This Separation must be performed by Church-Officers who are authorized by Christ hereunto Those that the Holy Ghost here gives this Command unto were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch v. 1. And here I meet with Adversaries on both hands the Prelatists on the one hand and some Independents and Anabaptists on the other The former plead for and insist upon something more viz. That Ordination must be performed by Officers of a Superior Order or Degree to those in the Text The latter allow of and are content with something less 1. For the first of these It is one of the grand Controversies of our Age between the Presbyterians and Prelatists Whether this Separation or Ordination must be perform'd by Bishops or may be perform'd by Presbyters so as that it should be of no force except a Bishop have a hand in it That it should be done by Scripture-bishops i.e. Presbyters I willingly grant But the Necessity of the Concurrence of a Diocesan Bishop is that which we deny So that the great Question is this Whether it be absolutely necessary to the firm and sufficient Ordination of a Minister that it be perform'd by the Concurrence Consent Assistance and Approbation of a Diocesan Bishop or Whether Ordination perform'd by a company of Presbyters be not Valid Firm and Sufficient tho' there be no Diocesan Bishop among them Some high Church-men hold the former That the Concurrence of a Diocesan Bishop is absolutely necessary and thereby Vnchurch most of the Reformed Churches to gratifie the Church of Rome And hereupon at that notable Revolution upon the Restauration of King Charles II. our Bishops would have all those to be re-ordain'd that were ordaia'd by Presbyters during the absence of the Bishops or else not to be owned for Ministers nor capable of any Ecclesiastical Imployment or Preferment But that Ordination perform'd only by a company of Presbyters without a Diocesan Bishop is firm and sufficient I shall prove by Scripture which is the only Rule we profess to walk by and therefore sufficient for our purpose My Scripture-proof is two-fold by Example and by Argument 1 We have Scripture-Examples of Ordination perform'd by Presbyters alone viz. 1 This of my Text where you may observe both the Work that was done It was Ordination perform'd by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of hands whereby Barnabas and Saul were separated and set a-part for their Ministerial Imployment And if this be not Ordination what is Here is certainly all that is requir'd thereto if we take our measures either from Scripture or all Antiquity bating the Preparatives thereto which are not of this Consideration Tho' some make Ordination less as we shall hear anon yet none make it more Observe also the Persons that did this Work of Ordination who they were that were commanded by the Holy Ghost to ordain Barnabas and Saul why they were the Prophets and Teachers here at Antioch v. 1. i.e. Such as did not only instruct the People and expound the Scriptures but had also the Prophetick Spirit and were partakers of Revelations saith Dr. Lightfoot Harmony of the New Testament p. 93. These then tho' indued with a Spirit of Prophecy as was both usual and necessary in those times were the ordinary Pastors and Teachers of the Church as the Apostle joyns them together Eph. 4.11 which were no other than Presbyters Here then Presbyters do perform this Work of Ordination and that by the particular Direction and Command of the Holy Ghost and therefore they have power to ordain and their Ordination is Valid and Sufficient 2 Another instance is of Timothy who was ordain'd by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Not of the Office as some would shift it off for the Office has no hands and besides the Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of Persons in that Office What can be more express than this True Paul joyn'd with them 2 Tim. 1.6 as one of the Ordainers which he 'd never have done if they had not had Authority to do what they did 2. I prove it by this Scripture-Argument or Reason because Presbyters are Scripture-Bishops That Scripture-Bishops may ordain I think is question'd by none But Presbyters are Scripture-Bishops This is generally granted both by Pretestants and Papists except a few high Church-men of late that the words Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same Persons or Persons in the same Office Convenit inter omnes in Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse saith Cassand Consult Art 14. It is agreed among all that in the Apostles times there was no difference between Bishops and Presbyters Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt saith P. Lombard With the Ancients Bishops and Presbyters were the same I could add more to the same purpose But that you may not take it upon trust but may see with your own Eyes I shall make it plain to you by comparing two or three places of Scripture together Look into Acts 20.17 