (b).
As to (c) their being reftrid:ed to fuch as the Holy Ghoft aefcended upon in the Days of SPe«- tecoft, this is anfwered already. Hath not every true Believer the Spirit of Chrift dwelling in him ? are not all Believers the Temple of thjs . Holy Ghoft which is in them (d) ? As the A- poftle fays, T'he Holy Ghoft is given to them that obey him, Ads 5. 52.
Our
(a) p. 59. (b) 'In. r. 5, <*■ (0) f. 59 (') Repi, 8. 9, 11. 1 Cor. ?. t*. Si? 6. 19.
. ( 4^ )
Our Author is fuch an Enemy to the People's Right, that, rather than allow it, .he will dis- card an Office-Bearer which Chrift hath inftitu- ted ; for he denies that Deacons are Church-Of- ficers of 'Divine Inftitution, tho' nothing can be plainer from the Word of God, than that they are fuch* But this is a ConrroVerfy I fhall not meddle with at the Time ; only, concerning the Subject, Ijiotice two or three Tnings ; as,
i. Our Author would have the Reader think, that Rntherfurd was of his Judgment here,ad- ducing the following Words from his Due Right- cf Presbyteries , faying,- So »ar as I can gather from his Reafoning in his Due Right of Presby- teri es he does not maintain that the Deacon is a Church-officer. For, fays the Enquirer, his Words are, c It is not faid that Deacons € were ordained with Failing and Prayer, Acls € 6, as the Elders are chofen in every Churchy c A£ti 14. 13- and as Hands are laid on Waul and
* Barnabas, A<5ts 13. 3, 4; but fimply, that the € Apoftles, Atts 6. 6. prayed a7id laid Hands on
* them, which feemeth tome to be nothing but
* a Sign of praying over the Deacons, and no c Ceremony or Sacrament conferring on them
* the Holy Ghoft" But I cannot fee how it con- •fifted with a confeientious Enquiry or a fair Re-
prefentation to fay, Rmherfiird*does not main- tain the Deacon is a Churfh-Officer. Tho' I tiave neither Pick nor Prejudice at the Enquirer's Perfon, be who be will; yet, might I ufe his own modeit Phrafe,7>/s isfiich a b&fe-facd Server- fmi, as I know not 'where the like rf it is to b$ fnet 'with. I fhall give you Rmherfitrtfs Words in that
very
( 47 )
very Place or Context which the Enquirer cites;
here,. after proving at fome Length the Divine
Right of Ruling Elders, he comes {a) to treat
of Deacons^ and he begins the Seftion with thefe
Words, c We conceive, according to God's
; Word, Acts 6. that Deacons be of Divine In-
: ftitution, becaufe, &c. ' And there he fays,
Chriit by a positive Law upon good Grounds
hath made the Pallor's Office and the Deacon's
f Office diftind, A8s 6. 4
But npw, for Rut herf urns Words cited by :he Enquirer, which are narrated above, know, hat eminent Servant of Chr 2 His there anfwering m Objeftion, namely, ( 'Paul, 1 Tint. 3. *e- quireth that the Deacon, v. iu. fhould firft be tried, and thereafter ufe the Office, fo he be found blamelefs: JErgo, the Deacon muft be or- dained with Impofition of Hands ; and fo muft be by Office ibme more eminent Perlon than one who ferVeth Tables only ; for Grace was given to timothy by the laying on of Hands, 1 ffim. 3. 14, &c Mr. Jamefon and undry others have thought (a) it is an Omifli- j>n that Deacons and all Church -Officers are not prdained with the Impofition of Hands : Yet, f Rut her fur A was ot a different Mind in this, t will no mare fay he was againft the Divine "nltitution of the Deacon's Offico, than it will Drove the I fur's eight raojl wife and reflate lers of Fife were a^ainft the Presbyter's Jffice being of Divine Jnititu ion, becaufe they ay, Impofition of Hands in their Ordination is ot ejfential nor neccjfary, but ceremonial and
indiffe-
(«) A t j*. (b) Sim of ppif p. $ j.
indifferent {a). And whereas he cites Rut her* furd's Words in the Foot of that 159 Page, fay- ing, c Further, the laying on of Hands was ta- rken from the Cuitom of Bleffing among the € Jews: Chrift laid his Hands upon young € Children and bleffed them ; yet he did not: c thereby defigri them to any Office." It would! be cenfidered, in thefelaft cited Words, Ruther- fitrd is not arguing againft, but for, the Divine Inftitution of the Deacon's Office; only he thinki Imposition of Hands is not eflential ; and, for Proof of his Opinion, fliows; that fometimes this might be when none Was fet apart to any Of- fice.
Now, any impartial Perfdn upon reading Rn« therfurd in that Place, viz. from Page 159 to Page 171, mud be convinced the Enquirer hath riot dealt fo very fairly with that Reverend Au- thor, as was to be wifh'd. For Profeflor Ru~\ terfurd, in the laft Claule of his Anfwer to this] very Objeftion where the Enquirer would make him declare againft the Deacon's Office, fays, € As concerning the Deacon's Office, I Conceive, € that Deacons rrtuft be as permanent in the € Church, as Diftribution and (hewing Mercy c oti the Poor/' And to that vety Place I re- fer the Reader for a Solution and Anfwer to all the Enquirer objefts againft the Divine Infti- tution of the Deacon's Office :*Arid I am apt to think, he hath taken his Exceptions from that very Place where Rutherfurd is anfwering to them.
Next
"(a) CaM.B&. p. &&
<r ^ ** ) , f '
Next he aliens ^^ c Our Church Teems not to have a pofitive Opinion that the Deacons are Church-Officers ; for there are many Pari- fhes that want Deacons/' And he affirms. In the firlt Century, it was fo in Churches ; for we read not of them at Rome, A?ztioch± Galatia, Colofs> and other Churches/ For Reply,
i. Whereas he fays, We read not of Deacons in the Church of Rome* Antioch, Galatia, Co~ tofs, and other Churches, and therefore would infer, there were no Deacons in thofe Churches J this (hikes equally againlt the Ruling Elders Of- fice3 becaufe they are not mentioned in fuch and fuch Epiftles ; yea,, againft the Office both of thd breaching and Ruling Elders, for I think wd find no Mention of either in the fecond Epiftle to the T'hejfalonians. 2. As to what he fays of the Church of Scotland, namely, That (hcfee?/?s nop to have a pofitive Opinion that ^Deacons are Church-Officers ; it may tempt one to think the Enquirer cannot be a Minifter of this Church, elfe he is very unacquainted with her Conftituti- on ; or he fpeaks at Random without confide- ring what he fays, or fpeaks contrary to his Light. If we look into the Book cf common Order, Chap. 5. there we have an Account of their Office, and their Qualifications particulari- zed ; and there Scriptures are adduced to prove what is aflerted anent their Office, viz. Afts 6. i,—5. i 'Tim. 3.8, 13. Rem. 12. 7,8- Again^ if we look into the firft "Book of Difcipline^ Head 8. there we have an Account of their Qua!-
D Iifica-
(a) $. 6\.
*0*
( S<= )
lifications for, and Ele&ion to that Office Again, the 2d Book of Z)ifcipli?ze; Chap. 8, fays, c The Office of the Deacon is an ordinary c and perpetual Eccleflaftical Function in the € Kirk of Chriji; of what Properties and Du- * ties he ought to be, we remit to the manifelt € Scripture. This, as our Author tells us, is the Book to which we are folemnly fworn by the "Rational Covenant.
Again, the Order of the Eleffion of Elders find ^Deacons in the Church of Edinburgh, men- tioned by the Enquirer here, which was appro- ven by the General Aflembly 1582, clearly inti- mates,the Church of Scotland looked upon 2)ea* com to be an Order and Office of ChrifFs Infti- tution ,• for there the whole Congregation are allowed their Vote in the Ele&ion of Elders and Deacons, and no Mzn,rich nor poor, was to lefpoiled of his Liberty in Eleffion : And, at their Admiffion by that Order, they were admo* nifhed to confider of the ^Dignity of that Voca* tion whereunto God had called them, and of the ^Danger that lay upon them if found negligent \ in that their Vocation. Sy that Order (fays the Enquirer) the Election is given to the Communi- cants, and not to the Multitude. J\nd this is the very fame I plead for in Jtts IPopuli 2)i- vinum. Are not Communicants the Multitude of Believers? As none of us that plead the People's Right are for a promifcuous Admiffion to the Lord's Table, fo neither are we for a promifcu* ous Admiffion to this Privilege.
Again, the General Aflembly 158*, in their fixth Seffion, affirm> There are four ordinary
Office-
r
( 51 ) ,
Office-bearers fet down to us in the Scriptures; to wit, Pallors, Do&ors, Elders and Deacons. Again, the General Aflembly 1645, in appro- ving the Form of 'Presbyterian Cburcb-Govetn- mm, agreed upon by the Aflembly of Divines it Weftminfter, aflerts in the plained Terms, Deacons are Officers in the Church of Chrift^ yhofe Office is perpetual : Their Words are, The Scripture doth hold out Deacons as di- ftinft Officers in the Church, Tbil. 1. r. 1 Tim. 3. 8. whofe Office is perpetual, 1 71m 3. 8, to v. 1 5. Jffs 6. 1, 2, 3^ 4. to whofe Of- fice it belongs, not to preach the Word of ad- minifter the Sacraments, but to take fpecial Care in diftributing to the Neceflities of the Poor, Atts 6. 1, 2, 3, 4, and the Verfes fol- lowing/
Further, does not the Enquirer know there is late Ad: of AfTembly enjoining alJ Parifhes to lave Deacons ? and hath enj3ined, that Mini- ters be asked fundry Times a Year,whethfcr they iave Deacons in their Parifhes ? The Author of be modefi and free Conference having affirmed^ yith our modeft Enquirer, Deacons in the Church >f Scotland are not of Divine Inftitution, but .ay-perfons, becaufe they want Impofition of lands ,• The Author of the True Non-confor- m(iy which is owned, I think, by all, to have een that eminent Perfon Sir James Stewart^ ate Lord Advocate, in Anfwer to the Author •f that Modeft Conference (a), fays, € Reallyj Sir, I fhouid be forry tkat you were as well known to be a Calumniator, as the DeacbnS
D z [ ufed
(a) P.
( ** )
* ufed in our Church are clearly founded in out ' Bibles y their Inftitution, Afts 6. is plain/
When in any particular Church of this Na- tion Deacons are ordained, the Apoftolick Practice of laying Hands on them, is not regarded lays the Enquirer (a), but laid aiide ; for which there can be no Reafbn, if they are Church-Officers. For Reply, The Argument ftrikes equally a- gainft Ruling Elders. The Church of Scotland in the ift Chap, of her Form of 'Procefs affirms, € It is agreeable to, and founded upon, the Word
* of Gqd, that there be Ruling Elders to join € with the Minifters of the Word in the Govern- r ment of the Church and Exercife of Difci- c pline :" But fhe never declared Impofkioii of Hands to be neceflary in that .Cafe ; how- ever, for my Part, I think it is lawful, and -would be denrable, that both Elders and Dea- cons were fet apart by Impofition of Hands, tho* I cannot fay this is abfolutely neceflary to their being Office-bearers in Chrift's Houfe.
Our Author,having mentioned the AA of Af- fembly 1^42/ which gives the Eledion of Dea- cons not to the Multitude but to the Seffion,, lays (£), € The Ufe he makes of that ASt isj c That, fince our Church does not look on the c Manner of the Election of Deacons mentioned
* A6fs 6. as a Conftitution efiablifhed by the' € Apoftles to be obferved in all the fucceeding! c Ages of the Church (for if, they did, would
* they make a Canon dire&ly oppofite to that c of the Apoftles ?) and, fince by their Practice c they think it not neceflary that Deacons fhould
< be
r-
fc^— ^— <»— — ^— m n-m nijfci in— w^m <— — — —— —
( u )
be elefted by the Multitude of the Difciplas, let me %sk, how an Inference can be drawn from this,, That therefore the People have a Right to chufe their own Paftors t For Reply, I fuppofe all the AfTembly meant >y that A&, was only this, That the Seffion hould have the firft Nomination of fuch Elders )r Deacons as fhould be taken into the Seflion, eaving ftiil a Liberty to the Congregation to add )r alter as they law meet; and,iffo, tho* that \d may differ from what the Apoftles did, it m\\ not be in direft Contradiftion to it ; But, as o the Ufe he makes of that Aft, it fays, We muft look upon the Church of Scotland asinfal- ible, and that her Practice is to be our Rule,tho* (he make Canons and Afts direBly contrary to Apoftolical Traftice. But, for my Part, I chufe rather to fay, The Church of Scotland, or any o- ther particular Church in the World, hath erred, or may err, rather than fay, any Church upon Earoh is to be regarded in her Decifions, if di- rectly contrary' to the Practice of the Apoftles of Cbrtft.
In his Tnblick <Tejlimony made more publicky p. 44. he calls Seza a Miracle of Learning, fay- ing, All the Reformed Churches have paid the greatejl ^Deference to his Sentiments ; and then he cites him, faying in his 83 Epiftle, ' That c which is alledged from the Accounts of the E- € leftion of Matthias and the Deacons, is not to c the Purpofe, as is abundantly proven by the c French Churches, in their publick Synods, a- c gainft Morellus and his Party/ But hath our Enquirer fuch a Veneration for him, as that he will itand to Seza's Sentiments as to ths Elefti-
D 5 on
( 54 )
pu of Pallors ? I fancy not ; or, if he will, then he piay lee hi$ Annotations on this Placi of Scrip- ture, where he fays, The Apoftles would not fo inuch as chufe the Deacons without the Confent of the Church: And in his Confejjton of Faith, Chap. 5. he is dire&ly oppofite to him ; for there he &y$yTslunquam receptum eft, &c.c It was! € never the Cuftom in Chriftian Churches alrea-
* dy conftitute, that any Man fhould be admit-1
* ted to any Ecclefiaftical Function, unlefs he were freely and lawfully chofen by the Church
* particularly concerned ; and therefore all that ? Trade and Trafficking of Prefentations, the
iPlenqm Jus of Patronages., Collations, Dirnif-
c lions, and other wicked Corruptions of that
Nature, owe their Original entirely to the De-
* yiU And, even in that Epiftle, Seza is not fpeaking againft the People's Right to eled ; only he is againft leaving all to the Suffrages of a pro- inifcuous Multitude,, which we are alfo againft. And any Thing Seza fays in that Letter, may be of lefs Weight, if we confider his ^oftfcrip to it, where he fays, T'freodorm Seza fententiam roga- tus breviter> nee adeo meditate hdec defcriffi tit argument i pondus, £f? rei magnitudo reqairebat.
