Minister preacheth in his own Congregation to Members of another Congregation he doth not preach to them nor they hear him preach as a Minister but as a gifted Brother And that at the same time he preacheth as a Minister by vertue of his Office to those of his own Congregation and to others of another Congregation then present onely as a gifted Brother ex officio charitatis generali out of the general office of charity which to us is very irrational 2. Hence it will follow That when a Minister preacheth out of his own Congregation he preacheth only as a private Christian and not as an Ambassadour of Christ and when he acts in a Synod his actings are the actings of a private Christian and when he preacheth a Lecture out of his own Congregation though it be in a constant way yet he preacheth only as a gifted Brother Now what a wide door this will open to private men to preach publickly and constantly in our Congregations we leave it to any indifferent man to judge 3. Hence it will follow That when a Minister baptizeth a childe he baptizeth him only into his own Congregation For if he be not an Officer of the catholick-Catholick-Church he cannot baptize into the catholick-Catholick-Church which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12.13 4. Hence it will follow That a Christian who by reason of the unfixednesse of his civil habitation is not admitted into a particular Congregation hath no way left him to have his children baptized but they must all be left without the Church in Satans visible Kingdom because they are no particular Members and according to our Brethrens opinion there is no extension of the Ministerial office beyond the particular Congregation 5. We adde That according to this Assertion there is no way left us by Christ for the baptizing of Heathens when it shall please God to convert them to the Christian faith We will suppose an hundred Heathens converted We demand by whom shall these be baptized Not by a private Christian. This our Brethren abhorre as well as we To baptize is an act oâ— Office and can be done only by Officers Not by a Minister For a Minister say they cannot perform any Pastoral act such as this is out of his own Congregation Neither can these hundred converts choose a Minister and thereby give him power to baptize them for they must first be a Church before they have power to choose Officers and a Church they cannot be till baptized Neither can they joyn as Members to any other Church and thereby be made capable of Baptism by that Minister into whose Church they are admitted For in the way of Christ a man must first be baptized before he be capable of being outwardly and solemnly admitted as a Member of a particular Church The three thousand were not first added to the Church and then baptized but first baptized and thereby added to the Church We cannot conceive how such Heathen converts should regularly be baptized unlesse it be granted that every Minister is a Minister of the Church-Catholick and that every Minister hath an habitual indefinite power to act as a Minister in any place of the world where he shall be lawfully called That the desire of these hundred converts to be baptized is a sufficient call to draw forth this habitual power into act and that he may being thus desired according to the rules of the Gospel regularly and warrantably baptize them 6. Hence it will follow That a Minister preaching out of his own Congregation cannot lawfully and warrantably pronounce the blessing after his Sermon which yet is practised by our Brethren For to blesse the people from God is an act of Office and to be done only by an Officer Numb 6.23 24 25 26. compared with Revel 14.5 where the same blessings and persons from whom they come are expresly mentioned And so also Isa. 66.21 where under the name of Priests and Levites to be continued under the Gospel are meant Evangelical Pastors who therefore are by Office to blesse the people and they onely Deut. 10.8 2 Cor. 13.14 Ephes. 1.2 7. Hence it will also follow That when a Minister of a particular Congregation is sick or necessitated to be a long while absent upon just occasion that all this while though it should be for many years the Congregation must be without the Sacrament of the Lords Supper without having their children baptized and without any Preacher that shall preach amongst them as a Minister of Christ but only in the capacity of a private Christian. Neither can it be answered by our Brethren as some of them do that a Neighbour Minister in such cases may come in at the desire of the Congregation and administer the Sacraments amongst them by vertue of Communion of Churches unlesse they will also hold Communion of Offices which they do not For these acts being acts of Office cannot be done unlesse there be an habitual indefinite power of the Ministerial Office which by the desire of the Congregation is drawn out into act There are divers other absurdities that flow from this Assertion That a Minister cannot act as a Minister out of his own Congregation brought by Mr Hudson to whom we refer the Reader Onely we shall craâ—e leave to cite a passage out of Mr Ball alledged by the fore-named Author That to suppose a Minister to be a Minister to his own Congregation only and to none other Society whatsoever or to what respect soever is contrary to the judgment and practice of the Vniversal Church and tendeth to destroy the Vnity of the Church and that Communion which the Church of God may and ought to have one with another For if he be not a Minister in other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the flock which they feed one nor the Ministry one nor the Communion one which they had each with others Again pag. 90. he saith If a Minister may pray preach and blesse another Congregation in the name of the Lord and receive the Sacrament with them we doubt not but being thereunto requested by consent of the Pastor and Congregation he may lawfully dispense the Seals among them as need and occasion require That distiâ—ction of preaching by Office and exercising his gifts onely when it is done by a Minister and desired of none but Ministers and that in solemn set constant Church-Assemblies we cannot finde warranted in the Word of Truth and therefore we dare not receive it Before we part with this Argument we must necessarily answer two Objections Obj. If a Minister be a Minister of the Church Universal Visible and can act as a Minister out of his particular Congregation wherein doth he differ from an Apostle Was it not the peculiar priviledge of the Apostles Evangelists c. to have their Commission extended to all Churches This Objection is made by Mr Hooker Answ. Though we believe that every Minister is a Minister of
the Universal Church yet we are far from thinking that he is actually an Universal Minister The Apostles had the actual care of the Church Universal committed unto them and wheresoever they came had actual power to perform all Ministerial Offices without the consent or call of particular Churches And besides they were not fixed to any particular charge but were Ministers alike of all the Churches of Christ. But it is far otherwise with ordinary Ministers They are fixed to their particular Congregations where they are bound by divine right to reside and to be diligent in preaching to them in season and out of season All that we say concerning their being Ministers of the Church universall is That they have power by their Ordination in actu primo as M. Hudson saith to administer the Ordinances of Christ in all the Churches of the Saints yet not in actu secundo without a speciall Call which is farre differing from the Apostolicall power Object If a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation why do you your selves ordain none but such as have a title to some particular charge Answ. It is true We say in our Government That it is agreeable to the Word of God and very convenient That they that are to be ordained be designed to some particular Church or Ministerial employment not hereby limiting their Office but the ordinary exercise of their Office We distinguish between a Minister of Christ and a Minister of Christ in such a place between the Office it self and the ordinary â—xercise of it to such or such a people And yet notwithstanding we ordain none without a Title thereby to prevent 1. A vagrant and ambulatory Ministry For we conceive it far more edifying for the people of God to live under a fixt Ministry 2. A lazy and idle Ministry For when men shall have an office and no place actually to exercise it this might in a little space fill the Church with unpreaching Ministers 3. A begging and so a contemptible Ministry For when Ministers want places they are oftentimes wholly destitute of means and thereby come to great poverty even to the very contempt of the office it self So much for the sixth Argument Arg. 7. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election without Ordination then it will necessarily follow that when a Minister leaves or is put from that particular charge to which he is called that then he ceaseth to be a Minister and becomes a private person and that when he is elected to another place he needs a new Ordination and so toties quoties as often as he is elected so often he is to be ordained which to us seems a very great absurdity That this consequence doth necessarily follow is confessed by the Reverend Ministers of New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline where they say He that is clearly loosed from his Office-relation unto that Church whereof he was a Minister cannot be looked upon as an Officer nor perform any act of Office in any other Church unlesse he be again orderly called unto Office which when it shall be we know nothing to hinder but Imposicion of hands also in his Ordination ought to be used towards him again For so Paul the Apostle received Imposition of hands twice at least from Ananias Act. 9.17 and Act. 13.3 4. But this seems to us to be a very great absurdity and contrary to sound doctrine which we prove 1. Because every Minister hath a double relation one to the Church-Catholique indefinitely another to that particular Congregation over which he is set And when he removes from his particular Congregation he ceaseth indeed to be a Minister of that place but not from being a Minister of the Gospel And when called to another he needs no new Ordination no more as M. Hudson well saith then a Physician or Lawyer need a new License or Call to the Barre though they remove to other places and have other Patients and Clients For Ordination is to the essence of the Ministeriall Office and not only in reference to a particular place or charge The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Church-government say That there is one generall Church visible held forth in the New Testament and that the Ministry was given by Iesus Christ to the génerall Church-visible for the gathering and perfecting of it in this life until his second coming which they prove from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.4 5. compared with ver 10 11 12 13 15 16. of the same Chapter Now if Ministers be seated by Christ in the Church-Catholique as well as in their particular Churches then it followeth That they have a relation as Ministers to the Church-Catholique and though their relation to their particular Church ceaseth yet their Ministeriall relation ceaseth not because they were Officers of the Church-Catholique and there doth still remain in them a power in actu primo to dispense all the Ordinances of Christ though their Call ad actum secundum sive exercitum pro hic nunc as M. Hudson phraseth it ceaseth Even as every private Christian hath also a double relation one to the Church generall another to the particular place whereof he is a member And when he removes from his Congregation he doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church for then his Baptism should cease for every baptized person is a member of the Church but only of that particular Church And when he joyns with any other Congregation he needs not to be baptized again but is received by vertue of his former Baptism So it is with a Minister of the Gospel When he leaves his particular Congregation he continueth still to be a Minister though not their Minister and needs no more to be ordained anew then a private Christian to be baptized anew because neither Ordination nor Baptism do stand in relation to the particular Congregation but to the Church-Catholique Secondly If a Minister when he removes or is removed from his particular Congregation ceaseth to be a Minister then it will follow 1. That if the Church that called him prove hereticall and wickedly separate from him that then the sin of the people should nullifie the Office of the Minister Or. 2. If the Church refuse to give him competent maintenance and starve him out from them or if the major part unjustly combine together to vote him out for such power our brethren give to particular Churches that then the covetousnesse and injustice of the people should make void the Function of their Minister Nay 3. By this doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or Nation to un-minister all their Ministers which things are very great absurdities and contrary to sound doctrine Thirdly Because there is no Scripture to warrant the iteration of Ordination in case of removall The Apostles went about Ordaining Elders in every Church And Titus was
are members of the Church general visible and have right unto all the Ordinances of Christ as the circumcised Iew had and wheresoever they come to fix their dwellings may require an orderly admission unto the Ordinances there dispensed unlesse by their sins they have disinherited themselves 3. We say That it is agreeable to the will of Christ and much tending to the edification of his Church That all those that live within the same bounds should be under the care of the same Minister or Ministers to be taught by them and Governed by them and to have the other Ordinanceâ— dispensed unto them sutable to their condition as they shall manifest their worthinesse to partâ—ke of them And â—hat to remove altogeher those Parochial bounds would open a gap to Thousands of people to live like sheep without a shepheard and insteed of joyning with purer Churâ—heâ— to joyn with no Churcheâ— and in a little time as we conceive it would bring in all manner of prophanenesse and Athiesme Suppose a godly man living under a wicked Minister or â—n Hereticall Minister or a Minister that admits all men promiscuously to the Sacrament without any examination would you have this man bound to hear him and to receive the Sacrament from him If the Government of the Church were once setled and countenanced by the Civil Magistrate care would be taken that there should be no place for such kind of objections 2. Such a person in such a case ought rather to remove his Habitation if it may be done without any great prejudice to his outward estate then that for his sake that good and old way of bounding of Parishes rightly understood should be laid aside Suppose he cannot remove without very great prejudice to his outward estate In sucâ— a case It is much better as we conceive till the Church Government be further setled and hath further countenance from Civil Authority to relieve such a one by admitting him into another Congregation for a while than wholly to break and dissolve that Laudable and Church edifying way of distinguishing Congregations by local bounds But would you then have every man bound to keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives We are not so rigid as to tie people from hearing other Ministers occasionlly even upon the Lords day But yâ—t we beliâ—ve that it is most a greeable to Gospel order upon the grounds forâ—mentioned that he that fixetâ— his hâ—bitâ—tion wherâ— there is â— godly able Orthodox Minister should ordinarily waite upon his Ministry joyn to that Congregation where he dwells rather then to another In Scripture To appoint Elders in every Church and in every City is all one They that were converted in a City who were at first but few in number joyned in Church-fellowship with the Elders and Congregation of that City and not with any other But the Church of England is a National Church and therefore cannot be a true Church because the Church of the Iewes was the only National Church and there are no National Churches now under the New Testament This objection lies as a great stumbling block to hinder many Christians from joyning with our Churches and therefore we shall take some pains to remove it For the better answering of this objection we shall premise this distinction of a national Church A Church may be called National in a two fold respect Either because it hath one national Officer worship and place of worship Thus it was among the Iewes they had one high Priest over all the Nation they had one place to which all the Males were bound thrice in a year to assemble and one special part of worship to wit Sacrifice which was confined to that publick place unlesse in case of extraordinary Dispensation Such a National Church we are far from asserting or endeavouring to establish Or a Church may be called National when all the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one civil Government agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their lesser and greater Assemblies and in this sense we assert a national Church But there is no example of any national Church in the New Testament The reason is because we have no example there of any Nation converted to the faith 2. There are Prophesies and promises of National Churches Psal. 72 10 11 17. Isai. 2.2 Isai. 19.18 In that day shall five Citiâ—s spâ—ak thâ— Languagâ— of Caâ—aan â—nd swear to the Lord of Hostâ— â— and v. 19. then shall be an Altar 〈◊〉 the midst of the Land of Egypt and a pillaâ— at thâ— border tâ—â—reof to the Lord. And so on to vers 24 25. In that day shall Isrâ—â—l be the third with Egypt and with Assyâ—ia â—ven a blessing iâ— the midst of the Land Whom the Lord of Hosts shall blessâ— saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of mine hands and Israâ—l mine inheritance From this full place we gather 1. That in the times of the New Testament there shall be National Churches 2. That these Churches shall combine in one way of worship by Oath and Covenant 3. That the Lord own 's those Churches thus combined as hiâ— own and promiseth to blesse them 3. Even the Iewes themselves when their Nation shall be turned to the Lord and return to their own Land shall become a National Church not as having one High Priest one place of worship and one special publick worship in that one place for these things were Typical and Ceremonial and so were to vanish but as agreeing together in the same way of doctrine worship and covenant as other Christian Nations doâ—â— This is evident from Ezek. 37.21 to the end of the Chapter But we do not find in the New Testament that the particular Churches of any Nation are called a Church in the singular number But Churchâ—â— And therefore we look upon it as an unscriptural Expression to call the Congregations of this Nation The Church of England We find that several Congregations in the same City are called a Church as in Ierusalem Act. 8.1 That there were many Congregations in Ierusalem is evidently proved both in the Reasons of the Assemblie of Divines against the dissenting Brethren where they prove it both from the variety of Languages and from the multitude of professours and Ministers as also in our Vindication of the Presbyterial Government And so Act. 12 1 5. And Act. 15.4 22. Thus it was with the Ephesians called â— Church Act. 20.17 and Revel 2.1 and yet had many Congregations as appears from the Bookeâ— fore-quoted And if five Congregations may be called one Church why not five hundred 2. We might instance that the Churches in divers Cities are called A Church compare Gal. 1.13.22 23. with Act. 26.11 where the Churches of divers Cities are called expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Yet further it appears that all the visible Churches in the World