18. From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders or Presbyters of the Church and when they were come to him he said unto them These then are the Persons to whom he speaks the Presbyters Now look into v. 28. and there he tells them That the Holy Ghost has made them Over-seers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops These Presbyters were Bishops Again Look into Tit. 1.5 I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders Presbyters in every City Then v. 7. For a Bishop must he blameless * Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici suisse Episcopos qui dicebantur erant Presbyteri alias nulla foret in Textu Apostolico connectio quam tamen particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserte ponit Quae enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec foret Illi constituendi sunt Fresbyteri qui sunt sine crimine quia Episcopum cujus Officium potestas Jurisdictio gradus differt a Presbyterio oportet esse sine crimine Ger. de Min. Eccles From this place it is manifest that the same Persons were both called and were Bishops who were called and were Presbyters Otherwise there would be no Connection in the Apostles Discourse which yet the causal Particle for expresly asserts For what coherence would this be They are to be made Presbyters who are blameless because a Bishop whose Office Power Jurisdiction and Degree is different from that of a Presbyter ought to be blameless whom he calls Presbyters in one place he calls Bishops in the other Once more 1 Pet. 5 1. The Elders which are among you I exhort v. 2. Feed the Flock of God taking the over-sight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishoping it or playing the Bishops Presbyters were made Over-seers
or Bishops by the Holy Ghost in the Acts Treating of the Ordination of Presbyters he lays down the Qualifications of Bishops in Titus the Elders or Presbyters are commanded to exercise the Office of a Bishop in Peter Therefore Presbyters are Scripture-Bishops and consequently may ordain or Ordination performed by them is Firm and Sufficient And here I might content my self with this Proof it being sufficient for us that we have Scripture-warrant for what we do But because Antiquity is so much insisted upon by some in this case as King Charles the First ask'd Archb. Vsher in the Isle of Wight Where he found in Antiquity That Presbyters alone ordain'd any therefore I shall not decline dealing with them at this Weapon but shall joyn Issue with them upon this Point also wherein I shall only produce the Judgment and Testimony of two famous Bishops the most Learned of this Age. The first is a Passage of the renowned Archb. Vsher as it is related by Mr. Baxter both in his Life p. 206. and in his Disput of Church-Government p. 216. The passage is this I ask'd him Archb. Vsher his Judgment about the Validity of Presbyterian Ordination which he asserted and told me That the King ask'd him at the Isle of Wight Where ever he found in Antiquity that Presbyters alone ordain'd any And that he answered I can shew your Majesty more even where Presbyters alone successively ordain'd Bishops and instanc'd in Jerom's words Epist ad Evagr. of the Presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own Bishops from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius The other is of Bishop Stillingfleet who proves by several Instances that Presbyters had the intrinsick power of Ordination but only that it was restrain'd by Ecclesiastical Laws and that after Episcopal Government was setled yet Ordination by Presbyters was lookt on as valid Iren. p. 379 c. and then in another place p. 273. he quotes that very passage of Jerom which A. Bish Vsher had done Nam Alexandria a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Ep. 85. ad Evagr. At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters having chosen one of themselves and set him in a higher station called him a Bishop as if an Army should chuse an Emperor or a Company of Deacons should chuse one of themselves whom they know to be very diligent and should call him Archdeacon Which Testimony he vindicates from several exceptions that were made against it This then may justifie our practise this day against all Gainsayers that we who are Presbyters and have no Diocesan Bishop among us yet undertake to perform this work of Ordination since as you have seen we have good ground and warrant for it both from Scripture and from Antiquity To which might be added the Consent of all Reformed Churches but that I must hasten Hence also we may see the intolerable Usurpation of those who would not allow the Ordination by Presbyters even in those times when either there were no Bishops or they durst not be known to be lawful and sufficient But do but observe the partiality of these Men They that would not allow Ordination by Presbyters in England or any other Reform'd Church to be valid yet would allow Ordination in the