In Conclufion to this Argument, he fays (a), * And now, when their chief and principal Ar- c gument for Popular Election is examined, I ff am confident, that every intelligent Reader will f pbferve the Weaknefs of it ; nay, that it is no ? Proof at all.' Anpw. Who told him this is our chief and principal Argument ? That it is a clear and ftrong Argument, we grant, but have not
deter-
t*-mm9m
(zJTaxees.
determined whether it be our principal Argument or not. He is confident, every intelligent Reader will obferve the Weakneis of this Argument, nay, that it is no Proof at all ; but I am confident, unbiafled Readers will fee, he hath not taken oft' the Force of this Argument, nor meddled with what is of Force in it ; as particularly, that, had not this been defigned as a Precedent to the Church olChnd in the Election of Office-Bear- ers in After-times, the Apoftles, who were infal- lible in their difcerning of Gifts and Qualifications for an Office, had nominated and eledted the feven Deacons, without putting themlelves to the Trouble of calling the Multitude of the Dif- ciples together, or oi putting the Multitude to :he Trouble of meeting and chufing feven Men, #hom upon their Choice they i were to ordain.
Whether this Writer hath not been fo well pleafed with his Reafoning upon this and the fub- fequent Arguments as on the former, or whe- ther from fome other Spring,I fhall not fay ,• but le hath not been fo thankful to the only wife God> or enabling him to reafon here nor hereafter, as formerly.
In his Reafoning here, he is oppofite, if I mi- take not, to all Tresbyterians that ever wrote jpon the Subject ; yea, and to the Throng of ^roteftant Divines, who have reckoned the Con- jquence, from the Multitude's chufing the Dea- :ons, valid to prove the People have the Right )f ele&ing their own Paflors • as Cyprian, Cal- )in, Chem?iitim> Calder-ixooi, Rutbcrfur.i, Gil* 'efpie, Durham, Tark, Ruk, Forrejler ; lb Alarkitts, Turretine, 'Piflet, Manton and, I uppofe, all, or moft of thefe Divines mentioned
D 4 in
( j* )
in the former Argument, and many mo that might be particularized. I add one more, name Jy, Dr. Wall a learned Church of England Di- vine, in his critical Notes upon lome feled: Place: of Scripture, a Book publifhed in 1730, who. vpon Afts 6. 3. (ays, c The Apoftles would no1 f chufe the Men themfelves, — — but left tty c Choice of the Men to the Body of the People f According to this Pattern, fays he, the Primi-
* tiye Church in the Age next to the Apoftles
* always made Ufe of the Suffrage of the People c ip the Election of their Church- Officers, no*
* only of Deacons, but of their Presbyters, anc
* efpecially of their Bifhops. The Bifhop o € any Diocefs appointed or ordained fucb Pref
* byters as the People by their general Suffrage c approved of/ And, having given an hiftorical
, Account of the Original of (Patronages, fhew- Ing, that at firft the (Patrons were Lawiers. which the Church had chofen to defend theii Right againft Enemies ; c Thefe Lawiers, fay.
* he, in Procefs of Time, claimed and got the
* Right and Power of Nomination of the Curate.
* or Encumbent to the Parifh which they ferved
* or defended ; and,which is the worft of all, this € Right to him, his Heirs or Affignies for ever : c So that, tho' he were a good Man (as *tis not
* likely the Church would chufe a known f Knave) yet his Heir in Procefs of Time, or his
* or their Aflignies ffor this Rights which from ? advocatus they call an Advocation or Advoiv- ' fon, is as faleableas a Horfeina Market) would ? be many Times fome of the vileft of Men, 5 fometimes a profane Atheift, fometimesa Here- of tick,, fometimes a Hater of God and all Reli
J gion
( J7 ) . ,
gion, fometimes a Petty-Fogger, fometimes a le^vd Ale-houfe Keeper ; this is the Man that fhall, in Spite of the Bifhop, in Spite of the People, nominate the Curate that fhall have the Care of their Souls. A Bifhop himfelf, who is by God charged with this Office of lending Labourers to his fpiritual Harveft, had need to tremble for Fear, left he whom he lends fhould do more Hurt than Good to the Souls of the People. Where then will thefe Intruders ap- pear, who, without any Commiffion from the Scripture, determine of the Capacity of a Per- fon for an Office, of which they have no Skill or Knowledge, and yet muft know, that the Welfare or Benefit of many Souls depends up- on it ?*
And then this Author fays with Regret, How far are w7e gone from the Pattern of this Text (viz. Afts 6. 3.) the Example of Apoftles and thole full Chriftians in chufin& Officers for holy Duty I
SECT. IV.
In which the Arguments adduced by fome> from Afts 13. 1, 2, ^.and Adts 16. 9, 10. are confin
dered.
A Third Argument, fays the Enquirer (a), * *• brought by fome Writers, is taken from a particular M'flion of Paul and "Barnabas to go and preach the Gofpel to the Gentiles, Acts 13. 1, 2> 3. He fays,* The Argument formed from % this Paflage is this, If thefe Prophets and
' Teachers
(») v. 63.
-•
. ( -J* )
r Teachers did minifter before the Lord in the f Church of Antioch, furely the People attending c on the Ordinances difpenfed by them, c joined with them in Fading and Prayer ; and e in this Miflion the People concurred and gave c their Confent ; and,if the People's Confent was c needful in the appointing of Minifters to a cer- € tain and particular Work in the Church, they c have a Right to call and eled: them to the Mi* ? niftry itfelf/
Here I obferve, I/?, Our Author in citing this Scripture, he hath left out thofe Words, There were in the Church that was at Antioch ; and thofe Words, As they fafied. The People's 4 Confent to the fending of 'Paul and Barnabas ^ is drawn from the Church's being aflembled with Barnabas, Simeon, Sec. while they miniftred ta the Lord, and while the Church was imployed with them in the folemn Work of Fajling, the Holy Ghofi faying to them, viz. to Minifters and People together, Separate me Paul and Barnabas. The Enquirer after (minijlring unto the Lord) adds (viz. in 'Prayer, Reading, and 'Preaching of the Word, and difpenfing the Sacrament \ but keeps out Fajling, tho* exprefly mentioned in the Text : Did he this on Defign to hide the Force of the Argument ? 2. He tells us, c 'Paul ( and Barnabas were Church-Officers before this c Appointment ; fo that the Separation of them f by Prayer, Fatting, and Impoiition of Hands, c fpoken of in the Text, cannot be meant of c their Ordination.* Anfw. I readily grant it, and this ftrengthenstheArgument for the People's Confent in what was done at that Time. 3. This Argument is dropt by fome, particularly by the
Author
( 19 )
Author of^us Topuh, lays he., c Who has done c wifely, this being an Argument uftd by the In- c dependents for eltablifhing their main Principle ; c namely, That the People have a Right in the € Government of the Church/ If that Author paffed this Argument upon fuch a Coniideration, then the Enquirer might forborn to accufe him, as favouring the Independent Scheme (a). He affirms, c The Holy Ghoft acquainted the Pro- c phets in the Church of Antioch with the Per- c fons by Name, and required them, and not the t People, to feparatev?^w/ and Barnabas' Now, in Anfwer, That the Holy Ghofi laid it only to the Prophets, or that thefe Prophets only iepa- rated them to that Work, is not proven ; it is as probable the Holy Ghojl fpake to the whole Church ; and their joining in Prayer and Falling on that Occafion, after the Command of fepa- rating them, may be conftru<£ted a giving of their Confent. I know not if Independents make Ufe of this Argument, buc neither Amefws nor Dr. Owen argue from it, fo far as I can ob- ierve.
Next,he comes to confider^<5?j 16 9,10. where it is laid, And a Vifion appeared to Paul in the Night : T'here ftood a Man of Macedonia, and frayed him, faying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had feen the Vifion, immediately ive endeavoured to go into Macedo- nia, afifuredly gatherings that the £ord had called as for to preach the Gofpel unto the/. c This is a Text, our Author fays (b), many, f with a great deal of Ignorance, mention now-
c a-day$,
« - « - - 1 , .
(a) Jfytcndix?. (b) p. 65.
( 60 )
t a-days, as a Proof of a popular Call. The
* Glofs, fays be, which many weak People c put upon this Text is, That this was an In- c vitation by a real Macedonian to the Apoftle € to come and be their Minilter, &c'
Now here I remark, i. Our Author hath ex-* aftly learned the Dialed: of high Church and RomaniftSy who charge all who difter from them with great Ignorance. c Obferve, fays Dr. Fulk € (a), the intolerable Pride of thofe Popifh In-
* terpreterSj that challenge to themfelves all c Learning and Knowledge in Divinity , andcon- c demn all other Men of Ignorance,and mere Ig- c norance.' 2. He lays, c Many weak People c think this Invitation was given by a real Man € of Macedonia? But I queftion if he can name the Man that either faid, or thought ftv 3. Whereas he fays, c This of a Call by one Mace- € donian, would cut the Throat of our Favpu- c rite-Opinion, and give the Call to one Man, c and fo give Countenance fo a Prefentation/ Anpuo. This Inference will not hold : 1. May not one Man in Vifion reprefent many, as in the Angel of the Churches } :Rev. 2. 2. Or, might not one Man bear a Commiffion from the Body of the People to invite, in their Name? The Words are, Come over into Macedonia and help m. He reckons thcfe weak and ignorant who argue for the People's Right from that Text ; but I can point him to two Divines, not much inferior to himfelf in Learning, &c. who have argued to this Purpofe. He may look to Henry on the Text, who fays, c Chrift would have
. , , "Paul
■* m
(a) On Heb, 5. 6. againft the Rbemfts^ 734,
( tl )
Paul AireGied thither, not as the Apoftles were ar other Times, by a MefTenger from Heaven to fend him thither, but by a MefTenger from thence to call him thither ; becaufe in that Way he would afterwards ordinarily ditcA the Men tions of his Minifters, by inclining the Heart* of thofe who need them to invite them. Paul fhall be called to Macedonia by a Man of Ma- cedonia, and by him fpeaking in Name of the reft/ There was prefented to Paul's Eyes, or to his Mind, a Man of Macedonia. The Angel muft not preach the Gofpel himfelf to the Macedonians, but muft bring Paul to them ; nor muft he by the Authority of an Angel order him to go, but in the Perfon of a Macedoiiian court him to come. A Man of Macedonia, not a Magiftrate of the Country, much lefs a Prieft ; Paul did not ufe to re^ ceive Invitations from fuch : But an ordinary Inhabitant of the Country; a plain Man, that carried in his Countenance Marks of Probity and Serioufnefs. J And his Note upon the oth Verfe is, * We may fometime infer a Call of God from a Call of Man. If a Man of Macedonia fay, Come and help us, from thence Paul gathers afluredly, that God faith, Go and help them. Minifters may go on with a great deal of Cheerfulnefs and Courage in their Work, when they perceive Chrift cal- ling them, not only to preach the.Gofpel, bm to preach it at this .Time, in this Place, to this People/ The other is Dr. Alanton ; fee his Sermon on Heb. n. 8. (a) c Befides authorita- tive
(a) Page 347,
v wjmm
( 6i )
five Miffion, there is an Election or Call front the People. • ~ It is notable in haul's
Vifion, fays ke> the Call is not managed of God, but by a Man of Macedonia y A&s 16. 9. And a Vifion af feared I to Paul in the Nighty &c. Only j if a People be not in a Capacity to chufe, then an authoritative Miffion is e- nough, and we muft preach whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, as ZPaiil and Barnabas were fent from the Elders of Antioch to go to the Gentiles, A£is iy Dr. Bates, in a Sermon at his Death, gives him. a high Character for extraordinary Knowledge of the Scriptures, and Jays, c The Doftor faw the 1 Difference between true Holinefs and the moft refined unregenerate Morality, and fpake with great Jealoufy of thefe who feemed in theif Difcourfes to make it their higheft Aim to im- prove and cultivate fome moral Virtues, as Ju- ftice, Temperance, Benignity, &c. by philo* fophical Helps ; reprefenting them as becoming the Dignity of our Nature^agreeable to Reafon, and beneficial to Society ; and but tranfiently fpeakingof the Operations o the Holy Gholt, which are as requifite to free the Soul from the Chains of Sin, as to releafe the Body at laft from theBands of Death ;whofeldom preach of Evan- gelical Graces, Faith in the Redeemer^ the Love f God, or his admirable Wifdom in our Sal- ation, Zeal for his Glory, Humility, in afcri- birig all we can return., in grateful Obedience to the frioft free and powerful Grace of God in Chrifl:, which are the vital Principles of good Works, and derive the nobleft Forms to all ? Virtues/ But of this in the £y.
SECT.
•?
( <fj )
SECT. V. In which the Argument from Ads 14. 23. for the People's Right to eleft their own Paftors is vindicated and confirmed.
€ THE 4th Argument, fays our Author (a), c is taken from Ads 14. 23. And when
€ they had ordained themElders in every Church, € and had prayed with rafting, they commen- c ded them to the Lord, on whom they believed. € Here, fays he, the Apoftles <Paul and Sarna- c has ordained them Elders in- every Church ; c this they did by the Suffrages of the Members r pf thefe Churches : For the Word ^flpflroHjow 1 ?$< fignifies when they had ordained or created by Suffrages and Votes; fo Seza and others underftand the Word. Now, they could not be ordained by the Suffrages of Paul and &ar* nabas ; for there could be no Place for Suffra- ges where there are but two Perfons : The Suf- frages therefore were the Suffrages of the People of thefe Churches. The Word is taken from the antient Cuftom of the Grecians, who1 in the Election of Magiftrates, gave their Suf- frages by extended or ftretched-out Hands : This is the Signification of the Word, 2 Cor. 8. 19. and it is never ufed in any approveti Greek Author in another Senfe, when the Hi- ftorian Lttke wrote the AEts of the Apoftles ; and, if he had ufed it in any other Senle in this Place, he could not be underftood by his Rea- ders, but muft have been a Barbarian to them :
' And
(') J?. 66.
mm
(( 6A )
* And not fo much as a fingle Inftance out of a c facred or profane Author can be given, where ' it is uied in another Senfe. I am perfwaded c (fays he^ every Body will own I have put the € Argument in a due L;ght,and that I have con- € cealed nothing of the Strength thereof/
Anftvoer. Here our Author hath made a very unfair Reprefentation of the Sentiments of his Oppofites : For they are far from affirming^ the Word ;t«poToP€0 is never ufed by modern Authors fave in a Senfe that imports the giving of Suflra- ges ; for they frankly own,later Authors may have; ufed it for Ordination : But we plead, That, when the Evangelift Ltike wrote the AEls of the Jlpoftles, it was npt ufed in fuch a Senfe*
He fays, The true Reading of this Text, ac- cording to the Original, is this ; Having ordai- ned them Elders in every Church, fraying with Fafting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed. But the Jejibits at Rheims having tranflated it thus, in their Notes on \tl fay, ? The Hereticks (that is, the Trot eft ants) € to make the World believe that all Pi lefts oughe c to be choferi by the Voices of the People> c preffing the profane Ufe of the Greek Word € more than it will bear, tranfiate thus^ Ordained € by Election? Hence we may remark by the Way j That the People's' Right to eleft their own Pa-» ftors is a cProie(tant Principle, and a Principle of the Reformation. But the plain Meaning of the Words under Confederation is, T'hat when the People by giving their Suffrages had choj}?t to rhemfelves Elders, Paul and Barnabas ordained them with Prayer and Fafting, and commended them to the Lord in whom they believed. Patil
and
( *i )
and Barnabas ordained Elders or Paftors in eve- ry Church by Suffrages, viz. the Suffrages of the Church, the Suffrages of the Difciples or of tfi6 People. And to this Purpofe Calvin, Sez4 and Stillingef render the Words ; fo the Tigurlnt Verlion, Tagnin's Verfion, Flaccus IllyriaiSi Vatablus, ErafmuSj *Pifcator, and the IJiitch Tranflation, which is reckoned very juft ; It is to this Purpofe ; And when they in every Church Vcitb lifting up of Hands had chofen thetU El- ders, having prayed with Faffing, they coin- mended them to the Lord in whom they believed, Our old Tranflation is, And when they had or* iained them Elders by Election in every Co /;- iregatien, and had prayed andfafted, they Com* ed them to the Lord in whom they believed, Fulk, in Anfwer to the Rhemijis, fays of bur )ld Tranflation, 7/ is true, Ordained by Eleflioi^ vid anfwereth to the Greek Word. And, as I [flowed in JnS TopuliDivinum (a), It was not :he Fault of our Tranjlators that the Verfion of his Verle was altered, but it was done by forns Prelates afterward; as Dr. "thorn as Hill (Matter of Trinity College in Cambridge, and a Member of :he Wcfltninfter Affembly) tells us, c I have ; : fays he, from certain Hands, fuch as lived in f thefe Times, That, when the Bible was trank r lated by the Tranflators appointed, the New : Te'ftament was lookt over by fome of the £ : Prelates (Men I could name of their Perlons} : to bring it to fpeak Prelatick Language ; and c they did alter fourteen Places of the New T c (lament, to make them fpeak the Language of
E ' t\
( 66 )
c the Church of England. 3 And then he in* ftanceth four in this Book of the Atts, and this is one of them, which (fays he) in the Geneve Tranflation was rendered, chofen by Suffrage*.. hy lifting tip of Hands \ the Word primarily importing it.