ISA. 66.21 I will also take of them for Priests and for Levites saith the Lord. EPHES. 4.8 11 12 13. When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. HEB. 5.4 5. And no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee 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 LUTH Tom. 4. Lat. Ien. fol. 19. Non fortunat Deus labores eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry Divided into two Parts The first Part containing A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in general The Necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of hands The Vnlawfulnesse of private mens â—ssuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawfull Call and Ordination The second Part containing A Justification of the present Ministers of England both such as were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy frâ—m the â—oul aspeâ—sion of Antichristianism And those who have been Ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty Proving that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture-Patern Together with an Appendix wherein the Iudgement and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed Published by the Provincial Assembly of London LONDON Printed by Iohn Legat and Abraham Miller 1654. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER IT is reported of Bucer that he was so eager of Peace with Luthâ—r that he was like to a man Qui prae nimia aviditate etiam foeces haurireâ— who by an overmuch greediness after Unity was ready to swallow down many of Luthers errours For our parts Though we should be loath to buy Peace with the loss of Truth yet such have been the unexpressible mischiefs that the divisions of Brethren have brought upon this Nation and such is our earnest desire after an happy Accommodation that we hope we can truly close â—hough not with the former yet with another saying of Bucers That we would willingly purchase with the losse of our lives the removing of the infinite scandals that have been given to the Churches of Christ by the divisions of Christians Eusebius reports of Constantine though a great Emperour That he was more troubled with the dissentions of the Church then with all the warres in his Dominions That he took them so to heart that he could not sleep quietly for them yea although he had a spiritfull of heroick valâ—ur yet the dissentions of the Church were such evils to him as to cause him to shed many a tear c. Our prayer to God is that the same affection towards the Churches of Christ in these three Nations may be kindled in all our brests And We doubt not but through the grace of God We are able in Sincerity to profess with Luther That we are as desirous to imbrace Peace and Concord as We are desirous to have the Lord Iesus to be propitious to us And therefore fore-seeing that this ensuing Treatise will meet with many Adversaries of different Perswasions and with much opposition We thought fit to give the Reader notice of our intentions here lest We should be thought to be enemies to Peace and hinderers of that long desired and often praied for Union between dissenting Brethren There are six sorts and ranks of men whom We have occasion to deal with in this Book 1. Such as are against the very Office of the Ministery and that affirm That there is no such Office instituted by Christ to be perpetual in his Church We look upon this Assertion as destructive unto Christian Religion and to the souls of Christians 2. Such as say That it is lawfull for any men that suppose themselves gifted though neither Ordained nor approved by able men to assume unto themselves a power to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments This Opinion We judge to be the high-way to all Disorder and Confusion an inlet to Errours and Heresies and a Door opened for Priests and Jesuites to broach their Popish and Antichristian Doctrine 3. Such as hold That the Ministry of England is Antichristian That our Churches are no true Churches but Synagogues of Satan and that there is no Communion to be held with us This Opinion We conceive to be not only false and uncharitable but contradictory to Peace and Unity 4. Such as say That Episcopacy is an higher Order of Ministry above Presbytery by Divine Right That Christ hath given the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction unto Bishops And that Ordination of Ministers is so appropriated to them by the Gospel that all Ordinations by single Presbyters are null and void and that Sacraments by them administred are no Sacraments These Assertions We look upon not only â—s groundlesse and unscriptural but as cruel and utterly overthrowing all the Protestant Reformed Churches and Ministers Now though We hope We can truly say that We have with all Meekness and Christian Moderation managed the Debate with these four sorts of Adversaries and shall be ready to exercise all Offices of Christian Love and Affection towards them and by requiting good for evil labour to heap coals of fire upon their heads yet notwithstanding such is the great Distance between Them and Us in Judgement and Practice and such is the bitternesse of their Spirits in their Opposition against Us that We have little hope for the present till the Lord be pleased to work a happy change of Judgment in them of any real and hearty Accord and Agreement with them 5. A fifth sort are our Reverend Brethren of New and Old-England of the Congregational way who hold Our Churches to be true Churches and Our Ministers true Ministers though they differ from Us in some lesser things We have been necessitated to fall upon some things wherein they and We disagree and have represented the Reasons of Our Dissent But yet We here profess That this Disagreement shall not hinder Us from any Christian Accord with them in Affection That We can willingly write upon Our Study-doors that Motto which Mr Ieremiah Burroughes who a little before his Death did ambitiously indeavour after Union amongst Brethren as some of
is evident because these Titles are applied not onely to extraordinary but to ordinary Ministers The Ministers of the seven Churches of Asia are called Angels the Ministers ordained by Titus Stewards the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Overseers or Bishops now a Ruler is a name of Office and implieth a Commission to constitute him in that capacity Fourthly We argue From the constant distinction that is made in Scripture between gifts and calling We reade Ioh. 20.21 22. First Christ gives his Apostles their Commission As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Then he gives them their gifts Receive the Holy Ghost Thus also Isa. 6.6 7 9. God touched his lips with a coal from the Altar and gifted him Afterwards he gives him his Commission Thus also it was with the Prophet Ieremy 1.5 9. God sends him and then puts forth his hand toucheth his mouth and fiâ—s him Even as it is in all civill Governments Gifts make not any man a Judge or a Lord-Maior Sheriff or Common-Counsell man though he be never so richly qualified for these Offices unlesse he be lawfully appointed thereunto So is it in Church-affairs it is not gifts but calling that constitutes a Minister therefore that distinction of a Minister by gifts and a Minister by calling hath no footing in the Word of Truth If gifts were sufficient to make a Minister then women might preach as well as men for they may have as eminent gifts Indeed gifts are a necessary qualification of the person to be called but make him not a lawfull Minister till called and ordained And if he take the Office upon him unsent he is an Usurper and may fear to perish in the gain-saying of Corah notwithstanding his gifts Fifthly We argue from the Rules laid down in Scripture for the calling of men to the Office of the Ministry The Word of God doth exactly tell us the qualifications of the person that is to be called 1 Tim. 3.2 3. c. The Scripture also directs for the manner of his calling to the work who are to Ordain How he is to be Ordained 1 Tim. 4.14 c. Now either these directions are superfluous and unnecessary or else it is a truth that no man ought to take this Office upon him without such a call Nor were these directions given for that age only but for all the ages of the Church to the end of the world as appears evidently from 1 Tim. 6.18 compared with 1 Tim. 5.7.21 In the first place he is charged to keep those commands without spot to the appearance of Iesus Christ And in the second place there is as solemn a charge particularly applied to quicken his diligence and faithfulnesse about matters of the Church and especially the ordination honour and maintenance of the Ministry in ordinary as appeareth by the context before and after from ver 17. to ver 23. The same charge is laid down also by way of direction Chap. 3. and particularly committed to Timethy's care ver 14. And one main ground why Paul chargeth Timothy to be so carefull about these particulars especially at Ephesus was That thereby false doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1.3 4. for which there is scarce a more effectuall means in the world then a publike and regular care of calling persons duely qualified to the Ministry And we cannot but look with sad hearts upon the spreading of errours in these