Church of Rome though their Bishops be so far from being the true Ministers of Christ that they are the Slaves and Limbs of Antichrist though their Ordination be attended with so many Fopperies and Superstitious Ceremonies and though the persons be never so unfit yet because one that has the Title of a Bishop has a hand in it therefore that must be valid forsooth and all others invalid and null Let a Person Ordain'd by Presbyters be never so well qualify'd never so faithful in the discharge of his Office let another Person Ordain'd by a Bishop be never so defective in qualifications let him be never so prophane in his Life yet this Man must pass for a true Minister because he has the ineffectual Blessing of a Bishop and the other a meer Usurper and all his Administrations must be null and void for want of this Ceremony Owen of Ordination p. 86. This plainly shows what Friends such are to the Reformation how highly they value the Church of Rome and what dirt they cast in the face and upon the practice of all Reform'd Churches Thus I have I hope pretty well acquitted my self from these Adversaries But there are some others though not so considerable that I must speak a word unto who instead of this Ordination by Church-Officers set up two things in its Room Gifts and a Call from the People I shall speak briefly to both 1. Gifts and Abilities are not sufficient to give a Man a Title to the Office of the Ministry 't is so in no case whatsoever There 's no instance in the World that I can think of from the King on the Throne to a petty Constable or Surveyor of the High-ways or any other thing whatsoever that hath the Nature of an Office in the Commonwealth that a bare qualification and ability for it doth inable a Man to take upon him the discharge of it Much less then should it be so in the Church where all things should be most regular and orderly 1 Cor. 14.40 and where the least miscarriage is dangerous Levit. 10.1 1 Cor. 11.30 Hence even Christ himself tho' fill'd with Wisdom when but a Child Luke 2.40 in whom were hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge Col. 2.3 yet did not thrust himself into the Office of a Priest till called as Aaron as the Apostle observes Heb. 5.5 Now Aaron had not only a particular designation and appointment by God to this Office but was actually put into it and setled in it by Moses Levit. 8. and 9. So Christ was not only call'd by an immediate voice from God the Father Matth. 3.17 but was Anointed as it were by John the Baptist in his Baptism and thereby Invested and Installed into this Office Wheupon the Apostle lays down this General Rue Heb. 5.4 No man takes viz. legally and duly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any honour or office whatsoever his parts and abilities be but he that is called of God And thus much is generally granted by all except a few self-conceited persons that think better of themselves than any body else doth and so turn Self-ordainers They can scarce be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they have generally little or no Learning but however they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they lay hands I don't say violent hands upon themselves and so become guilty of a sort of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho' not in the worst sense of
that word But if every Phaeton that thinks himself able may be permitted to drive the Charriot of the Sun no wonder if the World be set on fire saith Mr. Vines Well then Gifts won't serve turn 2. Neither hath the Election of the People any more power virtue or efficacy in it to make a Man a Minister No Authority can be deriv'd from them for Nihil dat quod non habet All their Interest about a Minister consists only in making choice of such a Person for the Exercise of his Ministry among 'em which is quite a distinct thing from Ordination or making a Man to be a Minister in General or confering the Office of a Minister upon him This appears plainly by that place Act. 6.2 3. The Twelve called the multitude of the disciples to 'em and said Look you out among you seven Men of honest report whom we my appoint over this business They were only to look out no nominate to fix upon the Persons who were fit for such an Employment and then the Apostles were to appoint 'em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word frequently signifies to authorize or invest with authority as Matth. 