That fometimes the Word yj*\*rmn fignifies to
ordain or eled: by Suffrages, the Enquirer owns,
but fays, Sometimes it fignifies to ordain, create
or elect, where there were no Suffrages at all ;
and (b) gives a certain Rule to know when
the Word does fignify to ordain or chufe by
Suffrages, viz, c That, whenever it is affirmed
c of many Perfons, it muft have this Significati-
€ on, becaufe the giving of Suffrages can only be
c where there is a Number or many ; but then,
c whenever I find the Word affirmed of only
c one or two Perfons^ then it cannot fignify to
c ordain by Suffrage, but limply to ordain or
r elect/ No doubt, this Axiom^s he fays,is of his
own laying down. But, as the Author of IP0-
ftili fnffragia fays (c), c No Inftance can be
c given fince the Foundation of the World,
€ where this was received as an Axiom.' And,
becaufe the Enquirer thinks his bare Affertion is
enough, he lays down another Protofition^ which
he affirms can no more be difapproved than the
former Rule, which is, That no Word ca?i fig-
nijy any more 'Perfons than thofe of whom it is
etfprejly affirmed. € Now, %eipoTovY}<7&m$ is ex-
* prefly affirmed of Paul and Bar7zabas, and
€ of no other : How then can it fignify here,
c that they ordained Elders with Suffrages of the
€ People?
•■*'"- ■ ,— ■ i — , t ■ ■ m i'f i i ill r 1—
( *7 )
People ? Is not this to affix a Signification to
the Word; which it cannot bear in the Text cJ ^o doubt, the Church of Rome owei him :anks for this Propofition : For, if it hold iniverfally, it will demonftrate, that, when out >ord faid unto (Peter, Thou art Peter, and unto. e will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of 'haven; and vchatfoever thou fbalt bind o?z Earthy Jhall be bound in Heaven ; and "johatfo- ver thou floalt hofe on Earthy pall be loofed iri leaven (a) ; that Grant belonged to (Peter only^ xclufive of the other Apoftles : And we kno\y le Gentleman at Rome pretends to be (Peter S nly rightful Heir and SuccefTor in this.
He fays, € If he can prove both from facred and profane Authors, that the Word yji&Tovn- G&\m<; is ufed limply to ordain or ele<5t without Suffrages, then the confident Aflertior, laid down in the Argument, That one Inftance out of a facred or profane Author cannot hi given, where it is given in any other Senfe
than to ordain or chufe by Suffrages, muft fall to the Ground, and thefe who made this Afler- tion muit be alhamed or convinced of their
Rafhnefs/
Anfxe I know none who lay down the Dnfident AflTertion he mentions ; but not a few e faid what this Author has not been able td jnfute, namely, That no one I nftance can be iven out of facred or profane Authors of the Vord's being taken in another Senfe at that Timtf /hen the Evangelift Luke wrote the A£ts ofiht 7/c/v This hath been avowed by iundi'y
E 2 emi-
•+mm
;. t6 18, i?t
( *% )
eminent Divines; as Calderwood, who, in his Altare Damafcenum, fays (b), c It is not cre-
* dible the Evangelilt Luke would have affixed c a new Signification to the Word, qua ante e eum Graeci autores nunquam zifi funt, which c had never been ufed by the Greek Authors be- e fore him/ So Mr. Gillefpie (c) and Mr. Oli- ver Bowles (d) both Members of the Weftmin* fter Aflembly. So Cart-wright on the Rhemill* Tranflation of the New Teltament, upon this Text he fays (e)> c It is abfurd to imagine that r the Holy Ghoft by Luke, fpeaking with the* c Tongues of Men, that is to fay, to their Un- € derftanding, fhould ufe a Word in that Signi-J € fication in which it was never ufed before his
* Time by any Writer, holy or profane : For, € how could he then be underflood, if ufing the c Note and Name they ufed, he fhould have fled c from the Signification whereunto they ufed it ? r Unlefs therefore his Purpofe was to write that c which none fhould read, it mufl needs be, c That, as he wrote, fo he meant, the Eledion € by Voices/ And a good deal more he hath to this purpofe, affirming, c The GreekScholiafl c alfo and\Ignatius do plainly refer this Word &o c the Choice of the Church by Voices/ And Seza, whom our Enquirer calls a Miracle for Learning, he gave Cartwright this Teftimony, That he did not think there was a more learned Man under the Sun. But, were Cart-wright, Cal- derwood, Gillefpie and Bowles alive at this Day, our Modeft Enquirer would fill them with Shame
for
•^•■mwwmO ^— — ^— c^-»..— >■ i ■ in «ifca»
(b) p. 329. (c) Eke. of Rafters, p. 11, (d)
.
( 69 V
for their Rajhnefs, putting them extremely to the Blufh : But his Endeavours to expofe the Sentiments of our ableft Proteftant Divines to Contempt and Ridicule, muft recoil upon him- felf.
Now, that x^y™*** *n *ts ^r^ anc* Proper Signification, is to eleft by Suffrages and ftretch- ing forth the Hand, is owned by the mod lear- ned Philologifls and Criticks ; as Suicerus in his ^thef auras Ecelefiajiictis epatribm Gratis, prin- ted 1689, wlio tells us, Antiquiffimis tempori- busy &c. c That in the moft antient Times the Bifhops were chofen # by the whole Church, confining of Paftors and People/ And fays (#)> T* x&&rw£u prima & propria figni fie at io- tie, &c. in its firft and proper Signification, de- notes to elecft by Suffrages with itretching forth of the Hand ; laying, This U(e of the Word continued long in the Church. So the learned Salfamon, Zonaras and others ; yea, %e/larmine himfelf owned it.
The Enquirer eflays to prove, the Word is otherwife ufed both in facred and profane Au- thors j and for Scripture he brings AEis 10. 40, 41. where, fays he, c The infpired Hiftorian f Lake ufes the Word concerning God. The r Words are, Him God raifed tip the third c T)ay3 and fiewed him openly, not to all the € 'People, but unto Wttnejfes chofen before of € God, T&Y.-r/jci&joviv-zvQti : He is fpeaking of the c ApofHes, v/ho were chofen immediately by € 7efus Chrijij without the Suffrages of any Per-
E 3 ' fon
(a/ Col. 1 512.
( 70 )
t Ton whatsoever. Jefus Chrift, who is God as f well as Man, was here the fole Eie&or.*
But he ftarts Objections of new, as if they had never been anfwered. Does he not know JMr. Gillefpie and others had anfwered this ? yet he takes no Notice of it : Is this like a candid Enquirer $ He tells ns, Mr. Gilleffie ftriiggles like a Man in Tangs, of Death \ but dares not attempt to anfwer his Reafoning, who fpeaks| thus (a): i As for the Objection from ABs iqJ
* 4i- ?r&xei&Tma' l$ not ^e ^ame w^^ Xe^TWiAM\
* but as it were the preventing of x^™1* by
* a prior Deflgnation. - 2. It is there attributed ? to God jjLiTct<poaita?, that in the Council of f God the Apoftles were in a manner elefted by
* Voices of the Trinity, as jaciamus hominem\ ? Gen. 1. and hindereth no more the proper Sig- f nification of the Word, applied to Men, than ? utTfj+iteia? afcribed to God, can prove that! c there is no Change in Men when they repent,] ? becaufe there is none in God/ And, as this \vas Cardinal Settarmine's Objection of old, fbj Amefius anfwers this, and fo doth Junius, who Itrenuoufly aflerts the Peopled Rigfrt in this Mat- ter. The Reader may fee a great deal faid to excellent Purpofe on this Subjed by the learned Author of Topttli fufragia.
Ivlext, the Enquirer comes to cite human Au- thorities for the Word's being taken in his Senfe, adducing three Citations from Thilo Jud<em, and one from Maximm Tyrius. Now, as to fchefe particular Inftances adduced, which are to f be
(*) MJcel.giteft. p. 14.
■
( 71 )
be found in Hammond's Annotations and other Epifcopal Authors upon this Text.
For his firft Exception from Philo, who ufes the Word r/&&7*vt& in his Account of Jo- fe/h's being appointed or chofen the King's De- puty or Lieutenant: The Enquirer affirms, f In ! this, lureJy Pharaoh the Tyrant of Egypt did 1 not ftoop lo far as to ask the Suffrages of the r People or Nation., when he fet Jofepb over : them/ Anf. Not having Philo Jua<ejis or Maicimiis Tyrins to confult, I refer the Reader to the forecited Popull fuffragia, vvhere it is replied , i. That 'Pharaoh was no cruel Tyrant, nor does it appear that he was abfolute or above Laws. 2. He took alongft the Mind of his Coun- cilors and People in the Choice of jfofeph, faying, Can wc find fitch a Man ? &c. Gen. 41. 38. So :hat he was chofen by the Suffrages of Pharaoh's Servants ; and Phiio's Word y&&7Q\>i)cr* imports t3 as more fully appears by thac Pamphlet.
2. The Enquirer cites Philo ufing this Word :oncerning Mbfes, when he was ordained or cho- en Ruler of Ifrael, which ((ays he) was nop ?y the Suffrages of the liraelites, but by God Hone. * And in the fame Book, fiys he, Philo ipeaking ot the Prielts the Sons of Aaron, kpev z/i&&T3y&i, he (t. e. Afofes) ordained Priefts; this was when he confecrated them by the Di- rection of God, without the Suffrages of the People. *
Anfi The forefaid Author fhows, thefe Cita-
ions are not in the firft, but third, Book of Philo.
. He hySyA/nbabt/s his exceptiombus contextum
'hilonis oppono> &c. ' To both thefe 1 ptions
1 oppone the Context in Philo > who fiys, Mo-
( 70
* fes was chofen to the Royal Dignity Obr he
* ufes this Word fometimes of Mofes) not only f by Godo but alfo by the People/ And there he proves his Aflertion at fome Length, citing ZPhilo, laying, E<sre^« to/puV, &c. e Therefore, € after he had received the Government by com«
* mon Confent, not without the 2)eity.3 And at firms/The Context is no lefs clear concerning the Sons of Aaron, of whom, according to him, *Philo fays, KaOfru /s (s.n& tJk a7rctvT&> re tQm yvufjwf, &c He ordained them with the common Sentence of the whole Nation.
' And as to his Citation from Maocimus Tyrim, that Author anfwers to this, That, if the Words be rightly rendered, they are io far from helping the Enquirer, that they are a new Argument, confirming, that the Word %#£?roj/ea> Cgnifies to ek£i by the Suffrages of the 'People, fhowing, That the Words of Mnximus Tyrius ought to be rendered, cfhe Perfians did not eleB\ Darius by their Sttffrages > till once the wantonl Morfe eletted him by his Suffrage. And a great deal more he hath in Anlwer to this and the other Exceptions ftarted by the Enquirer againft our Argument from this Text, to which I refer the Reader. And for this Exception from MaA ecimus Tyrius, I need not infift upon it, feeing) the Enquirer owns this Author lived after thej Apoftles Days, in the Days of Antoninus 'Pius \ he fhould have rather faid, in the Days of his SuccefJor Mark Antonine, to whom he was Tu- tor. And, tho* never fo many fnftances could bd given in later Authors that the Word x<h£?to;/a js fometimes taken for Ordination without Ele-
ion by Suffrages,, it will make nothing againft
our
( 73 ) ,
our Argument ; for, as a learned Writer fays4 c The Signification of a Word well known and € underflood by thofe who firft made Ufe of it, c is very infenfibly varied, by pafling thro5 many c Mouths, and by being taken and given by Mul- c titudes in common Difcourfe/
He cites Selden, but not fairly ; for, i. He
conceals that Selden owrns x^i**0*16** m *ts prima- ry and original Signification, denotes a Chufing by Suffrages, with lifting up the Hand : And why fhould we go from its primary and original Signification ? But the Enquirer thought not fit to give the Engliflo here, which is fully as bad as my not englifhing cum presbyter is, which ve- ry much fcandalized him, and he imputed it to Art and Craft in me. 2. He alledges, Selden affirms, c That, long before the AEls of the A- c pofiles were written, the Word was ufed to fig* c nify limply to ordain or eleft : 9 Whereas, Selde7i doe$ not pofitively affirm this, but only fays, Non iniquwn eft tit exijlimemus pcfi devi- Bamab Us Gr£ciam, <5cc It is not amifs to fup- pofe, that after the Conqueft of Greece, <Scc. Now, we fay, Suppofitio nihil ponit in efje : And, tho' Selden fays, // is not tmjuft or unrea- fonable tofiippofe this ; yet he could not give 3 fingle Inltance where the Word at that Time was fo ufed.
And, albeit Greece was fubdued by the Ro- mans long before Cicero wrote, yet even in his Time Election by ftretcb'wg 0: Hand was in
Ufe. And this appears clearly from that very Speech of Cicero in favours of FJaccvs, which Selden mentions. And, tho' the Romans ufed hot always this Cuftom in Elections ; yet, as
their
C 74 )
their Magistrates were chofen by the Suffrages of the People, fo fometimes they elefted this Way, and fometimes by the7ablet,inuch likeS 'allot ing among the Moderns ; and fometimes they ele&ed by going together tofuch or fach a Side of the Houfe : Hence the Phrafe, Irefedibus infenten- tiam. Yet, when a Crowd hindered that, they ufed to give their Suffrage by fir etching out their Hand (a).