daies of generall Apostasie as the righteous judgement of God upon the supine negligence of men in this particular among others The same charge upon the same ground is laid upon Titus Cha. 1.5 9 10. where also the Apostle gives singular directions for the qualification of the person to be ordained both in point of gifts and grace which are all vain and unusefull if any may enter upon the Ministry without Ordination Sixthly We argue from that confusion which would come into the Church if every man that presumes himself gifted should intrude himself into the Office of the Ministry without a regular call Saint Ierome held it an infallible sign of a Church falling into ruine Vbi nulla Ministrorum est electio manifestum cognosce collabâ—nt is Christianismi judicium where there is no choice of Ministers acknowledge this a manifest evidence of Christianity decaying The reason is apparent The prostituting of this sacred and weighty Office to the wils of men opens a door to all disorders and the introducing of all heresies and errors How much did the Church of Antioch suffer from such as came from the Apostles and had no Commission Act. 15. Gal. 2.5 besides that contempt and scorn which it exposeth the Ministry unto Admit the same in the Common-wealth or in an Army Might he that would make himself a Maior Judge Constable a Colonell Captain c. what an Iliad of miseries would thence â—nsue is easier to be imagined then expressed CHAP. V. Containing part of the Third Proposition PROVING That none may do the Work of the Ministry without Ordination NO man may perform the work of the Ministry but he that is solemnly set apart and ordained to be a Minister Having in the precedent Chapter asserted the necessity of Ordination to the work of the Ministry against the presumptuous usurpation of such as run and are not sent We shall by the grace of God in this Chapter vindicate the work of the Ministry unto those whom God hath set as Officers in his Church That there is a work belonging to the Ministry is out of question and what that work is is confessed by all It belongs to them to dispense the mysteries of God the keys of the Kingdom of God are in their hands It is their work to watch for souls as they that must give an account of them at that great day To preach the Word and by sound doctrine to convince gain-sayers to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper to pray for and blesse the people in the Name of God to rule and govern the Church having a care of discipline and all these as in the place and person of Christ. Of how great necessity these works are unto the Church is evident unto understanding Christians and hath been demonstrated already It now remains to be enquired whether all or any of these works may be performed by men uncalled though gifted or whether they be peculiar unto Ministers Those with whom we have to do yeelding all the rest to the Ministry challenge in their writings a liberty to preach the Word and in their practises some of them a power of praying for and blessing the people how justly we shall shew when we have first stated the Question which we shall do briefly and plainly that we may not seem to disallow what we ought to countenance commend nay to command in the Name of the Lord and that we may prevent and anticipate the cavils of some gain-sayers For the right stating of the Question we shall
is in him and for Christians to speak often one to another in evil times to teach admonish exhort one another to pray together and one for another but all this comes short oâ— the Ministers duty there being a vast difference between this private charitative way of exhorting which belongs to all Christians and the office and work of the Ministry as hath been above distinguished Object 6. Private Christians Act. 8.4 11.19 when they were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word Therefore gifted men though not ordained may also preach the Word Answ. This instance which is much insisted upon by many is not of strength to conclude the lawfulnesse of preaching by gifted un-ordained persons For First Some allowing these scattered Christians to have been private persons yet do rationally distinguish between a Church constituted and a Church scattered and dissolved between what may be done in a Church gathered and in an ordinary way and in the gathering of a Church and in the â—ase of necessity It is not recorded that these did preach while they were at Ierusalem in a setled Church but when they were scattered then they went every where preaching what warrant soever this instance may give to persons uncalled to preach amongst Indians and in places where no Churches nor Ministers are yet can it not warrant them in their preaching in our Churches in which Ministers are or may easily be had Secondly It may justly be denied that the Christians here spoken of were private Christians it may be asserted that they were men in Office and had commission to do what they did This appears 1. From the first verse where it is said At that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Ierusalem and they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Iudea and Samaria except the Apostles These All that were scattered must be either All the Teachers and Church-Officers or all the Beleevers not all the beleevers for it is said in the 3. verse That Saul made havock of the Church entring into every house and haling men and women committed them to prison And Act. 11.22 there is expresse mention made of the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding the persecution Had all the Beleevers been scattered what should the Apostles have done at Ierusalem their tarrying would have been dangerous to themselves and useless to the Church And therefore we judge that by all is meant all the Church-Officers of whom there were many at Ierusalem were scattered except the Apostles and when they were scattered they went every where preaching the Word To make the Interpretation clearer observe First That the word All is used here with an exceptive particle which necessitates it to be meant not of beleevers but of men in office for if all relate to beleevers then it will follow that there was not one Beleever left in Ierusalem except the Apostles The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Genitive case in the New Testament being alwaies exceptive to the utmost as appears Ioh. 8.10 Act. 15.28 22.22 Mar. 12.32 but this we are sure is false as hath been already proved Secondly That it is said That they that were scattered went every where preaching the Word It is not said teaching which may be actus charitatis but Preaching which is actus officij How can they preach except they be sent Rom. 10. The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren observe that those that were scattered went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the act of men in office and they desire the Brethren to produce one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used concerning any that are not Preachers by Office they bring many where it is used concerning those that were in Office even by the pen-man of this history and conclude that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their Commission to preach before this persecution though the persecution occasioned their preaching in Iudea and other places Thirdly Act. 8.5 there is but one of this scattered number named and he was a person in office to wit Philip not the Apostle but who is numbered among the Deacons Act. 6. and called an Evangelist Act. 21 8. By the singling out of this one who was in Office we may judge that the rest were persons in office as well as he Fourthly 'T is probable that these that were scattered did baptize as well as preach which we gather from Act. 11.26 It is said there There was a Church setled at Antioch which could not be unlesse they were first baptized but there were none in Antioch to baptize them if they of the dispersion did not for Barnabas Agabus and other Prophets came not to Antioch till the Church was founded Act. 11.25 26 27. and this Church of Antioch is expresly said to be founded by the scattered brethren Act. 21.19 now baptism is to be performed only by men in office Mat. 28.19 Fifthly These scattered brethren are said to be Prophets and Teacherâ— Act. 13.1 where mention is made of Lucius of Cyrene who in all probability was one of the scattered Preachers as appears Act. 11.19 20. where it is said That some of these scattered were men of Cyrene If it be said that there is no where mention made of the Ordination of or any commission given to these scattered brethren It is answered that it doth not follow that therefore they had none because none is mentioned It is sufficient for us that there are Scripture-Reasons to perswade us that they had a Commission They did a work peculiar to Officers of the Church as hath been proved which godly men out of Office durst not have done they had successe and the blessing of God upon their labours which he promiseth not to those that go in an evil way as hath been demonstrated But let thus much suffice for this instance Obj. 7. All the People of God are called Priests Rev. 1.6 why then may they not preach Answ. They are indeed all made Priests unto God and Kings unto God not unto men They are Priests not ministerially but spiritually not as to the ministeriall function but as to the offering up of spirituall Sacrifices unto God Thus it is expounded 1 Pet. 2.5 Praier Thanks-giving and Almes-deeds are called Sacrifices in Scripture and these a Beleever offereth up to God and so he is made a Priest to God Secondly All are made Priests unto God but are all made Prophets Are not all made Kings And may therefore all exercise regall jurisdiction amongst men May all be Magistrates Away with such fanatick Monasterian conceits If we be Priests let us sacrifice our lusts if Kings let us rule over our passions and our pride this would quickly prevent such unwarrantable practices and put a happy issue to these Disputes Object 8. But if a Master of a Family may instruct his own Family why may he not