24.45 47. and 25.23 Act. 7.10 27 35. and is translated to Ordain Tit. 1.5 I left thee in Crete that thou shouldst Ordain Elders in every City This the Apostles reserv'd to themselves as belonging to them to appoint ordain authorize Only Nomination and Election was the Disciples work Ordination was the Apostles And mark it this work that they were here Ordain'd unto was a work of an inferior nature to the Ministry viz. Serving of Tables v. 2. Now if they might not take upon 'em without the special Investiture and Admission of the Apostles much less might they have undertaken the work of the Ministry without it It 's without all warrant from Scripture that the People should make a Minister There 's neither Precept nor President for it in all the N. T. We read of Ordination by Apostles Acts 6.3 and 14.23 by Prophets and Teachers in my Text by Evangelists Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and by Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 but for Ordination by the People we meet not at all with it and therefore it is observable that all that is written in any of the Epistles about Ordination is in those to Timothy and Titus who were Officers in the others which were written to the Churches there 's no mention made of these things which is a convincing proof that the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the People say the London-Divines See this Point largely handled in Jus Div. Min. Evang. part 1. c. 9. Thus I hope I have kept my ground and defended my Position from all attacks made upon it either on the right hand or on the left That Officers in the Church and they only have Authority from Christ to set apart others for the work of the Ministry 3. Now I proceed to the last Head of Discourse concerning the Manner of this Separation or Ordination that it must be done by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Fasting and Prayer must be used upon this occasion is granted by all There can be no question made of it The weightiness of the work requires it All the doubt is concerning Imposition of hands Therefore to clear that I shall shew as briefly as I can 1 The Original 2 The Necessity 3 The Vse of it in this case 4. Whose hands are to be Impos'd 1. For the Original of this Rite or Ceremony it was used upon several occasions Those that belong not to our present purpose I shall pass by The first place where it was us'd for a setting apart or Ordaining to an Office is Num. 8.10 Thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites and then v. 14. Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel Here was a Separation for a particular Employment and this was directed to be done by the children of Israel which cannot possibly be meant of the whole Congregation that was impracticable and therefore must be understood only of some of 'em but then the question is Who these some were that were commanded to impose their hands on 'em and here Interpreters are divided Some understand 'em of the Princes and Chiefs of each Tribe who by this Ceremony signify'd their intire resignation and dedication of them to God's Service This Sense Mr. Pool prefers as the best But I rather think it must be meant of the First-born who supplied the place of the Priests before in whose stead the Levites were taken v. 16-18 For they the Levites are wholly given unto me from among the Children of Israel instead of such as open every Womb even instead of the First-born of all the Children of Israel have I taken them unto me For all the First-born of the Children of Israel are mine both of Man and Beast on the day that I smote every First-born in the Land of Egypt I sanctified them for my self And I have taken the Levites for all the First-born of the Children of Israel Whence it seems much more likely to me that these were the Persons that laid their hands on the Heads of the Levites than the Princes or any other even as he that brought a Burnt-offering was to put his hand upon the head of it Lv. 1.4 to note his laying his Sins upon it and offering it up in his own stead So here The Levites being taken instead of the First-born To whom did it more properly belong to lay their hands on them than to the First-born This is the first Example of this kind after which it was commonly made use of in setting apart to any Sacred Function 2. The Necessity of Imposition of Hands in Ordination I prove by these Arguments 1 Because all Scripture Examples of Ordination were performed with this Ceremony and none without it None is or can be produced We have Scripture-warrant for it but none for the neglect of it Therefore to those that profess to walk by Scripture-Rule this should be sufficient As we must not add to Scripture-Institutions by our own Inventions so neither must we detract or take from Scripture by neglecting any thing we have Scripture-warrant for Nay more than this 2 We have an express Command for it 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no Man where the Negative includes the Affirmative As it forbids the denying of it rashly and unadvisedly so it enjoyns the doing of it considerately and deliberately 3 Because the special Nature of Ordination doth consist in this Ceremony as appears Because the Spirit of God in Scripture expresses the whole Work of Ordination by this one Act of Imposition of Hands as in the place last quoted and 1 Tim. 4.14 Yea not only so but the whole Work of the Ministry is couch'd under this Expression Heb. 6.2 as the most judicious and