Next, he cites Leigh in his Criticafacra, af- firming, Stefbanus fays, When the Word go* verns^the Accufative Cafe, as here, it fignifies, not to give Suffrage, but to or dam, create or eleff. The forefaid Author obferves, c Wherever the € Greek Word xe'^7WiCd ls ufed in later Authors € to fignify Ordination, it points out an Ordina- c tion after an Election hath been made by Sufira- ges/ And it is obferved^ That Ordination among the Ancientiwas not reftrifted to letting apart by Impofition of Hands, but taken in a larger Senfe, as including the Eleftion.
c There are celebrated Authors, fays the En* c quirer (b), who underftand the xeiPOT0V't* of € the Ordaining of Presbyters in every Church, c by the Impofition of the Hands of &atil and € Barnabas.' Who thefe celebrated Authors are, he does not tell. Indeed, Bellarmi?2e of old. and fome High-Church Writers fince, as Mr. Sage, &c. have fo pleaded ; but our Au- thor hath never yet been able to cite a Treslyte- rian Writer of this Opinion. He fays, c The c Rite of Impofition of Hands is included in the
c Word
B^mm tmmmm »^— ^^w^^ W^— ^^^^^ *"*M^^^* • ' m — ■ — *— — — ^— - fc ■ t— ^— — ^#— <
|
(a) Mtnetli's Notes on Salufl. p. mihi 1 50.
< 7i >
* Word jc#p0TOW*rr5f. Anfiv. I grant Ordi- nation is included j but then it was an Ordination after the giving of Suffrages by the People. yey/Tw*.u is compounded of 'ye.p the Hand, and vetva to ftretch out ; but it denotes, not ImpoGti- on of Hands by Ordination, but ftretching out the Hand in Election.
Here I think the Enquirer may confider what his own Marejius fays, namely, c That yer c foroviet properly iignifies an Election which is e by Suffrages ; Which, fays he, if any fhail de- c ny, he difcovers his own plentiful Ignorance; c And,iffometimes;/e;po70!'i<t is taken for ye.^ivtdL
* or Ordination, as Balfamon oblerves upon the € firft and fecond of thefe which are commonly c called the Afojfles Canons jx ought to be under- € flood by zmetonomy of the/£/jf/;/£7,becau(e Or- ' dination neceflarily is joined to Ele&ion : Nor c doth Erafmus, Beza, Scbmidius, nor the Sy- c riack Interpreter, underftand the to £«■ rfrj c Afts 14. 23. any other Way than of Election € by Suffrages/
The Enquirer feems to fpeak honourably of Mr. Gillefyie,yct afterwards he charges him with argu- ing in a downright Inconfiitcncy with himfelf, in that he denied to the People an elective Suffrage in the calling of Minifters, allowing them only a Liberty of confenting ; And yet afterwards, fa\< the Enquirer, he forgets himfelf, and would have this Text to prove, that the People have a Right to give their Suffrages. Now, for Re- ply, Mr. Gillfpie was,by this 'Pofthtimovs Piece, for giving the decifive Vote to the Elderfhip,
yet
, ( 76 )
yet fo as to plead this is the Peopled Right, he means their Right originally ; tho', according to him, their Reprefentative* may chufe for them, the People having frill a Negative over thefe Reprefmtatives. Now, it is to be obferved, That, as Mr. Giliefpie in his Engliflo Topijb Cerewo- nies, a Book to which he put the finishing Stroke* affirms, c That the Right of Eleftion pertaineth c to the whole Church ; And this is commen- c ded, fays he, to us by the Example of the c Apoftks, and Churches planted by them :" So he teaches not the contrary in the Place cited by the Enquirer, tho* he fays [a), " The Que- c ftion is not, Whether the whole collective Bo- c dy of the Church ought to be affembled, and c their Votes feverally asked in Elections ; for c all may confent, when none vote in Elections c but the reprefentative Body of the Church. c 2. He owns Mr. Giliefpie was for giving the c People a Negative- over all their Reprefentar c tives, but the Enquirer thinks this would rur c ine Presbytery. ;. He fays of Mr. Giliefpie, c That he ftruggled as a Man in the Pangs of c Deaths and yet cannot get free of his Cords, € and therefore takes hold of any Thing to help c him out3 whereby he may evite the Reafoning c upon this Head. And, fays our Author, I can € make no Apology for him, but, that he did c not live to give this Book the finifhing Stroke/ jinf"JO. This looks like charging him with oppo- sing his own Light, but it is mere Slander ; for in that Book he proves from Scripture, Antiqui- ty, the Judgment of Troteftant Churches, and
Writers
v.*
«»«^ mmi« fm
(a) /. 8.
( 77 ) **
Writers, bom found Retfon, and the Corfe/fion cf Adversaries, that it is the People's Right to ele£l their own Tajiors. He fays indeed, c We c do not homologate with them that give the € decifive Voice in Elections to the collective r Body of the Church, but only to the Elder- c fhip or Church -Reprefentative/ But perhaps in that Place he is telling, what was the Method of our Church at that Time, which he thought might be gone in to while the People have a Ne- gative upon the Church-Reprefentative : Had he denied it to be the People's Right to ele& their Paftors, he had indeed contradifted what is the Scope and Defign of that Traftate and what he affirms in the plained Terms, not only in his Englijh Topiflo Ceremonies anent the Ele- ction of Paitors, &c. but alfo what he advances in that Piece which is now under Confideration, where it is laid, c In the Apoftles Times, Elders, € both preaching and ruling, were chofen by c moft Voices of the Church, the Suffrages be- c ing fignified per yji^oTovittv, that is, by Jift- f ing up or ftretching out of the Hand, Affs
€ 14. ^
Mr. Gillefpie, taking the Senfe to be, that the
Difciples made to themfelves Elders in every Church, renders the Greek Word etvrotg by ipfo and not by Mis, thinking it fhould be tranflated themfelves, and not them : The Enquirer calls this, A torturing of the "Text, and a giving all tip to the Independents ; infinuating, as if Mr. Gillefpie, while Struggling with the Pangs of Death, grafped at this Criticifm to relieve him : But he is in no great Strait here, nor lays he much Strefs upon this, only propofes it to be con/ide-
red-
(, 7s )
red, and fays, c The Word %eipvrmmPT$i may c be taken three Ways, and all thefe Ways it c faveth the Peopled Right : It may either be c the Action of the Church only, as the Syri* € ack maketh it ; or a joint A<5tion both of the c Church and of *Panl and Barnabas, as Juni- c its maketh it ; or an Aftion of 'Pazil and Bar- c nabas in this Senfe, that they did conftitute c Elders to the Churches by the Church's own f Voices/ And after he hath fhown how tPafor Tenders the Word to that Purpofe, fo alfo Hen- riais Stepbanus, and given Inltances from Scrip-* ture of the Word's being fo rendered ; yet, after all this, he lays no great Strefs upon it ; for he fays, c This Senfe and Interpretation, which I have only offered to be confidered, doth not c bring any Harfhnefi, and much left offer any c Violence, either to the Text or Context in the c Greek: But, if another Senfe be liked better^ c whether to underftand by avrois, the Elders or- c dained, or the Churches commended to God
* by 'Vaul and Barnabas, or to underftand all € the Particulars mentioned in that 25 v. to be € common and joint Afts done by Paul and c Barnabas and the Churches ; that is, that e they all concurred in making them Elders by c Suffrage, in Prayer and Fading, and in com- € mending them to the Lord, I /hall not con- f tend, fo long as the proper and native Signifl-
* cation of jrapoT<«wtfj>Ts* is retained : Yea^ltho* c we (hould underftand by this Word, an Ad: of c *Paul and Barnabas alone, diftincSl from the c Church's Surh a^e andConfent,even in thacSenfe
* we lofe not the Argument : For, iff, It can- 4 not be fuppoied that the Bufinels was put to
( 79 )
r the lifting or ftretching out Hands, in fignum : fuffr&gii between 'Paul and Barnabas ; as if it had been put to the Queftion between them : two alone, Whether fuch a Man fhculd be El- der in fuch a Church : But how then can it be an Aft of Paul and Barnabas ? Thus, if you will, thir two did y&wwuv, creare fuffragiis, or ferfuffragia, i. e. they ordained fuch Men to be Elders as were chofen by the Churches : They two made or created the Elders, but the People declared by lifted-up Hands whom they would have to be Elders : So Calvin, Infrit. Lib. 4. Cap. 53. § 15. Even as, faith be 3 the Roman Hiitorhns often tell us, that the Conful, who field the Court, did create new Magiftrates, i. e. did receive the Votes, and prehde in the Elections/ So much for removing his Exxeptions againft his Argument from A£ts 14- -3- which proves he People's Right to chufe their own Paftors, md is (o underitood by our Proteftant Divines, is the Centur tutors of Magdeburgh, Calvin, Zancb?, Beza, Junius, Bucan, Profeffbrs of Ley den, Voetius, Wendeline, Bffenius, Markius, Zl aimer us, Pittet, Bowles, Manton ,Cartwright3 Calderwocd, Kutherfurd, Gillefpie, Forrejier, Rule, &c. yea even Papiits, as Salmeron on the ^lace, who fays, f Here the Apoftles gave the Election of the Elders to the Churches, as ASts 6. they gave them the Election of their Deacons/ And FSiius, another Popifh Wri- er, when fpeaking of the Word X'tPOTOl'*1<T*'vr-<> ays, f If we look either to the Etymology of the Word, or to the Ufe of it among Greek Authors,, it fignifies to elett by Suffrages/ So
Levi-
s ( 80 )
LorintiSy Gaffer San£lws3 and others. And the Argument is in Force, for all that Cardinal Sellarmine of old, and the Enquirer of late, have laid againft it. And it is very obfervable, that the Holy Ghod in Scripture ftill makes Ufe of other Words for Ordination, as Ac:$ 6. 3, 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. fo, 7 it. 1. 5. Ecclejiaftick Writers ufed %£/po(W/c& for Ordination, and yit^Qvi<t for Election. No doubt, as Calvin fays, Waul and Barnabas prefided in this Election as Modera- tors, left any Thing fhould be done tumultuouf- ly, tho' they committed the Eleftion to the Suf- frages of all. The Enquirer, in his Wtiblick 'Te- stimony made more fnblick, p. 46. hath a long Citation from Wood againft Lockier, as if he were pofitively againft the Force of this Argu- ment : But, as formerly, fo here, it would be confidered, that Woody in the Place cited, is not arguing againft the People's Right to elecft their Paftors, but only againft their having the Power and Privilege of Ordihation. And, in that very Place, I think, he grants all we plead for ; white he fays, c Mr. Gillefpie well obferves the c Senfe of this Text may be this, Waul and Bar-
* nabas did make and ordain Elders? according to c the Suffrages of the Churches themfelves ; that c is, rhey ordained fuch as the Churches by their c Suffrages elected and defired: So here are in-
* Volved two Afts, 1. Election, which is the c only Aft performable by lifting up of the Hand c in Suffrage ; and in that we grant the People c concurred, &c*y
SECT.
( 8i )
SECTION V.
In ^hich the Trotejiant Argument for the People's Right to elett their Tajiors, from Ads 15. 223 23. 1 Cor. \6. 5. zCor. 8. 18, 19. is vindicated and confirmed.
T
HE Enquirer having cited Affs 15. 22,2^ where it is faid, T'hen pleafed it the Apojiles and Elders, with the whole Church, to fend chofen Men of their own Company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas : Namely, Judas fir- named BarfabaSj and Silas, chief Men amongth* Srethren: And wrote Letters by them after this Manner \ 7 he Apo files, and Elders, and Srethren fend greeting unto the ftrethrenwhicb are of the Gentiles in Antioch, a7td Syria, and Cilicia. ' From this Text, fays the Enquirer (a), the Argument is formed after this Mari- ner ; Judas and Silas %re chofen by the whole Church, as well as by the Apoftles and Elders* to go upon a fpecial and extraordinary Embai- fy ; and the Letters fent with them, are writ in the Name of the Brethren, as well as in the Name of the Apoftles and Elders. As thea the whole Church, or the Brethren, did chufe and fend fome in an extraordinary Embafly, and appointed them to go upon fuch a lpecial Service in the Church ; therefore the whole Church, or the Brethren, have a jufl Right ta chufe and eleft Perfons to be their Minifters.' But here our Author feparated what we ufe to join- We draw one Argument from thble
F Scrip-
(a) Page 74.
Scriptures, Acts 15. 22, 23. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2 Cbr.8. 18, 19. where we read of the Church's chuiing upon, fpecial Errands; and the Argu- ment, as we-ftate it, is to this Purpofe, c That, € in the Apoftles Days, when any fpecial Piece c of WorK was to be done, if there was not a € fpecial Revelation as to the Perfons to be im- € ployed therein, they were chofen by the whole c Church ; as, when a Meflage was to be fent to c the Difciples at Antioch, Judas and Silas € were chofen by the whole Church, joining c wirh the Apoftles and Elders, A6is 15. 22. c "Then pleafed it the Apoftles and Elders, with
* the whole Church, to fend chofen Men of their c own Company, with Paul and Barnabas : € Namely, |udas and Sila^ chief Men among € the Brethren. Asthofe chief Men were chofen € by the whole Church, Rich and Poor being c equally concerned in the Choice ; So the Bro-
* ther that travelled with the Apoftles, whole c Praife was in all the Churches, 2 Cor. 8. 19. c was chofen of the Churches ; and the Brethren c (poken of in the 23 d Verfe, are called the Mef- € fengers of the Churches. Thole that were c called to travel in the Church's Affairs were c chofen by the Churches, the Choice was given c them by the Apoftles; tho' they were to tra- c vel with them, yet they did not feek the No- c mination nor Election to themlelves : And, if r the Things which were of fmaller Moment c were left to the People's Suffrages, then we c have Ground to think they were not negle-
* ded, but their Voices asked, when Paftors t were to be ordained for the Work of the Gof-
* pel among theft*'
But
( 8? )
But now, let us hear what he hath to except 2gainft the Argument from thefe Scriptures ; and, as to Acts 15. 22, 23. 1. he lays (a)j c There is a manifeft Difference made, Verfe 22. c between that which was afted by the Apoftles ' and Elders, and that which was now aited by f the whole Church ; for, had the People ele- f fted and fent as well as the Apoftles and El- r ders, it would have been exprefled after this r Manner, It f leafed the Afofiles and Elders* 1 and the whole Church : But it is not (o expref- r fed, intimating, that the People did not a<5t f equally with their Church-officers/ But pray, what is the Difference between the Word And and the Word With, the 'Whole Churchy and with the whole Church ? If there be any Difference, I humbly think the laft Expreflion may rather fay more than lefs for the People, and (hews plainly they did fome Way concur with the Apoftles in what was done. I fancy the Cri- Ucifm is his own, tho* his Modefty kept him from telling the World fo much : Yet this. had seen as modeft, as m the next Leaf to fay, %ui 1 have made good Ufe of this. But, if our En- quirer thinks otherwife, then let him corifider tne 23. Verfe, where the Words are, The Afdflk and Elders, and "Brethren Jmdi greeting. Will not this pleafe him ?