ordinary so the calling we are to expect is ordinary Adde That God hath promised to preserve an ordinary Ministry in the world till the coming of Christ 1 Cor. 11.26 Eph. 4.12 13. Mat. 28.20 Isa. 59.21 And therefore there is no need of waiting for and expecting an extraordinary and immediate Call As it is necessary saith Learned Zanchy that there shall be alwaies a Church upon earth because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it So also it is every way as necessary that a lawfull Ministry be preserved Vnum enim ab altero separari non potest nec Ecclesia a Ministerio nec Ministerium ab Ecclesiâ For the one cannot be separated from the other neither the Church from the Ministry nor the Ministry from the Church And from hence it appears saith the same Authour That even in the Church of Rome though the worship of God be most corrupt in it yet God hath preserved in it so much of the substance of Religion as was necessary to salvation so that as the Church is not wholly extinct therein so neither was the Ministry We deny not but that there are some Learned Divines that pleade much for an immediate and extraordinary call in times of publique and generall defection from the Truth For our parts we will not espouse this quarrell We cannot we ought not to set bounds to the infinite power and free-will of God We dispute not what God may do at such times only we say with Gerhard Destituimur promissione quòd debeamus hoc tempore post confirmatum Novi Testamenti canonem immediatam vocationem expectare We have no promise that we ought after the confirmation of the Canon of the New Testament to expect an immediate call And afterwards he saith Nulla apparet immediatae vocationis necessitas There appears no necessity of this immediate Call And besides even those that are for an immediate Call do lay down divers limitations which are very worthy to be considered by the people of our age lest they should suck poison from such a doctrine One that pleads much for it gives these Rules 1. That this extraordinary and immediate Call then only takes place when a mediate and ordinary cannot be had and that such a Call ought not to be pretended unto in contempt of the ordinary way 2. That whosoever shall pretend to this immediate Call ought first to be tried before he be admitted That his doctrine ought to be examined by the Word That his life and conversation ought to be diligently lookt into lest he prove one of those concerning whom the Apostle speaketh That serve not our Lord Iesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple After this he puts this Question Anne cessante ordinaria vocatione c. Whether when the ordinary Call ceaseth it be then lawful for every private Christian verst in the Scriptures to go up into the Pulpit and preach against false Doctrines and assert the Truth and answers God forbid for this would open a door euivis ubivis qui se sapientem existimaret c. to every one every where who thinks himself wise under a pretence whether true or false of confuting false doctrine to have clandestine meetings as the Anabaptists and Libertines of our daies are wont to do following the evil example of those that first at Antioch afterwards in Galatia and elsewhere creeping in privately brought great tumults and confusions into the Church Of whom the Apostle speaks Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law to whom we gave no such commandment Thus farre Bucanus and much more to this purpose in the same Chapter By this it appears That even they that justifie an immediate Call in some cases do notwithstanding flatly condemn the disorderly practices of our times So much in answer to the second Question The third Question is Whether the Call of Luther and the rest of the best Reformers of Religion from the errors of Popery was an immediate and extraordinary Call or no Answ. He that would be satisfied about the Call of Luther to the Ministry let him reade Gerhard de Ministerio where he shall finde proved That Luther though he did alwaies pleade his doctrine to be of God yet he did never so much as pretend to an immediate and extraordinary Call but that he was called after a mediate and ordinary way That he was ordained Presbyter in the Year of our Lord 1507. at 24 years of Age That when he was ordained Presbyter he did receive power to preach the Word of God That the next Year after he was called by Iohn Staupitius with the consent of Elector Frederick to be Divinity Professor of the Church and University of Wittenberg By the Statutes of which University he was bound to this sc. Vestrum est legem divinam interpretari librum vitae docere It is your Office to interpret the Divine Law and to teach the Book of Life Object If it be objected That Luther received his Ordination from the Church of Rome and therefore it is null and void Answ. To this Gerhard answereth That although the rite of Ordination in the Church of Rome was corrupted with many Superstitious and Vnprofitable Ceremonies yet Ordination it self was not nullified We must distinguish between the impurity of the Bishop Ordaining and the Ordination which is done in the Name of the whole Church And in the Ordination we must distinguish that which is divine from that which is humane that which is essential from that which is accidentall that which is godly and Christian from that which was Antichristian As in the Israelitish Church they were to use the Ministry Sacrifices and Ordination of the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses chair yet the people were warned to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16.12 So also is the Church of Rome We use the Ministry Sacraments and Ordination of those that were in ordinary succession but we reject the leaven of their Superstition But to this Objection we shall speak more fully in our fifth Proposition The like to that is said of Luther may be said of Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bucer Peter Martyr c Zanchy saith That Luther was a lawful Teacher and a Minister created in the Church of Rome with Imposition of hands and with authority to create others The like he saith of Zuinglius Bucer c. and of himself Qui in Papatu fuimus creati Doctores cum authoritate alios creandi We were made Teachers under the Papacy with authority to make others We confesse that Zanchy Bucanus and divers others speak much if not too much of an extraordinary Call that these blessed Reformers had But yet we desire it may be considered
in the New Testament we meet with no such command laid upon the people We reade that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery are to lay on hands but not a word of command for the people but rather against it as we have shewed 3. When it is said That the children of Israel laid on hands it is not imaginable that all the Israelites did put on hands but it was done by some chief of them in the name of the rest And as Ainsworth observes It was done by the first-born For the first-born was sanctified and consecrated unto the Lord Exo. 13.1 Because the Lord when he destroyed the first-born in Egypt spared the first-born of the Israelites therefore he challengeth a right in all their first-born and they were to be given to him And now the Levites were taken by God in stead of the first-born as appears Numb 8.16 17. And hence it was that the children of Israel that is the first-born of Israel were to lay on hands upon them for the Levites gave an atonement for them and were offered up unto the Lord in their stead and as the Rabbins say Every first-born laid on hands on the Levite that was for him Which if it be so will afford us two other answers to this text 4. That the children of Israel had not onely a special command but a special reason also for what they did And therefore this example cannot be made a patern for New Testament practice 5. That this laying on of hands upon the Levites was not for them to set them apart for the service of the Lord but rather a setting them apart for a Sacrifice unto the Lord. It was the command of God that the children of Israel must put their hands upon the Sacrifices they did offer unto the Lord. The Levites were now to be waved or offered before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel and to be offered in stead of the first-born And therefore the first-born did put their hands upon them as their propitiation and atonement It is very observable That notwithstanding this Imposition of hands the Levites were not thereupon invested into their office and made able immediatly to execute it But Aaron the Priest was to wave them before the Lord for a wave-offering that they might execute the service of the Lord. It was Aarons waving of the Levites and separating them from among the children of Israel that did constitute and make them Church-officers And thus at last we have put an end to our first part concerning the Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry and have as we hope sufficiently cleared to the consciences of our people That there is such an Office as the Office of the Ministry perpetually to be continued in the Church of Christ. That no man ought to take upon him either the Office or the Work of the Ministry unlesse he be lawfully ordained thereunto That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ and ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery c. We cannot but expect to meet with many Adversaries that will oppose what we have here written Some will deny the very Office of the Ministry Others will grant