Us can testifie perswades all Scholars unto Opinionum varietas opiâ—antium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that We shall be willing to entertain any sincere Motion as We have also formerly Declared in Our Printed Vindication that shall further a happy Accommodation between Us. 6. The last sort are the Moderate Godly Episcopal men that hold Ordination by Presbyters to be lawfull and valid That a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Order of Ministry that are Orthodox in Doctrinal Truths and yet hold That the Government of the Church by a perpetual Moderatour is most agreeable to Scripture-patern Though herein We differ from them yet We are farre from thinking that this difference should hinder a happy Union between them and Us. Nay We crave leave to profess to the world That it will never as We humbly conceive be well with England till there be an Union endeavoured and effected between all those that are Orthodox in Doctrine though differing among themselves in some Circumstances about Church-government And the Lord hath strangely made way for this long-desired Union by the bitter wofull and unutterable fruits of Our Divisions which have almost destroyed not only the Ministry but even the very heart and life of Religion and Godlinesse Memorable is the Story of Bishop Ridley and Bishop Hooper two famous Martyrs who when they were out of Prison disagreed about certain Ceremonial Garments but when they were put into Prison they quickly and easily agreed together Adversity united them whom Prosperity divided The time is now come wherein the ruine of all the Godly Orthodox and Ordained Ministry is by some men designed and endeavoured And therefore though hitherto We have continued sinfully divided yet now the Consideration of our Common Danger and the Preservation of the Ministry and therein the Preservation of the Glorious Ordinances Churches and precious Truths of Jesus Christ should marvellously constrain Us to study to finde out and being found out cordially to imbrace all lawfull waies to Unity and Agreement Thus much We thought fit to signifie that so Our Endeavours in the ensuing Discourse may not be misâ—interpreted and mis-represented There are two other things also which We are necessitated to communicate unto the Christian Reader First That this Book should have come out two Years ago but was hindred by multitude of necessary and indispensable Businesses intervening And that since our first undertaking of it there have been many Treatises written of most of these Subjects of which We speak to very good purpose which had prevailed with Us to have spared Our Pains had We not been encouraged by a saying of Austines That it is good and profitable to the Church of Christ that the same things be written of by divers Men in divers Books because those Books which come to the view of some will not come to the sight of others and by this means the Truths of Christ will be the sooner and easier spread and propagated We confesse that We have been necessitated in the Point of Episcopacy to borrow some things out of Smectymnuus and Our Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight and in Our Discourse about Election out of Mr Hudson and some others Which We have done because being to handle the same Subjects We thought it needless to adde any thing to what they have said and also That by this means We might revive the Memory of those Books which We believe are quite forgotten by most and are assured were never sufficiently answered by any Secondly The other thing which We would make known is That in this Our large Treatise We have purposedly declined all affectation of Language We have not laboured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feast the ear with curious phrases Our endeavour is to speak non diserta sed fortia We have alwaies disliked those Books which have in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sea of words and but a drop of sound Reason Our Care hath been more after Matter then Words And We hope the unbiassed and judicious Reader will finde that though the Garment with which We clothe Our Matter be rough and hairy like Esau yet the Voice is alwaies the Voice of Iacob For We have studiously avoided all Bitternesse of Speech even against those that make it a great part oftheirReligion to rail and reproach Us and who account Us the filth of the world and the off-scouring of all things We have learned of Our blessed Saviour To blesse those that curse Us to do good to them that hate Us and to pray for them which despitefully use Us and persecute Us. And of the blessed Apostle To instruct them in meeknesse that oppose Us if God peradventure will give thâ—m Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth It is a great Comfort to Us that the Government of the Church is upon Christs shoulders and he that could bear the wrath of God no doubt will uphold his own Government maugre all opposition And it is no lesse Joy unto Us that the Ministers of Christ are Stars in his right hand and therefore safe and secure from the hurt of unreasonable men We reade in the Revelation of a Woman cloathed with the Sunne and the Moon under her feet and a Crown of twelve Stars upon her head This Woman represents the true Church Every true Christian is cloathed with Christs Righteousnesse as with the Sunne and hath the world as the Moon under his feet and wears the Ministers and their Gospel-Doctrine as a Crown upon his head He that treads this Crown under his feet hath little of true Christianity in him But howsoever though We be trodden under feet and reproachfully used for what We have written yet it is no little Satisfaction to Us that We have discharged Our Consciences both to God and men And if some people will not wear Us as Crowns upon their heads We shall wear their Reproaches as Our Crown and shall pray unto the Lord who only teacheth to profit that he would give a good Successe to this Undertaking of Ours for the Glory of his Name the Benefit of his Church and more especially for the Establishing of our respective Congregations That he would direct protect providefor support sanctifie and comfort the Godly Ministry against all the sad Discouragements they meet with That he would keep out Popery root out Error Herâ—sie Atheism and all Prophanenesse and make Peace and Truth Holinesse and Righteousnesse to kisse one another in these three Nations The PREFACE THe Necessity and Excellency of the Gospel Ministery is so transcendently great as that it cannot but be accounted a very glorious Service in all those that shall undertake to represent it in its Beauty to the Sonnes of men and to vindicate it from all that seek to asperse undermine and destroy it Our Saviour Christ when he Ascended up into Heaven left the Ministry as his choisest Legacy next to the Gift of his