But he hath fundry Things to prove the Juft- nefs of his Remark ; as, 1. fays he, fLetiiscon- r fider who were the conttituent Members of this c Council, that aflerted the Caufe of Chriftiani- c ty againft Judaifm ; they were the Officers of * the Church, they were the Sederunt.' And
F 2
1 (a) Page 75. •
( 84 >
for Proof of this he cites the 6th Verfe of the Chapter, where it is faid, The Apftles and El- ders came together to r confider of this Matter* Now* tho* 1 do not plead for the People's ha- ving a Vote in Church- judicatories, yet the En- quirer would know fome great Men have laid much for the People in this Point. The jfefu- ites of RheimSy in their Annotations upon this Scripture, charge it upon the Proteftants as an Error, c That they plead others than the Cler- c gy are to have Voice in Councils : And, as the c Prieft's Lips fhould keep Knowledge, and the € People under the Law were to ask Words at his € Mouth, fo much more, fay they, muft we re- c fer all to our Bifhops and Pallors now ; And c to have it otherwife here, is to bring all to € Hell and Horror/ But Cart-wright anfwers them thus * c Seeing Councils are as this was, for; € the moft Part, aflembled to fatisfy the Doubts!
* of the People, it feems againft Reafon thafc € they fhould not be fuffered to be Partakers o; € the Council/ And Dr. Fulk, in Anfwer to thefe JefuiteSy fays, 'It appeareth frota the c Text, that the whole Church gave their Con- c fent to the Decree, and joined in the Epiftle/
And Mr. Alfop fays (a), ' The People might c rcafonably conform to that Decree which had
* their own antecedent Confent, and the more € patiently bear the Burden, which was not im- € pofed upon them without themfelves ; For this € Canon was, not only fent to the Churches by c the Order of the Apoftles and Elders, and the € whole Church, v. iz. but, whatever obliga-
c tory
>—m
(a) Melius Ivq. p. mihi, 17J-
J 8i >
r tory Power there was m it from Man, it ran c in the Name of the Apoftles, Elders, and Bre- f thren. But, alas, the Cafe is otherwife with c the poor Church in Reference to Impofitions f of late Ages, who know no more what Im- f pofkions fhall be laid upon their Confciences, c than the poor Horfe is acquainted whither his * Mafter intends to ride him/ Whitaker, ha- ving cited Acts 15. 6, 22. fays, cIt is evident c from thofe Places, that, not only the Apoftles, c but alfo the Eiders, yea and even the People, 1 were prefent in this Council, and had therein^a r decifive Voice/ And Profeflor Jamefon, who cites him (a)> fays, He egregioiifly clears the *Place of all the Z)?tjl the Jefuites had caft on it. And cites Willet> as being of. the fame Mind, And even Bifhop Jewel, in his Defence of tloe Apology (b), approves of the Saying of the Cardinal of Aries in the Council of Confiance, when he affirmed, c The Apoltles themfelves, when they had Matters of Moment to deter- mine, did not decide in thefe by themfelves alone, but called the Multitude to fit with them/
And, as for Acis 16. 4. where it is faid, They delivered to them the Decrees that were ordai- ned to be kept of the Apojiles and Elders ; This only fays, the Apoftles and El.iers had a chief Hand in thofe Decrees. And it is very ordinary o afcribe an A&ion to fuch as have the chief r-fand in it, tho' they be not the fole A&ors. But that which we contend for is, That the »vhole Church, or Brethren prefent in thatCoun-
1 3 cil,
(i) Cyprian Ifot. p. 5+3 (b) P-4*.
< & )
cil, had a Hand in the jpioice of thofe Men that jvent from Jerusalem to Antioch with <Paul and "Barnabas. And nothing can be plainer ifrom' Scripture than the Words of that Text^ That it pleafed, not only the Apoftles and Elder s, fcut fbe whole Church, to fend chofen Men, Men whom they had chofen.
That the Apoftles were qualified and autho- rized for Judgment, and that thole in Antioch, who fent 'Paul and Barnabas, lent them to the Apoftles and Elders to confult in the Affair un- fler Debate, is owned ; but that none elfe wer« qualified, or that an • Embargo was laid upon the Apoftles and Elders at yerufalem, fo that they could not take in any of the People, can- not be proved.
But the Enquirer thinks the People were only Hearers all the Time of this Council ; yea, he lias Den^onftration for it from the i z and 1 3 Verfes of that Chapter, where it i$ faid, 'The Multitude kept Silence, and held their Teace. f The ^Meaning of thefe Expreffiqgs, fays he, ? is, That both thofe that for jndaifm, and ? thofe that were againft it, with a becoming 5 RefpeA and Reverence, did hear and learn ol ? thofe whom God affigned to be their Iqftru- ? ftcrs/ Anfw. This brings to my Mind, how^ from Job 1. 14. where it is faid, "The Oxen were plowing, and the AJfes feeding fiefide them, f ome J&omanifts have proved there are two Sorti of Perfons in the Church, Majores $3 Minores, the Clergy and Laity ; and that the latter, in Matters to be believed, are to depend upon the former. This Glofs of our Enquirer is much cf 2 Piece, and little better than that of the Cu-
( 87 )
rate, who, following the vulgar Latine, Jer, 17. 18. (Paveant illi, & ?ion paveam ego, infer- red, That it was the Duty of the Parifhoners to pave the Chancel, and not he : For the Words jf thefe Verfes are, T*hen all the Multitude kept Silence, and gave Audie?ice to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what Miracles and JVotzders sod had wrought among the Gentiles by then?, And, after they had held their Peace, James an- vvered, faying, Men and Brethren, hearke?iu?i- 0 me. Yet L>y this he owns the People were dmitted to be prefent at the Debates in this Council ; and, according to him, the Expreffi- >ns would fay they had been fpeaking before in hat Council, feeing now they held their Peace, fet, I think, his Argument here will cut oft all be Apoitles, except "Barnabas, 'Paul, Simeon nd James (the only Speakers mentioned) from aving any Thing to do in that Council ; for I uppofe they were of the Multitude that kept iience, liftning to what (Paul and Barnabas de- [ared. Tho' our Author tells, He will fet rs right, and fometimes charges them with Abundance of Ignorance, be they never fo lear- ed, that ditter from him ; yet, I dare fay, never lortal argued more weakly than he doth in tfois lace.
He tells, The ftatutory Word is lAg*, Verfe 2. it pleafed ; and this is evidently afcribed to the Church-officers. And again, fays he, f We have this Word in the 28 Verfe, where it is (aid, It feemed good to theHoly Ghoft and us : And, as 11 Interpreters agree, the Meaning is, It feemed good to us, affifted, or infpired by the Holy Ghoft. This lurely, fays- be, is not to be af-
f 4 c firmed
( 88 )
f firmed of the People/ And, will he reftrift the Holy Ghoft to Church-officers only i Has not God promifed his Spirit to all his People as well as to them ? have not fome private Chriftians had a larger Meafare thereof than Church-offi-* cers ? He adds, f Were not the People bound to
* approve what the Council did ? was this opti-
* o'rial ? Let thofe that ufe this Argument take ' Heed that they give not up this important € Point to the People, to wit, a Right of Deci- *■ lion in Controverfies of Faith/ And let him take Care, on the other Hand, that he go not in to the Doftrine of implicite Faith, obliging People to receive all for Truth that Synods and Councils term Co ; and that he cut not off Elders from fitting or judging in Church- judicatories.
But further, fuch as have been moft zealous Defenders of Church- judicatories, have yet ar- gued from this Topick, leeing no Danger in the: Argument ; as Gillefpie, Ruley <Tnrretinei and others, who, I dare lay, were as true Friends to Presbytery as he is. Rntherftird&ys (a)yc No ' thing fhould be concluded in a Synod, until c the People hear and know ; Yea, fays he, they •J have ail Place to fpeak, objeft, reafon, and f difpute in an orderly Way, as may be collected c from Affs 15. 12, 15. Letters are fent in the f Church's Name, Charity fent to the diftrefled ? Saints in their Name, Officers chofen by their
* Confent ; but all this maketh no popular Go J c vernment, if we fpeak properly, feeing the
* Multitude doth not judge or define judicially,"
* nor fentepce, nor command and give out Ca-j
' nons
(a) Plea for Fres. /, 6<S*
■
d
IE
( s9 )
c nons and Conftitutions/ See Strefo on this Text, where he fays (a), 2)ocet hoc quod An- tiques EcUefiae, &c. c This reaches, that the Ru- c lers of the Church, in thofe Anions that per- € tain to her Government, ought not to neglect c or contemn the Judgment and Conient of the
• whole Church.— — The Rulers of the Church c are not Lords, and the People Subjects, but c only as the Elder among many Bretheren, $5c?
As for his Citation from the Wefintinficr Af- fembly, there is not a Syllable to that Purpofe in the Place cited; and, in their Anfwers, they fay, We will not debate what may be underitood by the whole Church and Brethren in this Text. And the Church of Scotland, in her f cond Book of fDifcipline (b), (to which, as the Enquirer faid, we ftand bound by folemn Covenant) allows the People, or others than either Minilters or Elders, to be prefent in our General AfTembly, and to hear, fpcak, propone, and reafon or debate. Ru- therfurd cites Zuingluis, Seza, Cyprian, &c. as being againft Churcb-judicatories making any Afts without the Confent of the People ; and there he affirms, f The Church in fmne Cafes
* may fend learned and holy Men to Synods, c who are neither Paflors, Elders nor Doctors ; t fo, fays he, it was Atts 15. 22. where were ! 'iWfeXpt/, Brethren/
He denies that the Epiftle mentioned in the 2 5 Verfe was written in the Name of the People, as well as in the Name of the Apoities and El- ders. Tho' it be faid in the 23 Verfe, The A-
pofiles
(*) /. 599- (b; Q>s£. 17.
( 90 )
pdftleS) Elders and Brethren fend greeting to the Brethren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; yet he hath fomething to fay that will overturn all that ; as, i. c Our Origin € nal here is vitiated, and x} it cffzhtpot hath been € foifted into the Original, for they are not to be € found. Cod. Monjortii and *) 0/ are not in the c vulgar Verfion and fonrie other Copies : And 4 the Words are thus cited ,without *} hi, by Ire- € neusfPacianus and Athanafius Magnus ; and it c cannot be thought fo manyTranfcribers and Fa- € thers were in a Plot to corrupt the Text/ Anf If the Enquirer fhould alter the New Teftament in all Places where Mr. Mill adduceth various Readings, parhaps he will leave us few Chapters unaltered ; but neither Tool nor Strefo mention any fuch various Reading of this Place : And, tho* the Fathers were not in a Plot to corrupt that Text, yet it is poflible Popifh Tranfcribers might have left out *) hi, for their own Defi^ns of aggrandizing the Clergy, and depreffing the Laity, being againfl: the Admiflion of Elders or any of the People to Synods or Councils.
Well, but fays our Author, c Allowing the € Translation is right, yet the People could not
* have equal Hand in the Eleftion and Miffion € of Judas and Silas : For the contrary is evi- € dent from the Letter itfelf ; for in the 2*5 Verfe € it is faid, 7/ feemed good unto us, being ajfem- c bled with one Accord, to fend chofen Men tm-
* toyou.—rrAnd are we not told, Verfe 6. who c thefe were ? cI*he Apofiles and Elders came to- f gether to confider this Matter.'
Anftv. What the Enquirer faid in his great j
Mo-
( 9i )
Modefty of Mr. GiUefpie, namely, That he ftruggled as a Man in the Pangs of Death, may more juftly be faid of himfelf here ; for this 25 Verfe is fo far from being the leafl Proof of what he alledges, that it proves the contrary. Is it not manifeft, that, with the Apofiles and Elders, other Brethren were aflembied in that Council ? Why, fhall we go back to the 6 Verfe, when the Connection is fo plain from the immediately pre- ceeding Verfe 2 He ftill contends, the People had not a Hand in this ; but Rutherfurd's Authority may counterbalance his. Rutherford fays, c I grant the Epiftle is fent in Name of all, tho* c he refufeth it was an Aft of Jurifdiction.' Our Enquirer fays, By Brethren, the Apuftles and El- ders may be meant. Who can think fo, when it is faid, <the Apoftks and Elders And Brethren ' fend, greeting ?
Our Author,in the 49 Page of his *Publick Te- Jiimony made more pub lick, adduceth Mr. Wood's Authority, for proving, That by the whole Church in this Text, cannot be meant the Com- pany of Believers, but only the C&rzis Synodicus, or the fynodical Multitude, faying, Mr. Wood al- fo cites the Weftminfter Affembly, Rntherfurd and Can-dry, as being of the fame Mind. Now, it would be confidered,Mr. Wood, in the Place cited, is arguing, not againft the People's Right to elect their Paftors, but againft that Independent Tofi- tion, namely, That the whole Church is to be jointly authoritative in Cenfu> es with the 'Pref- bytery or Elderfoip. 2. He doth not deny that the Letters were fent in the Name of others than Church-Officers, tho* he denies that the fending
of them was any Att of Authority. Aud, 3- He
( 9* )
fays, c We do not deny but the Brethren joined c their Affent, and that they concurred in fend- c ing Meffengers :' As he owns, private Chrifti- ans may {peak, propofe and reafon in an orderly Way in Synods. And Mr. Rutherfurd, in the Place cited by Mr. Woody grants, The Epifile was fent in the Name of all\ tho* he denies, as we alfo do, that the fending an Epifile was an A<5t of Jurifdi&ion ; and fays, The fending of the fynodical Epifile was done by comon Co7ifent of all; and he fays, It added fome more Authority, that the Epifile was fent by the Confent of alL And Rutherfurd, as well as Mr. Gillefpie, cites this Text,1to prove, That the People have God's Right to chufe their Paftors, 2)ue Right of ^Presbyteries, p. 201. The Enquirer fays, c Such c as plead from this Scripture for the People's c Right, do it at the Expence of lofing the main c Proof for fynodical AfTemblies/ But we lee no fuch Danger : For we do not plead the People were jointly authoritative with the Apoftles and Eiders, in all they did in that Council at Jerufa- lem ; but only, that they were confulted and con- curred, and had a Hand with others of the Coun- cil, as to the fending the fynodical Epiftle. And that Weflminfier Direftory for Church-Govern- ment, which the Enquirer cites, affirms, That, befides Paftors, Teachers, and other Church- Governors, other fit Perfons, where it (hall be deemed expedient, are Members of fynodical Af- femblies.