that there was such an Office in the Apostles dayes but will say that it is now quite lost Some will grant that the Office of the Ministry is perpetually necessary but will adde That it is lawfull for all men gifted to enter upon the publick work of the Ministry though they be not called and ordained thereunto Some are for an immediate and extraordinary Call to the Ministry Some will deny all Ordination of Ministers Others will grant Ordination but deny Imposition of hands Others will grant Imposition of hands but say That it ought to be done by private Church-members and not by the Presbytery By this it appears that our Adversaries differ as much one from another as they do from us And therefore we need not be much afraid of their opposition for in writing against us they will be necessitated also to write one against another It is we confesse a great lamentation and shall be for a lamentation that there should be such differences and divisions amongst Christians and especially amongst those that professe the Protestant Reformed Religion and have made a necessary and just separation from the Idolatry and superstition of the Church of Rome Hereby God is greatly dishonoured True Religion hindered and disgraced The wicked are hardâ—ed in their wickednesse The Popish party is encouraged The godly party weakned and great stumbling blocks are laid before weak Christians to deter them from true conversion But we hope that this which we have written will contribute something towards the healing of these differences and uniting of all godly and unprejudiced people in peace and truth This is our design this is the success we pray for We have been necessitated to make frequent mention of A Platform of Church-Discipline agreed upon by the Elders and Messengers of the Churches in New-England and have expressed our dissent from some things therein contained But we desire the Reader to take notice 1. That in the Preface to this Platform they assure us of their hearty consent to the whole Confession of Faith for substance of Doctrine which the Reverend Assembly presented to the Parliament and tell us of an unanimous vote of a Synod at Cambridge 1648. which passed in these words This Synod having perused and considered with much gladnesse of heart and thankefulness to God the Confession of Faith published of late by the Reverend Assembly in England do judge iâ— to be very holy orthodox and judicious in all matters of Faith and do therefore freely and fully consent thereunto for the substance thereof c. And do therefore think it meet that this Confession of Faith should be commended to the Churches of Christ amongst us and to the honoured Court as worthy of their due consideration and acceptance 2. That as we agree wholly in the same Confession of Faith so also we agree in many things of greatest concernment in the matter of Church-Discipline 3. That those things wherein we differ are not of such consequence as to cause a schism between us either in worship or in love and affection Our debates with them are as it was said of the disputes of the ancient Fathers one with another about lesser differences not contentiones but collationes We can truly say as our Brethren do in the fore-named Preface That it is far from us so to attest the Discipline of Christ as to detest the Disciples of Christ so to contend for the seamless coat of Christ as to crucifie the living members of Christ So to divide our selves about Church-communion as through breaches to open a wide gap for a deluge of Antichristian and prophane malignity to swallow up both Church and Civil State The main intendment and chief drift of this our undertaking hath been to oppose those that say
nourished in the wildernesse for a time times and half a time from the face of the Serpent verse 14. Note here 1. That by the 1260 daies and a time times and half a time is meant the whole time of Antichrists raign 2. That the Church during the whole raign of Antichrist should be in a sad lamentable and Wildernesse condition 3. That maugre all the fury of the ten-headed or two-headed beast yet notwithstanding the Church of Christ should be preserved and kept safe For there were two wings of a great Eagle given unto her to enable her to fly into the Wildernesse where she is fed and nourished 42. Moneths And all this is to be understood not onely of a Church entitative or a Church without Officers but of a Church instituted or Ministerial a Church administring Ordinances For this woman is not onely kept alive in the Wildernesse all the time of Antichrists raign but she is fed and nourished by Gospel-Administraâ—ions â—he is fed by the Two witnesses for the prophesying of the witnesses is contemporary with the womans flight into the Wildernesse Even aâ— Elias was nourished in the Wildernesse and kept safe from the fury and rage of Iezebel And as God reserved 7000. that had not bowed their knees to Baal c. and by good Obadiah preserved an hundred Prophets of the Lord alive all the time of Ahabs bitter opposition against them Even so was the Woman that is The Church of Christ reserved and nourished by the Ordinances Scriptures and Ministry of Christ though in a Wildernesse-condition all the time of Antichrist's prevalency The like to this we read of in the 11. of the Revelation where we have two things very observable for our purpose The one concerning the Temple measured and the outward Court unmeasured The other concerning the two Witnesses 1. Concerning the Temple measured and the outward Court unmeasured The outward Court was to be left out or cast out to wit as prophane and that which God will make no account of It was not to be measured but to be given unto the Gentiles that is the Antichristian party to be trod under foot forty and two Moneths that is all the time of Antichrists raign The meaning is as Mr. Mâ—de well observeth That the Antichristian Apostasie which he calls redivivus Ethnicismus shall prevail over the Christian Churâ—h and shall bring in a new kind of Idolatry into the places where the true Religion was professed But now the Temple and the Altar and they that worship therein are to be measured with a divine reed This measuring is an allusion to Ezek. 40.1 c. where the Temple with all in it was to be measured by Gods appointment to shew that that building was of God So must the true Church of Christ under Antichrist be measured that is kept pure from Antichrist's Idolatry walking exactly according to the Rule of the Word and also kept safe from Antichrist's rage and fury 1. Note here That though the outward Court was given to the Gentiles to be troden down yet the Temple with the worshippers therein was not given 2. That during the prevalency ofAntichrist the Temple and Altar and worshippers therein that is a true Church and a true Ministry and true Gospel-Ordinances are preserved and kept safe While the outward Court is worshipping the Beast the true Church is serving God according to his Word as in the inner Court of the Temple Our English Annotations say That by the measuring of the Temple and altar and the worshippers therein is signified 1. The fewnesse â—f the true Christians under Antichrist in comparison of the Idâ—latrous ones as the Priests and Levites that worshipped in the inner Court were few in comparison of the people that worshipped in the outward 2. That Gods people while Antichrist raged should have a place in the Wildernesse where they might serve God according to his will as the Jewes offered sacrifices on the altâ—r in the Temple and which should be for safety as a Sanctuary unto them Isai. 8.14 Ezek 11.16 Therefore Temple and altar and worshippers and all are measured So Jerusalem is measured after the captivity that it may be inhabited again Zech. 2.1 2 3 4. c. 2. The Second thing observable is concerning the two Witnesses who are said to Prophesie in sackcloth 1260. dayes that is all the time of the raign of Antichrist By the Two Witnesses in general are meant Omnes Veritatis divinae interpretes assertores saith Mr. Mede All the Interpreters and assertors of divine truth qui soedam illam lachrymabilem Ecclesi ae Christi contaminationem assiduis querelis deflereâ—t c. who should by their daily complaints bewaile the foul and lamentable pollution of Christ's Church These Witnesses are said to be two for the fewnesse of them and because two witnesses were sufficient to confirm any truth and also in alâ—usion to Mosâ—s and Aâ—ron in the Wildernesse To Elijah and Elisha when the Israelites worshipped the Calves and Baal To Zerubbabel and Iâ—hoshua in Babylon and after the return of the Israelites from captivity For our parts we conceive that by the Two witnesses in a more especial manner are meant the True Ministers of Jesus Christ who are called Witnesses of Christ Act. 1.8 and whose proper Office it is to bear witnesse to truth and holinesse against all the Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries and ungodlinesse of Antichrist Now these two witnesses are said to Prophesie though cloathed in Sackcloth all antichrists reign which is a clear and demonstrative argument to us That there hath been a true Ministry preserved by God from the beginning of the Christian Church even to this very day notwithstanding the great and universal Apostacy that hath been in it And our learned Protestants in divers Books have given us a Catalogue of the faithful Ministers of God and other godly men whom the Lord raised up in all ages of the Church to bear witnesse against the growing and spreading abominations of Antichristianisme in the Christian World 3. The third thing we offer to consideration is To beseech our people accurately to distinguish between the Church of Rome and the Antichristianisme of the Church of Rome as between a man and the Plague-sore that is upon him and between a Field that is full of tares and yet hath some Wheat in it It is certain that the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes when the faith of it was spread throughout the World and it is as certain that afterwards by little and litle it apostatized till at last Antichrist set up his throne in that Church And yet still we must distinguish between the Church and the Apostasie of it between the Corn and the Tares that are in it Thus the Apostle seems to do 2 Thess. 2.4 where he puts a difference between the Temple of God in which the man of sin shall sit as God and between the man of sin sitting