to the mind of God a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one The Scripture owns no Bishop over Presbyters but onely a Presbyter-Bishop That the Lawes of the Realme acknowledge nothing by divine right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Sir Edward Cook makes it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to Bishops that Ecclesiastical power they now exercise over us speaking of his times and also to take it from them at pleasure c. In Henry the 8 thâ— dayes there was a Book Printed for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by both Houses of Parliament wherein is said Of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands By which it is evident That the Lawes of the Realme do not acknowledge the divine right of Prelacy That most of our Bishops in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes did freely confess That Episcopacy as it differed from Presbytery was onely of humane right and not from divine institution This Bishop Iewel confesseth in his answer to Harding and brings divers of the Ancient Fathers of the same judgement whose sayings we shall hereafter mention The same is affirmed by Archbishop Whitgift against Carewright and by Bishop Downam in the Preface to his defence of his Sermon Preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells That the best learned even amongst the Papists themselves do confesse That a Bishop is not a superiour order of Ministry above a Presbyter but onely a superiour dignity That Sacerdotium that is as they call it The Priesthood is the highest order in the Church That a Bishop is onely 〈◊〉 Presbyter The first Presbyter or as Bellarmine calls him major 〈◊〉 Episcopacy is not another Order distinct from the Priesthood saith Caeprâ—â—lus No Prelate hath more concerning Sacramental power or of Order then simple Priests So Armachanus As concerning Sacerdotal order and things that pertain to Order they are equal Thus Bellarmine himself Although a Bishop and Presbyter are distinguished yet as concerning Sacrifice they exercise the same Ministry and therefore they make one Order and not two Cusanus goeth further All Bishops and haply also Presbyters are of equal power in respect of jurisdiction although not of execution which executive power is shut up and restrained by certain positive Lawes The Master of the Sentences saith That the Canons acknowledge onely two sorts of holy orders Diaconatum sc. Presbyteratum quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli â—abamus That is The Deacon and the Presbyter Because the Primitive Church had no other and the Apostolique precept speaks of no other Estins tells us That Aquinas Waldensis Bonaventure and most of the other Schoolmen are of this opinion And Doctor Field in his 5th Book of the Church hath this remarkeable passage Touching the preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the School Divines For the best Learned amongst them are of opinion that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order but only in the exercise of it and in the power of jurisdiction seeing Presbyters may Preach and Minister the greatest of all Sacraments by vertue of their Consecration and order as well as Bishops Touching the power of consecration or order saith Durandus it is much doubted of amongst Divines whether any be greater then an ordinary Presbyter For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of consecration or order iâ— the power of a Priest or Elder so that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may Minister all Sacraments confirm the Baptized give all orders all blessings and consecrations but that for the avoiding of the peril of Schisme it was Ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a Bishop whom the rest should obey and to whom it was reserved to give orders and to do some other things which none but Bishops do And afterwards he saith That Hierome is clearly of this opinion and much more to this purpose Now hence it followeth necessarily That the power of Ordination of Ministers exercised for these many hundred years by Bishops did belong to them as Presbyters and not as Bishops and that the act and exercise of it was restrained to them potius ad honorem Sacerdotii in remedium schismatis quam ad Legis â—â—cessitatem rather for the honour of the Priesthood and as was then their opinion for the remedy of Schisme then for any necessity of Law For the Scripture warrants no such practise as we shall shew hereafter Now this floweth from the former conclusion For if Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministers with Presbytery and the Ecclesiastical power equal in both and a Bishop be nothing else in the opinion of Antiquity but a chief Presbyter or the President of the Presbytery and of the same rank with them then all the acts he doth he must do by vertue of his Presbyterial consecration This is demonstrable even our adversaries being Judges from this Argument Because a Bishop made per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor Ordain a Presbyter himself being none nor do any act peculiarly appertaining to Presbyters Ordination therefore saith Mr. Ball is reserved to the Bishop not in respect of superiority in degree of Ministry above his brethren for if he be no Presbyter he cannot make Presbyters but for order sake and to prevent Schisme and division being for substance of the same Order and consecration with them Dr. Field manageth the same argument these or words A Presbyter saith he ordained per saltum that never was consecrated or ordained a Deacon may notwithstanding do all those Actâ— that pertaine to the Deacons Order because the higher Order doth alwayes imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But â— Bishop Ordained per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither Consecrate and Administer the Sacrament of the Lords body nor Ordaine a Presbyter himself being nonâ— nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most Evident saith Dr. Field That that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct Power of Order but an Eminency and Dignitie onely specially yeelded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for Order sake and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church What peace and Order was preserved hereby in the Church we shall shew afterwards For the present it is most clear even from the testimony of Episcopal men themselves That a Bishop is of the same Order and Rank with a Presbyter and that his acts of Ordination were exercised by him as a Presbyter