As to 1 Cor. 16. 3. which he calls our fixth Argument ; It was noticed before, we make it not a diftind Argument, but a Branch of the for- mer : There the Apoftle's Words are., And when
4
, ( 91 >
1 come, wbomfoever ye ft) all approve by Letters^ them will I [end to bring your Liberality to Je- rufalem : From this Text, lays he, f The Argu- € ment comes to this. Here the Corinthians are € afTured by the Apoltle, that they (hall have the f Ekftion of the Perfons that fhalJ be fent to Je- 1 rufalem with their Liberality ; and, flnce they € had the Right to chufe Perfons to their parti- € cular and inferior Service in the Churchy much € more have they a Right to chufe and eleft Mi- c nifters who are to have the Care of their Souls/ To this he anfwers, An Argument a minori ai raajus is not valid, and refers to his Anfwers on the fecond Argument ; and for Reply, I refer him to what I anfwered there. But, beflde what he refers to, he fays he will add fome fpecial An- fwers direcftly to this Proof. Andy \. I do not think, fays he, here is any JElefiion at all ; and takes the Meaning to be, when their Charity came, he would be careful to (end it by appro- ven Peribns, or Perfons of approven Honefty. But the contrary is evident from the very Letter of the Text: For the Apoftle lays, He would fend it by whomfoever they Jbould approve ; fo here is no confounding of Things together. But, 2. Says he, c The Words, by your Letters, do c not help the Matter ,• for in the Greek they are € cf* €T/roAa>y, there being no Word in the Origi- € nal for your. Anpw. i. He fhould have faid <T/ and not A 9§wH$Hm i. Whether the Supplement Tour be kept in, or put out, our Ar- gument isfafe ; for it lies in the other Word .viz* Whomfoever ye pall approve of, them will I fend, &c. But, fays he, the Apojlle takes upon him the Trwcr of Appointment, and fays, I
ml/
( 94 )
Hbttt fend. This is fureiy ftrong Reafoning ! But^ does it touch our Argument in the leaf t? No fure- iy ; it doth not : For the Apoftle leaves to the Corinthians the Power of nominating, ele- cting, and approving the Perfons whom he would fend. It was the ancient Pra&ice of the Church, that the People chofe thefe who went upon fuch Errands. Hence Ignatius, in an Epi- file to the 'Philadefyhians, lays, € tlf ttov \rtv € vpfity $$c. It becomes you, as the Church of c Chrift, to chufea. Deacon that may goon a di- c vine Embafly, that, with them gathered toge- c ther, he may rejoice, and glorify the Name of c God/
As to 2 Cor. 8. 1 8, 19. where it is feid, And woe have fent with hint the Brother, whofe fPraife is : in the Gofpel throvghotit all the Churches ; and not that only, but who was alfo chofen of all the Churches, %uyrrwbiUjto travel with its with this Grace* Our Author tells us, He much queftions if that Ele&ion was by the Chtirch^ColMiive , and is much inclined to think it was the Church-Refrefentative which made this Election. Anfw. I fhall not queftion his Inclination to think fo, but the Text determines me to think otherwife. He much queftions i£ -in this Cafe, there could be Ele&ion by Suffrages with out-ftretched Hands ; becaufe c Zftke, being c an Evangelift, and of fo great Merit and Re-
* nown in all the Churches, no fooner would he c be propoled, than all would go in to him nemi-
* m contradicente, fo that there could be no Ele- c ftion/ Anfw. r. The' 'tis the more general Opinion, that Luke was the Brother Ipoke of,
yet
( 9S )
yet others think Baruabas, others Apollos, others Mark : Here are various Opinions, and poffibly there might have been different Sentiments be- fc re, and at the Ele&ion, till decided by Suffra- ges y or, tho' they were all unanimons, yet that needed not hinder their teftifyitfg their Choice by Suftrages, or ftretching out the Hand, as the o- -riginal Word here ufed does certainly import. But, iays the Enquirer, € This Brother, whofe ' ( Praife was in all the Churches, was chofen, not € only to can y the Liberality and Collection, but c alfo to travel with the Apoftle, that is, to be -c his Companion or Afliftant in the Work of c the Golpel ; now, the Confideration of fuch c an Affair as this, where Luke's Miniftry was c moft needful, or where it was moft proper he £ fhould be imployed, did not belong to the * People, but to the Church- Representative/ Anpw. i. It belonged neither to the Clmrcb Collective nor Representative, to direct the A- poftles (with whom this Brother was to travel} what Places they were to go to ; for they had an univerfal Commiflion, and went where the Lord himfelt directed them. 2. Our Argument from this Place (till holds for the Peopled Choice of Mi- nifters, tho* they are to be ordained by a Church- Judicatory: The Words (chofen of the Churches) mport this ; becaule the People in their Repre- (entation had* cited 1 Cor. 16. 3. and 2 Cor. 8. 19* In his ^ejiiwonv made wore publickyy. 50. he fays, ( You cite thefe Texts, as Satan cited a € Paflage out of the Wfalms to ourSaviour,which c minds me of a remarkable Paflage of Ireneus, € Mcndacium abfcondens per Scripturam, quod 1 factum omrm Herettci, i. e, vailing his Lie
t by
( 96 )
r by holy Scripture, as all Hereticks ufe to do. € A Caufe muft be very daggering that needs to c be lupported by fuch Proofs and Arts too in c citing them/ Upon the Matter, by thefe Words our Enquirer in his deep Modefty fays as much, as that a J! who cite thefe Texts to prove the People's Right, they lie like the Devil : But, to ufe his own Phrale, A Cattfe mnfi be very flag- .gering, that needs to be fupported by fuch 'Proofs and Arts ; doubtlefs, he had done as well to have left this Raillery at Hpme, as he advifes : And, by his Charge, Chemnitius, Turretinc, Riitherjurdy Gillefpie> and I know not how many other e- minent Proteftant Divines, who argue frorti thoie Texts, they are all guiky of writing aftet the Cppy of the Father of Lies ; yet,however hard his Words be, he hath nothing of Argument but what was faid in his Enquiry.
In the Conclufion (a) he cites Grotius, lay- ing, ' It was the Cuftom for 'Paul, not to af- c fume to himfelf the Election of thofe who * were to be Admmiftrators of the Poor, but to c leave it to a Synod." Anfw. I fuppofe GrotU tis means no more by a Synod, but a Convention or Congregation of Men : For, will any fay, Synods of Paftors were called together to eled: a Man or fome Men to bear the Liberality of the Churches, or manage the Poor's Money ? Grotins cites i Cor. 1 6. 3. which is an Evidence, that, by a Synod, he means no more but a Con- gregation of the People; for, in 1 Cor. i5. 3. there is no Hint of any other Synod. I may conclude this Argument with a Citation front
7»r-
— ■-— «*— — — — >' ■ ' —**
(n) $. 82. i
( 97 )
Turretine (a), who, arguing for the Peopled Right from AEts i. 6. and citing Afls 14. 23. affirms, The Words there cannot be unaerflood of Paul and Barnabas, but of the Suffrages of the tody of the 'People : And then fays, Ex* em$la> firm It a id evincnnt, &c. And the like Examples evince this : And, having cited Acts 15. 22, 25. and 1 Or. 16. 3. and 2 Cor. 8. 19. he fays, c Luke is faid to be y&fQTwden; v-sro tov Ik'?.m/vv, that he might be Vaul's Companion in his Travels ; that is, he was cholen by the Suffrages of the Churches. Chryfofwme on that Place, Tkeopkylaff, OEcimcnius, and EJliiiSy underltanri Election : And, if the Suf- € frages of the Church were ufed in the Choice c of thofe that were to carry extraordinary Com- f millions to the Churches, how much more are they to be ufed in the Choice of thofe who are to execute the ordinary Office of Teaching? And, if this was requifite in the Office of a r Deacon, mufch more to the Office of the Mi- ni/try.' Here Chemnitim and others might have been cited to the fame Purpofe-
S E C T. VI. /;; which the Arguments from 2 Cor. 4. 5. and from 1 Tim. 3. 7. are confidered ana vindi- cated.
QUR Author affirms (b), c He hath alrea-
c dy mentioned all the Arguments in w hich
thofe that contend for popular Election do lay
G < the
(a) Zoc. 18. £>i4eft. 24. p. inihi 25J, 25* h) p. 82. '
( 9* )
e the greateft Strefs, and all of them are but at c beft remote Confequences from what is laid c down in Scripture/ For Anfwer, The Pro- teftant Doftrine is; That native Scripture-Conie- quences are Scripture; and the Confequences drawn from thefe Texts above-mentioned are not io remote as the Enquirer alledges ; they are Examples ot the Primitive Churchy recorded for Imitation. The London Minifters cite 'Per- kins, Martyr, and Calvin, all affirming, cjThat the ordinary Examples of the Godly, approved in Scripture, have the Force oj a general Rule, and • are to be followed.
2. Whereas he fays, All the Arguments on which they, who plead for popular Election, do lay the great Strefs, have been confidered by him. In this he is miftaken ; for he hath not touched fevpral Arguments which are thought to be of no fmall Weight, as has been ihown elfewhere, and may further appear af- terwards. Of other Arguments,
Firji, He cites that Scripture, 2 Cor. 4. 5. but thinks it contains no Argument for the People's Right to chufe their own Paftors. The Words are, We preach not ourfehes, but Chrifi Jefus the Lord, and onrfelves your Servants for Je- fits Sake : And he forms his Adverfary's Argu- ment thus (a), c Paftors, are called the Servants € of the People ; We preach, /. e. we declare, * ourfelves to be your Servants : But if they c are the People's Servants^ they fhould be € elected and called by them/ But he tells not who argues this ; and I fuppofe he cannot cite
one
(a) p. Si.
( 99 )
one Cngle Author that ever laid, The Meaning of, We preachy in that Text, is. We declare curfelves to be your Servants : And it is unbe- coming any, who aflumes the Character of a Minifter, to mifreprefent his Adverfary at this Rate.
Indeed this Text is adduced to prove the People's Right by Markius, in his Medulla (a), where, after citing Jffs i. 23. jffls 6. 3, 5. j4£ls 14. 23. he adds, Et minifterii quod Ecclefw toti pr<e$atur naturam, 2 Cor. 4. 5. non enim nos ipfos pr<edicamm.
And Turret ine alfo (b.) argues to this Pur- pofe, € The Church isfuperior to the (Pa/iors, € and therefore they are called Servants and Mi- e niters of the Church ; and if they be the Mi- € nifters or Servants of the Church, then the c Church is to have the Choice of them who € are Minifters and Servants to prepare the Bride € of Chrilt for her Husband. But, lays our Au- € thor, they are the Church's Servants, not by c Way of Subjection to obey them, but only by € ruling and governing them for their Good and € Intereft/ And fo laid Sellarmine. But fee Turret ine\ Anfwer : ' Tho* Pallors are the Mini- € fters of the Church, not by obeying, but go- c verning and ruling over them; yet it doth not € follow they are not to have the Choice of c them ; for thefe are not to be oppofed one 1 to another, as the Civil Magiftrate, who € rules over and governs the People, can bo € chofen by the People: The Office of govern-'
G 2 ' ing
(a) Cap. 33. Se&. 14. (b) Ivflri. TIciqL Part 3. p. zj4.
( ioo ;
* ing the Church takes not away the Church^ c Right to call her Pallors/
Mr. Oliver Bowles, a Member of the Weft- minfter Affembly, in his 'Paftor evange/icus, fays. € The Company of the Faithful are the Spoufe c of Chnji; and furely it derogates from her Ho- c nour, that they, who are to ferve her in hoty e Things, fhould be thruft in upon her, not by c her Husband, but by her Fellow-Servants ; c this looks not like a Miniftry, but like a Do- c mination, which in the Church is only Chrifl/s c Prerogative/ To the fame Purpole fpeaks Mr. Hudfon {a).
The fecond of thole Arguments, iays the En- quirer (£), is brought from i Tim. 3. 7. where it is faid, A ftifhop muft have a good Report of them that are without ; and then he cites Mr. Gillefpie, faying, f This is very expedient for the c Credit and better Succeis of the Miniftry, and c is much more neceflary that he be well liked. c and approved of them that are within the i} c Church/ Then, fays hfy the Author of Jus . VPopidi adds, c That the Teftimony required € was not only of their good or ill Behaviour, c which an Heathen might have given, butfuch ' as judged them fit and worthy to be, and fb c deured them for their Officers ,• which is not c a mere declarative Teftimony, but fuch as is * elective. ' Anfw* I did not direftly argue from that Text, but told, That fome of the Fa- thers made Ufe of it ; and the Words he cites are not mine, but cited from Mr. Giarkfon againli Stillingfleet.
He
(a) Ejfence find Unity > &c. p. 4 j. (b) p. 83.
( ioi )
He fays, € He can fee nothing like an Argu- ment in this Text. Anjw. Others have feen an Argument here : And may not he fee, that, f a Minifter is to have a good Report of them ,vho are without ; or, as Diodati fays, A Re- port from thefe who are not Members of the Church, having Caufe to fpeak well and honou* ably of him, being Witnefs of his holy and lau- lable Converfation ; then furely he fhould much nore have it from thefe that are within, elpe- :iaily from thofe of whom they are to have the Charge? Is it not plain, that this good Report, rom thefe without, fairly fuppofes that he mult iave a good Report from thefe alfo within the Jhurch ? requiring that the People's Confent nd Approbation fhould be waited for, and that hey fhould be allowed to teftify about him? And, f they do not give him a good Report, /. e. do lot approve of him, he fhould not be ordained heir Minifter ? This does not oblige to confent o the Man chofen by Heritors and Elders, or Jfe to give in their Reafons to the Presbytery, vhy they cannot confent,,/. e. in other Words, o procefs him for Error or a fcandalous Practice. )r. Wall on the Ptacc fays, ' We may fee what a neceffary Privilege thefe Chriftian Churches have loft, who have now no longer the Choice of their Bifhops $$c.'
Tho' the Enquirer alledges, This Scripture rill not infer a Right in the People to eleft their 'aitors ; yet,can he deny, that it will at leaft in- ?r, that non# are to be intruded upon, or fct wr them, without their good Report ? that is, heir poluive'Teftimony and Approbation. H
G 3 &yi
( left >
fays (a), Many may give Teftimony who have not a Right to ele6t ; and if the giving a Tefti* mony in favour of one infers a Right to eleft, then Infidels and Heathens,who are without the Church, have a Right to chufe the Paftors of it. Anpvo. i. It is plain from this and the reft ol his Book, that all the Right he gives to Chrifti-! an Congregations in the Matter, is no morel than what he allows to Men living at the grea-i teft Diftance, and even to Heathens \ namely, a! Liberty of giving their Teftimony : And, accor-j ding to him, if they do not prove the Candi- date erroneous or fcandalous,he may be intruded upon them as their Minifter againft their Will ; and tho* they neither give, nor can give, a good Report concerning him : Sure, this is not agree- able to the fore-cited Scripture, which exprefly lays, He mud have a good Report of them that are without ; Which, as I laid, doubtlefs implies he muft much more have a good Report from thefe that are within the Church. 2. He fhould have argued thus, If Minifters muft have a good Report from thefe without the Church, and if their Teftimony about him muft be enquired in- to -, furely fomething more muft be allowed to the Chriftian People in order to conftitute the Relation of Paftor and People betwixt them, even that aftual Choice, which the Lord hath made their Privilege, as is evident from many other Scriptures.
SECT. (a) g4 84.
<
( i°5 ^
SECT. VII. In 'which our Argument from i John 4. 1. is vindicated and confirmed.