captivity from off her â—nd then take her to wife So doth the Protestant Reformed Religion It distinguisheth between the Ordinances of God and the corruptions cleaving unto the Ordinances It washeth away all the defilements and pollutionâ— contracted in the Church of Rome both from Baptisme and Ordination but it doth not renounce either the one or the other 1. Because they are none of Antichrist's posts or Antichrist's inventions but are the institutions of Jesus Christ and were in the Church of Rome long before Antichrist sat there 2. Because they have been preserved sound for the substantials and essentials of them And the truth is he that renounceth the one must needs renounce the other which were well if some of our dissenting Brethren would seriously consider Now that this Position may not seem strange we will a a little compare the Apostacy of the 10. Tribes with the Apostacy of the church of Rome The 10. Tribes did not onely worship God after a false manner by setting up their golden Calves in Dan and Bethel but afterwards in the raign of Ahab they directly worshipped false Gods and set up Baal and Ashtaroth and fell away wholy from the true God and yet notwithstanding all this when the Prophet came to â—noint Jehu he saith unto him Thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord â—veâ—over Israel Here note That they are called the people of God notwithstanding their Apostacy And the Ordinance of Circumcision which was retained amongst them in this their Apostacy was Gods Ordinance and they that were circumcised under that Apostacy not onely did not renounce their circumcision but had sinned against God if they had done it and were accordingly admitted to the passeover by Hâ—â—â—kiah as truly circumcised For Gods Ordinanceâ— are not to be renounced for mans Corruptions cleaving to them but the corruptions are to be removed and the Ordinances embraced And afterwards in Christâ— time it is evident that the Office of the Priest and the High-Priest was excâ—edingly corrupted They came ordinarily into thâ—ir office by bribery faction And as many learned men think there were Two high Priestâ— together Anâ—as and Caiaphas when Christ was crucified The Priests and High-Priests had their chief stroak in the Crucifying of Christ. And yet we read Iohn 11.15 Caiaphas is owned by the Holy Ghost as high Priest c. Act. 23. when Paul said to the High-Priest God will sâ—itâ— thee thou whited wall c. and they that stood by said Râ—vilest thou the High-Priest Paul answered I wist not Brethren that he was the High-Priest For it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Rulâ—r of thy People Here also Paul as many think acknowledged him as an High-Priest though the Priesthood at that time was tyrannical heretical and they came by most unjust wayes into their places and offices From all this it appears That corruptionâ— cleaving to Gods Ordinances do not null Gods Ordinances That we are not to renounce divine Ordinances because of circumstantial defilements annexed to them That Baptisme and Ordination were found for the substance in the Church of Rome and therefore to be reformed but not renounced 5. The fift thing we desire may be considered is That it is no disparagement to the present Ministry of the Church of England to say That we receive our Ministry from Christ and his Apostles and from the Prâ—mitive Churches through the impure and corrupt Channel of the Church of Rome For 1. It was no disparagement to Jesus Christ that he received his humane nature from Adam through many unclean channels as Thamar Rahab Bethshebah c. 2. It is no disparagement to the holy Scriptures of the old Testament that the Christians received them from the Church of the Iewes even after they had crucified that Christ who was the center of the whole Old Testament Nor is it any disparagement to the Old and New Testament that we receive them as delivered to us by sucession from the Apostles through the Church of Rome although that Church by their corrupt Glosses and Interpretations had much depraved and corrupted them 3. It was no disparagement to circumcision that it came from God through the hands of Idolaters unto Christ and his Apostles Nor to Baptisme that it comes to us from Christ through the Antichristian Church of Rome insomuch as many of those that renounce Ordination do yet retain their Baptisme though it may be easily made to appear that it was as much corrupted as Ordination 4. It is no disparagement to the Ordinance of Marriage that many have been married in the Church of Rome and married with all the Popish Ceremonies yet we never heard of any that have renounced their marriage as unlawful because solemnized in the Church of Rome which yet notwithstanding doth hold Marriage to be a Sacrament in a proper sense and have many corruptions in their way of marriage and yet it is by the Law of God and man valid for the sustance of it 5. It was no disparagement to the Vessels of the Temple that they had been 70. years in Babylon and abused and prophaned by Belshazzar who in contempt of the God of Heaven drank Wine in those holy and consecrated Vessels for afterwards the Israelites made no scruple of receiving them and restoring them to the Temple This is the fift consideration 6. The sixt consideration is That the receiving of our Ordination from Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Churches and so all along through the Apostate Church of Rome is so far from nullifying our Ministry or disparaging of it that it is a great strengthening of it when it shall appear to all the World That our Ministry is derived to us from Christ and his Apostles by succession of a Ministry continued in the Church for 1600. years And that we have 1. a lineal succession from Christ and his Apostles 2. Not onely a lineal succession but that which is more and without which the lineal is of no benefit we have a Doctrinal succession also We succeed them in Preaching the same Doctrine that they did deliver to the Churches The Papists boast much of a lineal succession but they want the Doctrinal They succeed the Apostles as darknesse succeeds light and as Manasseh succeded Hezekiah But this is the happinesse of the present Ministry That we have both a lineal and doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles But doth not this discourse of ours when we say That the essentials of a 〈…〉 true Ministry and that Baptisme and Ordination for the Substantials of them were preserved in the Church of Rome during the prevalency of Antichrist make Rome to be a true Church of Christ. There are indeed some learned Orthodox Divines That say That the Church of Rome is Vâ—rè Ecclesia though not Vera Ecclesia is Truly a Church though far from being a true Orthodox Church There
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word
Ordinationem quae per solos Presbyteroâ— peragitur non esse de jurâ— divino invalidam neque Ordinationâ—m esse de jure Divino ita propriam Episcoporum ut non possit validè peragi per solos Presbyteros That is That Ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by Divine right invalid neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop that it may not be done even in the opinion of Papists themselves by Presbyters alone For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters For Bellâ—rmine saith expresly In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right And Aureolus saith Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quod in potestâ—te nullius imò nec Papae est illâ— auferre qua sunt autem jurisdictionis potest ea Pâ—pa suspendere Now then from hence we may argue That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops that neither Bishops nor Councels nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare But according to the Judgment and practise of Antiquity The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordaining to Presbâ—ters that are not Bishops And Bishops also may do the like Therefore the liberty and power of Ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely but may be lawfully done by others the Papists themselves being Judges And so much for our fourth Proposition Proposition 5. THat when Hierome saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ— Ordinatione This passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought That Ordination was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops and not to Presbyters as Bishop Bilson saith For in the very same Epistle he tells us That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one And that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop But he must bâ— understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes and his meaning iâ— Quid facit Episcopus secundum Canoâ—â—s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyteâ— excepta Ordinatione Proposition 6. THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter because madâ— by Colluâ—hus that was but a Presbyter himself and not a Bishop This was done not because the act of Colluâ—â—us was against the Canon of thâ— Scriptures but onely because it was against the Canons of some Councelâ— Thuâ— Dr. Fiâ—ld answereth Whereas saith he The Fathers make all such Ordinations