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to Ordain and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop which answer I confirmed by divers reasons see them whereunto I now adde That there seemeth to be the like reasons for the imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publick penitents as in the Ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want and absence of the Bishop the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose upon Eph. 4. and Austin qu. ex Vet. Nov. Test. mixt qu. 101. The latter by Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councels Concil Carthag graec cap. 43. Carth. 2. cap. 4. Concil Araâ—sic cap. 2. And the Popish Writâ—rs themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to Ordain so that he to whom such licence is given have those Orders himself which he would give to another Summa Angel ordo c. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved be authorized by necessity which as they say hath no law So far B. Downame Thus also Mr. Francis Mason If by jure Divino you mean That which is according to Scripture then the preeminence of Bishops is jure Divino But if by jure Divinâ— you understand a law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure Divino And no doubt it were a most cruel and unmerciful opinion so to cry up Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination as to condemn all the reformed Churches of France Scotland Holland Helvetia c. as no Churches and their Ministers as no Ministers and their Sacraments as no Sacraments But we shall say no more of this Proposition because there is a Reverend Minister hath spoken largely to it and hath proved That it was the opinion of Dr. Field B. Downame B. Iewell Saravia B. Alley B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel and divers others That Ordination by Presbyters in some cases is lawful and valid and hath also fully and excellently discovered the woful and unsufferable miseries and mischiefs that would flow from the contrary assertion To him we refer the Reader that desires to be further satisfied herein We shall name but one Proposition more and then we have done Proposition 9. THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterianâ— in all their writingâ— for walking contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name if we did desire to recriminate We will instance only in two 1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters Cyprian professeth he would do nothing without the Clergy he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all The fourth Councel of Carthage condemâ—s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur The Church had itâ— Seniores sine quorum consâ—lio nihil agâ—batur in Ecclesiâ There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blondâ—â— and Smectymnuus but we forbear Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise iâ— sufficiently manifest to all the Christian world 2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries And Cyprian tells us That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures and to the first and purest Antiquity but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church in the point of Episcopacy Not that we intend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apostolical Traditions unwritten or by the Fathers or Canons of the Church in this great Controversie For though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity yet we do not Idolize it For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal Irenaeus tells us that S. Iohn told those that told him That Christ lived here upon earth and preached ultra quadragesimum aut etiam quinquagesimum annum beyond 40. or 50. years which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time who was Bishop of Rome celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moneth according â—s the Jewes were commanded to eat their Passeover This they did as a received Tradition not onely from Polycarpe but from S. Iohn himself But now on the contrary the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true And as for the Ancient Fathers though they were famouâ— Lights in the Church yet they have their Naevâ—s and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius A learned Gentleman undertakes in a short Epistle to make out Their Contradictions one to another Their variance from themselves Their Repugnancies both to Protestants and Papists Their want of ability in many points of our Controversies in most of will to decide them And therefore we appeal from men to God from the Canons of the Fatherâ— to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures as the onely infallible Judge of this and all other Controversies of Religion We say with the Prophet Ad Legem Testimonium To the Law and to thâ— Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them And yet we have spoken something
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