€ A Third Argument I give, (fays the Enqui- c " rer (a), in the Words of Jus "Populi, p. f 43, 44. The People's Right tochufe their own c i^aitors is evident from our Lord's Command unto them, 1 John 4. 1. To try the Spirits, the Spirits, 'whether they are of God , bee ait fe many faife 'Prophets aw gone out into the World ; € and, Mat. 7. 1 5. there he commands his People, € to beware of falfe ^Prophets ; and he allows it c in his People, not to bear the Voice of Hire c lings or unworthy 'Paflors, but, inflend of this, to flee from them \ as John 10. 5. Rev, 2. 2. f There it is fpoken to the Commendation of the c Church of Ephefus, that fhe had tried them 4 which faid, They were Apoflles, and were not, c but did lie. She tried them, and tried them lb, € as to reject them for their Unworthinels : And
* a Right to withdraw from unfound Minifters, <~ will infer an inherent Right to make Choice of
* fuch as are worthy/
Now, tho' he hath given the Words of J *Populi, yet he hath altered them a little, tran- fcribing the firic Part of them fo as to make his Reader think him confufed in exprciling him- felf ; whereas the Argument according to him is worded thus, ' The People's Right to chu f their own Paftors is evident from our Lord's c Command unto them, to try the Spirits,
G 4 ' c 1 John
(a) p. 84.
m-m
;
( 10^ )
f i John 4.. 1. Believe not every Spirit, but try
* the Spirits y &.'
2. He quarrels my citing fo many Authors upon every Turn, as being of my Opinion, fay- ing, This is no Way ot Reafoning at all, I frankly own that one Scripture is better than ten Reafons, and one Reafon is more to be regarded than ten bare Authorities. But, tho* bare Au- thority is of fmall Weight, yet, when in Dan ger of being charged with Novelty and atfe d:ing Singularity, I judge Citations from cele- brated Writers expedient : And when the Rea-i fons of fuch and fuch renowned Authors are ad- duced, thofe are furely of Weight. And,in the Place quarrelled, the Reverend Mr. Lawder, fo; alfo ttsrretine, Sow/es, Rutherjnrd, and For*, refter, are, not only cited as being of the fame Opinion with the Author of Jus ^PopiiH, but alfo the Reafons for their Judgment or Sentiments are there given, tho' the Enquirer hath never offered Anfwers to them.
5. He quarrels my citing Ozven, Amefius and Ladder who were Independents , without diftin- guifhing them from 'Presbyterians. Anfov. I re-' gard their Reafonings and Arguments, not their Party : And, if there be any Strength in this Ex- '1 ception, then he is chargeable with the like^ Fault, in that he cites and 1 tys fo much Strefs \ upon the original ^Draught, whofe Author is an Epifcopal Divine. He clafles Mr. Law- yer with the Independents, tho' he was a Tref-l tyterian Minifterin this Church, and defended' Presbyterian Government eftablifhed in it to ex-
ccllent
( io* )
cellent Purpofe. Further/The People's Right t* elect their own Paitors is no peculiar Tenet of the Independents, but is maintained by all genu- ine Presbyterians : And a good Argument lofes nothing of its Strength, tho' coming from an In- dependent or Papitt. And, for Amefius, he is cited by Jtutberfurd, Bow/es, &c. on this very Subject ; but it is worfe, that the Throng of the Enquirer's Arguments are the lame with thefe of Romanijls and High-Church Writers : And, whether his Weapons have been taken from their Armoury, he knows himfelf.
But now, as to i John 4. 1. he owns, c The c Exhortation of tryi?ig the Spirits, fhows, that e People are to be upon their Guard, left they c be led away into Error. And alfo he owns> * The People have a Judgment of Difcretion in c difcerning the Doftrine which is taught, and c that they are not to believe with impliciteFaith/ But then he deviates, going afide to handle the Doftrine of Separation, alledging, People may not feparate from corrupt Miniiters till freed from them by the Church-Reprefentative, ha- ving the publick Judgment of the Church. Anfw. The Cafe of Separation is a difficult Point, not to be handled in little Bounds ,* nor will I in this Place di^refs Co far as to enter on it ; only, by his Poiitions here, he condemns our Sufferers before the Revolution, who feparated from the Curates ; as alfo, our dilfenting Bre- thren in England and Irelani, who feparate from the eftablifted Church ; for neither of them were freed by the Gfrurcb- Representative : And, now, that 1 h:ive mentioned the iDifllnters, I think it not amils to cite lome Part ot their Rea-
fons
( i°6 )
fons of diflenting or feparating from the Church of England, to be feen in Mr. Baxter's Rea- fons of Nonconformity, inferred in his Life, a- bridged by Dr. Calamy, where it is faid (a), They, viz. the 2)ijffenters3 could not fee how the Prefentation of a Patron and the Inftituti- on of a Bifhop couJd make it the abfolute Dur of all in a Parifh prefently to acquiefce in a Mi- nifter's Conduct in holy Things : This may in- deed legally inftitute him to the Tithes and Maintenance, but cannot make him a Paftor to any one without his own Confent. Parilh- order they thought had its own Advantages, and was to be preferred when more weight; Reafons did not offer : But they could no fee any Thing in it of an ablolute Neceflity^ neither could they reconcile the Suppofition of fuch a Neceflity (thoMertled by the Law of the Land) with the inviolable Rights of human Nature, which leave a Man at as much Liberty to chufe a Paftor for his Soul, as a Phyfician for his Body, or a Lawier for his fi- liate : And therefore, as they thought it would be hard for the Magiftrate to fay, You fhall have this Phyfician, or none, when perhaps another may better hit their particular Confti- tution; or,You fhall have this Lawier, cr none^ when it may be they know another who was much fitter to have the Management of their Concerns : So did they alfo reckon it a drain- ing the Point too high, for the Civil Magiftrate (and much more the Bifhop) to fay, You fhall have this Man, or none, for your Paftor,
c when
■ i ■ ■
»M '
■n
(a) $. 271.
( 107 )
c- when it was fo very puflibie to them to know c a Minifter who might be unexceptionable, and c much more fuitable unto them in the feveral € Refpe& in which a Miniiter's Help was need- f ful to them. This appeared to them to be a c contending with them for a Right which God c and Nature had given them ; and therefore they c were for feeing good Reafon for it., before they € would part with.it/ From thefe Words we may fee what a great Difference there is between him and that Author, whom he defigns the great Mr. Baxter.
But further, fays our Author (a), c We al- € low the Pe pie a Judgment of Difcretion in e Oppofition to the Doctrine of implicite Faith; c but this private Judgment, which the People c have, muft be guided by the publick Judgment c of the Church-Reprefentative/ AnpoL Does not this fmell rank of Popery ? to allow Men a Judgment of Difcretion, and yet not to grant that it is their Duty to act according to that Judgment, is to treat them as Fools, obliging them to act indifcreetly, or not according to their own Judgment ; and, if Men are not to be a&ed by their own Judgment, pray, of what Avail is that Judgment of Difcretion, wherewith he gra- tifies the People * Romani (Is ,who afcribe all Judg- ment to the Clergy, dealing with the reft of Mankind as irrational Brutes, will ask no more but that Men own they are not competent Judges of their own Good.
I fuppofe it will not be eafy for our Enquirer to put a Difference between his Dodrine, and
that
(a) p. 3d.
«*
( i»8 )
that of Papifb. He alledges, what he fays is
agreeable to Presbyterian Principles, and the
Judgment of all fober Presbyterians. If fo, then
the Wefiminfxer Affembly, and the Church of
Scotland, have determined againft the Mind of
all fober Presbyterians, in that our Confeffion of
Faith fays, All Synods and Councils, fince the
Apoftles "Times, whether general or particular ,
may err, and many have rerted, and therefore
they are not to be made the Rule of Faith or
(PraEfice, but to be tffed as a Help in both ;
and that God alone is Lord of the Conference,
and hath left it jree from the ^Doctrines and
Commandments of Men, "Which are in any
Thing contrary to his Word, or befide it, in
Matters of Faith or Worfhip : So that to believe
fuch 2)c£irines3 or obey fuch Commands out of
Confcimce, is to betray true Liberty of Confci-
ence ; and the requiring of an implicit e Faith 9
and an abfolute and blind Obedience x is to de-
ftroy Liberty of Confciencc, and Reafon alfo.
Our Argument from i John 4. i. is to this Purpofe, That, feeing the People are cautioned againft believing every Spirit, and required to try the Spirits, furely they have a Call from God, not to hearken to feducing Spirits, or Men of corrupt Principles, and vitious Pradices ; and, if they have a Right to feparate from fuch as fet Poifon inftead of Food before their Souls, it clearly folio \*s tbey have a Right to eled: fuch as they have Ground to think will be faithful, and fuch as they judge to fee fent of God. The En- quirer owns, € When a Church is corrupt, as in € France, and other Popifh Countries, the People f are to feparate, and repair to a purer Church,
' and
( *c9 )
c and join themfelves unto it/ Now, if fo, then thofe vacant Congregations have a Rignt to chufe fuch as they judge will be faithful to their Souls, declaring the whole Counfel of God to them. The Commandment of trying the Spf- rits, gives them a Right to judge of the Fitnefo of a Perfon to be their Pallor ; and confequently a Right to chufe or refufe, as they judge meet, upon ferious and fair Trial.
Cyprian, and an African Synod with him, laid (a), Let not the People flatter themfelves, as if they could be free of the Contagion of Guilt when they communicate with a flagitious or guilty Prieft, and give their Confent to the un- lawful and tmjufi Epifcopacy of their Overfeer. —And adds, Wherefore the 'People, if they obey the Lord's Command, and fear God, ought to fe- farate themfelves from a flagitious Prieft, and not frequent the Sacrifices of a facri legions Prieft, feeing the People have chiefly a Power either of chufwg worthy Priefls, or refufing the iinrucor- thy. Seeing the Father of Spirits has given his People fpiritual Life and Senfes to know his Voice in his Servants, and commanded them to try the Spirits, undoubtedly he hath alfo allowed them a Voice in the Choice of their own Paftors. Hence that eminent Divine Mr. "Bowls, in his Pallor Evangelicus, fays, JEquum id reHum- jue, &c. € It is juft and right that they to whom it belongs to try the Spirits, whether they be of God, to guard againlt falfe Prophets, and not hearken to them, to judge of heretical Dodrine, and to be allured of the Life and
c Man-
(a) £fijl.68.
( no )
Manners of Candidates, that they be free from € Scandal ; that their Confcnt in calling Pa- € ftors fhould not be negle&ed/ And then he cites Cardinal Cufanm aflerting, c That, if the f Confent of the People were not to interveen, € they would be punifhed for the Ignorance or c W ickednefs of the Minifter unjuftly/ And., top that fame Purpofe, Ttirretine, Rtitkerfurd, and others argue from this Text ; Their Words were quoted in Jui ^optili. But it feems our Enqui- rer thinks it below himfelf to notice what is laid by our Divines.
He fays, c The Election is to be by the pu c lick Judgment of the Church-reprefentative
* and that the fecond Book of Difcipline deter € mines fo, when Chap. 2- ScEl- 4- it defines E € le&ion to be the Chufing out of a Perfon, oj
• Perfons moft able to the Office that vaiks, by c the judgment of the Elderfhip, and Confent c of the People : It is not faid by the Judgment € of* the People, but by the Judgment of the, € Elderfhip.' Anfw. He cites the fecond Book of Difcipline, as if he owned it for a Rule of) equal Authority with the Scripture ; and yet, at other Times, be will not have the leaft Regard to it, nor, I dare fay, will he Oand to it here* By the Judgment of the Elderfhip there, I fup-i po(e, no more is meant, but the Elderfhip's judg- ing upon Trial of the Meetnefs of the Perfon fcr the Work of the Gofpel ; upon which the. People proceeded to the Election, cr giving their! Confent. But, whatever be the Meaning of thefer Words Judgment and Elderfhip in th;s Place, k is manifeitj That, by that Book, the People's;
Con*
( III )
Confent is judged to be as eilential to a Minifter^s Election, as the Judgment of the Elderfhip.
And further, it feems he will have che People to :onient without all xManner of Judgment, giving mplicite Faith to what is done by the Elderfiiip : For, fays he, it is not faid, the Election is jto be ; by the Judgment of the People, but of the Elderfhip ; and to this Judgment the Miniflers of Fife gave it as their Opinion, The People ought to give their Confent/ Anfjo. No ~)oubt the Compolers of that Book, by the r>ec pie, underitood Nobility, Gentry and Town* :ouncil, as jh|11 as the meaner Sort, and Elders, •xcept thefe in Presbytery. Now, can we think hat Book laid all thele aflde from chufing or ;alling their own Miniiiers ? If it had been to >ear the Senfe thjs Author would put upon it, *m apt to think they, viz. Nobility, Gentry and Commons, would not gone in thereto, much lefs worn to it. His Harrangue about Phyflcians md Quacks, and the unthinking giddy Multit- ude, is lo mean and filly, that it needs not an Infwer ; the fillieft among us, they will chufe he ableft graduate Phylician, if the Enquirer, or ny for him, will bear the Charges.
He difmiiTes this Argument, by charging me pth a bare-faced Perverfion of that Scripture, flev. z. 2. becaufe I take the People of the Church of Ephefits to be included in the Num- er of thofe who tried them who faid they were 4poftlesy and were not* but did lie. Have I been uilty of that hainous Crime? Others have been :h bare-faced Perverters before me, fuch as, e judicious 2ktrbam3 who fays, i The Dire- <ftkm of this, and all the other Epiftles, is firft
' to
( Hi )
* to the Churches themfelves, as Chap. t. ir. € and not to the Minifters, as, fays he, in the c Clofe of every Epiftle it is (aid, What the Spi~ c rit faith to the Churches. * And there he gives fundry Reafons why the Churches or the Body of the People, and the Angels or Church- Guides,are fo indifferently or promifcuoufly ufed. So Rutherford cites it, to prove the Peopled Right to eled their Pallors • e We never* s read, fays he (a), in the Apoftolick Churches c a Man was obtruded upon a People againfl c their Will ; and therefore Election by the f People in the Apoftolick Church,as A£is i. 26-
* A£is 6. 2, 3, 4. Rev. 1* 1, 2. ABs 20. 28* c muft be our Rule. Any Ele&ion without the] € Peopled Confent muft be no Election ; for, if c it pleale nor the whole Multitude, as ABs 6J\ € 5. it is no Choice/ Mr. Anderfon alfo, in his ) (Dejence of 'Presbyterian Government againfl: * Rhind, fays (b)> ( If we look into the Body of I c the Epiltles themfelves, and confider the Way J c how they are ufhered in, and the folemn Claufc j € wherewith each of them concludes, it is plain,
€ for that Angel muft betaken in a colleftivall c Senfe, as including, not only all the Ministers j € of the Church, but even the whole Church i c itfelf/ Again that Author fays, cIn none of j c thefe Seven Epiftles is there an A& of Epifco- t c pal Jurifdiftion fb much as hinted at, nor any»ji e Act which is not competent to all the Mini-sS [
* fters of the Gofpel, yea, indeed to the People! c c themfelves : As, for Inftance, when it is faidju e of the Church of Ephefus, Chap. 2. 2. Thomk
c hafi jtt
-•»«»
{a) "Due Right of Tresfr. p. 496. (b) p. 1 1 2.