void 〈◊〉 are made by Presbyters it is to be understood according to the strictnesse of the Canon in use in their time and not absolutely in the nâ—ture of the thing which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void All Ordinationâ— of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane All Ordinations of Presbyterâ— by Bishops out of their own Churches without leave Whereas I am well assured The Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Thus far Dr. Field But now whether the Church in thâ—se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free we leave it to all sober Christians to judge and determine Proposition 7. THat Aâ—rius was never condemned by any Councel oâ— heresie for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter But on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1â— an 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge We confesse That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austinâ— but this was especially if not onely because he was an Arrian Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austine saith That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi But as for his opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Austine indeed calls it proprium dogma And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum stolidum But neither of them both call it an Heresie But suppose they did for so it is commonly thought yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors and not much to be regarded appears 1. Because as Smectymâ—uus hath well observed the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead Epiphanius accused him because he said that superstitum preces did not opitulari â—is qui ex hâ—c vita discesserunt And Austine accused Aerius because he said Non licet orare vel offerrâ— pro mortuis oblationem He is further condemned for reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks 2. Because not onely Saint Hierome but Austine himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom origin and yet none of these do deserve the name of fooles and mad men much lesse to be branded for hereticks Adde to this That Alphonsus de Castro advers haeres Titul Episcopus saith That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp ad Campian rat 10. hath these words Aâ—rium Epiphanius Augustinus in haereticis nume ant praeter eos antiqui pauci Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum nihil Catholicum esse potest Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit This is sufficient to answer the objection about Aerius Proposition 8. THat even many if not most of those that hold Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris yet as we in charity believe they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary â—n the Church of Christ But they say That those Churchâ—â— are true Churches that want Bishops and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr Sermon professeth pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof And afterwards in his defence Though ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishopâ— in the Judgment of the ancient Church yet it was not to be understood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in case of
there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other Reformed Churches The Temple or Church is the subject wherein he must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor Constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing therefore of Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it to â—ease to be but changeth it into a better estate He adds 3. If ever there were true Churches Constituted in England they remain so still or else God hath by some manifest act unchurched them But there were true Churches in England in the Apostles dayes or a little after and God hath by no manifest act UnChurched them Ergo. Thus farr this Reverend Author That there are true Churches in England and so by consequence true Ministers appears further 3. Where there are a company of visible Saints meeting constantly together in publike to worship God according to his own way prescribed in his Word for the substance of it there are according to these mens opinion a true Church and a true Church-state and a true Ministry But during the prevalency of Episcopacy there were in our Congregations companies of visible Saints meeting together to worship God according to his own way prescribed in the Word for the substance of it Ergo. The Congregations in England are not combined together by a Church-Covenant which is the essential form of a particular Church and therefore are not true Churches and so by consequence have no true Ministry We acknowledge no such Church Covenant as commanded in Scripture distinct from the Covenant of grace Supposing but not granting that a Church-Covenant is necessary to the being of a Church yet we desire that our Brethren in New-England may be heard pleading for us Mr. Hooker saith that this Church Covenant is dispensed after a double manner either explicitely or implicitely An implicite Covevant is when in their practise they do that whereby they make themselves ingaged to walk in such a Society according to such Rules of Government which are exercised amongst them and so submit themselves thereunto but do not make any verbal profession thereof Thus the people in the Parishes in England when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place attend all the Ordinances there used and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them submit thereunto c. By such actions and a fixed attendance upon all such services and duties they declare that by their practise which others do hold forth by their profession And therefore it is a great Scandal for any to say that for want of a Church-Covenant we Nullify all Churches but our own and that upon our grounds received there must be no Church in the World but in New-England c. So likewise in their Apology for a Church-Covenant they say Though we deny not but the Covenant in many Congregations of England is more implicite and not so plain as were to be desired yet we hope we may say of them with Mr Parker Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 16. pag. 167. Non abest realis substantialis quanquam magis quam par erat implicita Coitio in faedus eaque voluntaria professio fidâ—i substantialis qua Deo gratia essentiam Ecclesiae idque visibilis hucusque sartam tectam in Anglia conservavit That is there wants not that real and substantial coming together or agreeing in Covenant though more implicite then were meet and that substantial profession of Faith which thanks be to God hath preserved the Essence of visible Churches in England unto this day But the Congregations of England are Parochiall Churches and therefore no true Churches of Christ and so by consequence have no true Ministry There is much opposition in our dayes against distinguishing of Congregations by local bounds and much endeavour to break this bond asunder and to leave people at liberty to joyn notwithstanding their dwellings with what Church they please with no Churches if they please and most People speak of Parochial Churches in a most contemptible way as of so many cages of unclean Birds and of Parochiall Ministers as of so many Parish Priests But we hope this ariseth not so much out of Malice and from a spirit of opposition as from a misunderstanding of our judgement concerning Parochial Congregations We will therefore briefly declare what we do not hold and what we do hold 1. We do not say That the bare dwelling in a Parish is sufficient to make a man a member of the Church of Christ within that Parish A Turk or Pagan or Idolater may be within the bounds of a Parish and yet we do not hold him a member of the Church in that Parish 2. We do not say That all that dwell in a Parish and that joyn constantly in hearing of the word of God therein Preached should upon that account be admitted to the Lords Table We heartily desire and sincerely endeavour to keep all Ignorant and Scandalous People from the Sacrament although they dwell within the same bounds with those that are admitted 3. We do not allow but much dislike the unequal division of Parishes and we heartily desire a redresse herein But we say 1. That it is most expedient for edification and most agreeable to the Evangelical pattern that Congregations should be distinguished by the respective bounds of their dwellings Thus all the Christians in Corinth did belong to the Church of Corinth and all the Believers in Ephâ—sus to the Church of Ephesus The Churches in the New Testament are distinguished one from another by the places where the believers dwelâ— As the Church at Corinth from the Church at Ephesus And we do not read of any of one Town member of a Church in another Town distinct from it The Reverend Assembly gave 3. reasons for the proof of this Assertion 1. Because they who dwell together being bound to all kind of Moral duties one to another have the better oportunity thereby to discharge them which Moral tie is perpetual for Christ came not to destroy the Law but to sulful it 2. The Communion of Saints must be so ordered as may stand with the most convenient use of the Ordinances and discharge of Morall duties without respect of persons 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done unto edifying Heb. 10.24 25. Iam 2.1.2 3. The Pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency 2. We say That all that live within the same Parish being Baptized persons and making profession of Christianity may claime admission into the society of Christians within those bounds enjoy the priviledges and Ordinances there dispensed if by their Scandalous lives they make not themselves unworthy For we believe that all Baptized Persons