( *n )
r haft tried them which fay they ate Apoftksi c and are not, and has found them Liars ; ic r is no more than what is the Duty, and will be [ the Praftice of every good Chriftian, all being .enjoined, i John 4. 1. Beloved, believe nop every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God : Secaufe many falfe Pro- phets are gone out into the World* So Pro- «ffor Jamefon in his Sum of the Epif copal Zonsroverfy, p. 66 and 69. So Principal Rule in his Good old Way defended, p. 15. 2>i- \dati affirms, That, by the Angel of the Church )f Ephefus, we are to underftand the whole church. Epifcopal Writers might be named to his Purpofe ; as Dr. Henry More, who fays, Cbrift, his writing to the Angel of the Church of Ephefus in this myftical Senfe, is writing to all Bifhops, Paftors and Chriftians^ in the firft Apoftolick Interval of the Church ;' And now, et the World judge, if the modeft humble En- juirer had not Ground to charge me as being 2 )are-fac,d Perverter, and a heedlels Writer, argu- ng as never did a 'Presbyterian. If I have been 1 bare-fac'd Perverter, I have trode in the Steps >f ^Durham, Rutherfurd, Anderfon, Jamefon> Rule, Diodati, &c.
But, fays he, It was the Minifters that tried hem that faid they were Apo files, and were tet. Anfiv. I own Minifters and Elders in a Ju* licatory did it ; yet fo, as the People, who are commanded to try the Spirits, did try them alio tfith a Judgment of Dilcretion ; yet no impor- ant Point is given up to the Independents, as he Enquirer alledges, nor is there any Article of )ur Confeffion given up. Again, he lays, f Had
H ' the
< "4 )
1 tin? Author .of Jus ^Populi corrfidered thisy, it
c had kept him from a great many heedlefs E- \ fcapes/ Anpx. The Author of Jus "Popttli* may have fallen into Efcapes, yet neither htxcj nor any where elfe has the critical Enquirer pointL ted out one of them. But., palling this, I frank^J ly own it belongs to Churcn- Judicatories to trf the Spirits, and judge in Controversies authorP tatively ; yet fo, as the People, who are com- manded to prove" all 'Things, are alfo to try the Spirits by a private Judgment of Difcretion : And there is a Trial of Minifters Gifts which i^ allowed to the People by the Wefiminfter Aflem-. bly and Church of : Scotland, in their Propofiti-- ons anent the Ordination of Minifters.
He hath attempted to anfwer our Argument* from i John 4. 1. and Rev. 2. and 2. Tho', in hi> Mnquiry, he had not attempted to take off the* Force of our Argument from Mat. 7. 15. where* our Lord commands his People to beware of falfe ^Prophets ;
Yet, now, in his Tublick Teflirnong made more fublick, he hath touched this Text, tho* he fays- nothing for taking off the Force of our Argu-: m&it ; he only tells,Thefalfe Minifters, of whom, our Lord fpeaks in that Text, were the Scribes and 'Pharifees, who taught for Ztoffrines the Commandments of Men ; and were unfound a«s tout divorces and Oaths, whom yet the People ,• *were to hear : But, to reftrid the Text to thefe,> 3s to go contrary to theXurrent of Interpreters. , Grotius underftands it of all that teach falfe and pernicious Do&rine ; and Henry underftands the j Text alfo of fuch as preach falfe Do&rine in I
thefe Things that are eflential to Rdigien, who ^
teach-
( II* )
:each that which is contrary to the Truths as it is njefus. Well, fays he, ( Beware of them, fuf- pecft them, try them ; and, when you have dil- covered their Falfhood, avoid them, have no- thing to do with them, fond upon your Guard againft this Temptacion/ Our Enquirer asks, [t the Cafe of the Church of Scotland be like the ^a(e of the jfews in our Saviour's Days ? which s nothing to the Argument ; for, it .is not of fe- :arating from the Church of Scotland that the \rgument fpeaks, but of the People's having i Right to feparate from falfe Teachers in gene- al, and confequently, of having a Right to eleft uch as are found.
Our Author^ in his modeft Enquiry, had alfb mft by John 10. 5. and, in his Ttflimony made nore ftiblick, he pretends to anfwer it, but fay's lothing to the Purpofe, telling, He thinks the •hepherd fpoken of in the Contexts only meant )f Chrift, but hath not one Word of what we ire to underftand by the Stranger whom the iheep will not follow, but flee from. And, hould he reftrict: that to falfe Cbrifls, he will be ;ontnlry to the Current of Interpreters ; for by he Stranger the fame with \X\tHir cling is meant3 (uch as love the Wages better than the Work* nd fuch as preach ttrange Dottrine. ; fuch as re Strangers to, and alienated from , the Life of God by wicked Works. Becaufe the People, upon s Text, in their Reprefcntation, fpeak of thrift's Sheep their having a fpiritual Inftinft \nd Sagacity to know the Voice of the true ihepherd from the Voice of the Hireling and tranger ; our Enquirer calls lh^ Cj.ut and fan- fied Language, which may tempt One to qrie-
( 116 )
ition, if our Author be really in the Station of Minifter. Mr. Henry , upon this Text, fays,The; who have experienced the Power and Efficacy divine Truths upon their own Souls, and havd the Savour and Relifh of them, have a ftrange Sagacity to difcern both Good and Evil ; and fuch Language is not unintelligible Cant, as the Enquirer reprefents it. The Soul of the Believctj hath its Senfat ions as well as the Body ; There is a fpiritual Senfe which enables Believers to dH ftinguifli Things. Hence, Heb. 5. 14- the Apoftld fays, Sutftrong Meat belongttb to them that arm of full Age, even thefe, tube, by reafon of Ufel have their Senfes exercifed to difcern both Gooi end Evil.
Further, Why faid he nothing to that Part ol .the Argument, That, if People were not to have Vote, and if their Confent was riot needful how could they be punifhed for the Ignorance] or Wickednefs of their Paftors ? And to me 'tis! equally clear, as that Two and Two make Four J It the People have a Right to flee from the Voice] of Thieves and Hirelings, they have a Right td chule whom they ihall hear ; for it cannot but be Sin to forbear Hearing, when Paftors can be had to feed them with Knowledge and Underftand^ ing. I
i
SECT.
( 117 )
SECT. VIII.
Wherein are anfwered the Enquirer's Objeftions againjl the People's Right, drawn from feve- ral Ordinations of Minifters under the New T'eftament, in which there is no exprefs Men* tion of the People's Ele£tion3 &c.
A FTER pretending to anfwer our Argu- i ^ ments, the Enquirer comes to confider fome Ordinations of Minifters mentioned in the New Teftament, fubje&ing his Thoughts upon thefe Co fuch as arc able to fet him right ; but who they are, whom he (hall think thus ab)e,is hard to tell. Here he cites three Places of Scripture, in which we have an Account of Ordinations, where there is no exprefs Mention made of the People's Ele- ction ,• And therefore, fays he,|it may be thought, in the Apoftles Times, the People had not the Eleftion of their Paftors. For Reply to thefe, in general, I fay, The Silence of an Hiftorian in Things commonly pra&ifed, is no Proof that they were not done: Such negative Arguments ire not concludenr. Eleftion,in the Apoftles Days being the common Practice, may well be fuppofed in fuch Cafes : Or may we not as well fay, That in the Apoftles Days none were ordained by lay- ng on of the Hands of the Presbytery, but only Timothy, feeing we read of none other fo or- dained ; or, that Timothy alone was to ordain, becaufe the Ap( lie, writing to him,cautionshim 3nly, faying, Lay Ha?ids fu.iienly on no Man ? i Tim. <. 22.
He tells us, He reads of an Ordination of O- /erfeers, Acts 20. 28. another r 'Tim. 4. 14. .ano-
H 3 thcr
( US )
fcher Tit. f. 5. yet no mention of the People's d\ufing them ; hence he would infer, they were not chofen by the People. I think the Author of the original tDraughs argues from this To- pick, whether the Enquirer hath the Hint fronv him, I know not: But, for Anfwer, what was
{*uft now foid of negative Arguments, anfwers all us long Reafonings from thefe Inftances.
He cites Clemens Romanus, faying, c The A- c poftles, preaching through the Provinces and
* fcities, appointed their firft Converts, having 1
* Trial of them by the Spirit, to be the Bifhops € and Deacons of thefe that fhould afterwards be- j
* lieve/ Anpw. 1. I fee nothing here againfl our Argument. 2. The fame Clemens Roma- mis in that fame Letter affirms, That the Apo- files themfelves appointed approved Perfbns for ' the Work of the Miniftry, wvivfoMetm. t>j; zk- tktietcLs taw, by, or with, the Confent, Choice and Complience of the whole Church : But of this Citation from Clemens, and what he fays further anent it in his publick 'Tejlimony made more piblick> I may take Occafion to fpeak more fully afterwards. He fancies Perfons were or- dained Minifters in the Apoftles Days, by the ex- traordinary Direction of the Holy Ghofi pointing out the Man ; but all this is only his own Con- jecture, without any fufficient Document.
He cites 1 T'im. 4. 14. concerning TimPthy\ Ordination, where no Mention is made of the I*eople*s Choice. Anfw. 1. Neither do we read of publick Fading and Praying on that Occafion, yet there is no Reafbn to thipk they were neglected. And ^Timothy was an Fsuange- Jijt9 an extraordinary Office-bearer, and was not
. fixed
( *IP; )
fixed to any particular Charge ; fo thfs fays nothing flgainft the People's Choice in ordinary Cafes ; and yet, as fbme have obferved, the A- poftle would not take Timothy to the Work pf the Gofpel with him, till he had a good Report anent him from the Brethren at Lyflra and lco- niutn, of which we read Affs 16. z, 2, 3.
Our Enquirer would have all the Eledions of Paftors in the firft Age of the Church, to have fceen made by fuch as had the Gift of difcerrring Spirits " v/ithout the People's Choice. And hence* in his ^PiibJiakTeftimony made more fublick, p. 56. 57. he fays, * I read, that, upon the Martyr-
* dom of James at Jervfalem^Stmeon the Son of r Cleophas was chofen to his be Succeflor by Per-
* fons that had this Gift of difcerning 5' and then he falls on at a Broadfide upon the Author of c
iqniry into the Method of fettling Tarijbes, coi: to the Afls and 'Pratlice of the Church of Scotland, faying, c I'm confounded, that the
Author of the Enquiry into the Method, Sec. f a Gentleman of undoubted Honour, fhould
* pervert this Paflage as he has done ; I muft fay
ervert, if he has not taken it upon Truft. He
in p. 58, cites Evjebius after this Manner, viz.
at "iter the *Lcath of the slpofile James,
Church oj Jerufalerri conveened and etefted
- imeony is Sncceffor. Now,there being no
Words in 1 :u$> importing that the Church
r of Jtrvfalem did conveen an :; I
f fhall give hi/n a faithfu1 Tr :ion of this Pa'
f fi^e to let him ri;^ht, /y.«T<i tw let
. After the M dom cf]Amt$yarJ the t4-
* *';;?£ of Jerufalcm, which
Report goes,
H 4 '"and
:*
( ,120 )
c and tDifciples of our Lord, who were yet a* f live, met together from all Tarts in the fame € Place, together alfo with the Kinfrnen of our
* Lord according to the Fie (Ij (for the moft Part
* of them were yetalive^ toconfult together who
* Jbould be worthy tojucceed James ; and, by one € Sentiment of them all, they judged Simeon the € Son (?f Cleophas (of whom the Hiftory of the € Gofpel makes mention) worthy of the Epif- € copal Sate there/ The very fame Account we € have in Nicephorus Ecclef. Hift. Lib. 3. Chap. 9. Now, concerning this Affair, 1. I fee nod Shadow of Proof, that all who ele<ffced Simeon had the Gift of difcerning of Spirits, not a Word • in Eufebius nor Nicephorus concerning this. Had all the Kinfrnen of our Lord according to the Flejb this Gift ? 2. If the Eleftors had this Gift, What Need was there for their con- , fulting together ? And, according to Eufebius, they held a Confultation in common as to a Sue- ceflor to James ; I think nothing is plainer,than that he was not chofen from immediate Revelati- on or the difcerning of Spirits. And Nicephorus fays, They deliberated on the Affair with Care or Thoughrfulnefs.
*. Tho* he charge the Author of that Enqui- ry with Perverfion again and again, if he hath not taken the Citation upon Truft, I canpot fee Ground for this Charge ; For, when it is faid, The Apoflles and Difciples of our Lord, and bis Kinfrnen, met from all Places ; The Words may very well be underftood of all Places in Je« rufalem ; they met from every Corner of the City, to elect a Succeflbr to James. Or the Meaning may be, Many of thefe Chriftians,
late
( 121 )
lately Inhabitants in Jerusalem, who had been Scattered in a Day of Trial, they returned at this Time from all Places. The Difciples of our Lord may very well be meant of fuch as believed on his Name in Jerujalem, or of fuch as for- merly had their Refidence there. But he hath a mighty Obje&ion againft this, namely, That it is faid of thefe ^Difciples, that they were fuch as were yet alive. But this will not prove that thev were the Seventy ^Difciples, which I (up- pofe he would be at ; no, but it may be meant of fuch as had efcaped in the bloody Perfecutioa which was under Claudius or Nero. Such Dif- ciples as were alive ; According to Nicephorus the Words are,oi t« Ki/p/* /^aShta/ x) <*T3rt*3^&c. The fDifciples of our Lordy and 4fo(lle$fjcho were yet alive. So, according to him, the Words feem to be meant of fuch of the Apofiles as were yet alive. And there is nothing in the Words can prove the Seventy were there, or that they were yet alive, or Church-officers ; And further, the Teftimony of Eufebius, who lived near Three hundred Years after that Ele&ion, would be no clear Proof at all.
But, fays the Enquier, The Words cannot be meant of fuch Difciples as the Apoftles had con- verted, for there was vaft Numbers of them. True ; but doth not the Scripture give an Ac- count of their being fcattered abroad, ASs 8. T. in that Perfection which was under Claudius 1 And there was fuch a Perfecution under Nero, that it was a Wonder there fhould been any Number of the Chriltians yet alive. Judge now, Reader, if our modeft Enquirer had Ground to charge a Gentleman of undoubted Honour a-
gain
( gOl
gain and again with Pervernon for what was faid, and fee if he had not Ground to be confoundei at it. Might not fofter Worck done his Turn ? and fee if there be not far better Ground to turn back this Charge upon himfelf, feeing he affirms Simeon was chofen by fuch as had the Decer- ning of Spirits. Inftead of this, according to Etr febius and Nicephorus, the Paflage is a Proof of the People's Intereft in the Choice of Paftors, feeing the Difciples of our Lord, and his Kinf- men according to the Flefh, they joined with the Apoftles. He promifed that Gentleman a faithful Tranflation of this Paffage to fet him right ; and I think his faithful Tranflation is verbatim the fame with that Englifh Tranflati-