keeping the Sabbath are sometimes put for the whole worship of God Ier. 10.25 Isa. 56.4 And as it is a good Argument keeping of the Sabbath and prayer are put for the whole worship of God and therefore they are parts of it if not chief parts So it is a good Argument Imposition of hands is put for the whole work of Ordination and therefore it is a part of it if not a chief part And we desire our people further to consider that there is but one Text for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lifting up of hands in the election of a Minister and this also but a shadow without a substance as we have proved and yet how zealous are many amongst us for popular Election And why should not they be much more zealous for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Imposition of hands which hath so many substantial Texts for the justification of it and which is so often put for the whole work of Ordination Fourthly Because it is placed by the Apostle Heb. 6.1 2. amongst the principles of the doctrine of Christ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of the doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands and of resurrection of the dead and of eternall judgement The great Question is What is here meant by laying on of hands The Papists understand it of the Sacrament of Confirmation But it never hath nor ever will be sufficiently proved that either there is such a Sacrament appointed by Christ or that it was a custome in the Apostles daies to lay on hands or as was formerly phrased to Bishop baptized Christians who were grown up to years of discretion others by laying on of hands understand the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which in these daies were given by laying on of hands But this cannot be the meaning 1. Because it cannot be proved that the gift of the holy Ghost was given with every laying on of hands in those times For the laying on of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 was not for giving the holy Ghost but for Ordination 2. Because the giving of the holy Ghost by laying on of hands was proper to the Primitive age and doth not concern after ages But the Catechetical heads enumerated by the Apostle concern all ages 3. Because it would be hard to think that the knowledge or profession of the doctrine concerning the giving of the holy Ghost by such laying on of hands was such a principle as that none ignorant thereof though instructed in all the other Articles of Christian faith could be received as a Church-member and as one grounded in Catechisticall doctrine And therefore by laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche we suppose is meant the whole Ministry Thus D. Ames in his Confutation of Bellarmine By laying on of hands saith he is here meant Totum Ministerium the whole Ministry Bullinger on the place By laying on of hands understandeth also the Ministry and their Vocation Mission and Authority given them Mr. Hooker in his Survey of Church-Discipline par 1. pag. 1. By laying on of hands as by a Metonymy of the adjunct understandeth Ordination and Ordination as one particular is put saith he for the whole of Church-Discipline And from this very Text he undertakes to prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamentall point of Religion But we may more safely and more rationally assert the same of the Church-Ministry For whosoever denieth a Ministry overthroweth all Gospel-Ordinances and Gospel-Churches And here we will make bold to put our people in minde of a passage in M. Cartwrights Confutation of the Rhemists who was a man sufficiently opposite to the Bishops and their Ceremonies yet he is pleased to use these words upon this Text. By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much lesse Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope and borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever beleeveth that there ought not to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved So Cartwright Now then If Imposition of hands be taken in Scripture not only for the whole work of Ordination but also for the whole Ministry We may we hope safely and convincingly conclude That it is the will of Jesus Christ that they that enter into the Ministry should have hands laid upon them And that they that oppose Imposition of hands may as well oppose the whole Gospel-Ministry and therein overthrow Christianity it self We will not trouble the Reader with answering all the Objections that are brought against this Thesis but only such as seem to carry most weight in them Object 1. We do not reade that the Apostles were made Ministers with Imposition of hands Answ. 1. No more do we reade that they were made Ministers by the Election of the people This objection fights as much against Election as against Imposition of hands 2. A negative argument from Scripture doth not hold in matters of this nature It doth not follow because it is not recorded therefore it was not done Many things were done by Christ which are not written It is said That Christ ordained twelve but after what manner is not set down 3. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers and had an extraordinary Call Our Thesis is of ordinary Officers They that oppose this Assertion must prove that ordinary Officers were made without Imposition of hands or else they prove nothing to the purpose Object 2. When the Apostle left Titus to ordain Elders in Crete he saies not a word of Imposition of hands Answ. 1. Nor a word of Election by the people 2. The Apostle left him to ordain Elders as he had appointed him Now it is irrationall to think that he would appoint Titus to do otherwise then according to what he himself practised He ordained Deacons Elders and Timothy by laying on of hands And therefore it is without dispute to us That he appointed Titus to do so also 3. If we compare Tit. 1.5 with Act. 6.3 5. it will appear That by appointing or ordaining Elders in Crete is meant ordaining by Imposition of hands For there is the same word in both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. was by laying on of hands and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tit. 1.5 Object 3. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles only for the present occasion as other things were observed as bloud was forbidden as Paul used circumcision and shaving viz. for the Jews sake who had their publique Officers thus set apart Answ. 1. No circumstance of any one Text where Imposition of hands is mentioned to be used
sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
these very gro unds and Principles Now then if the denying of our Ministry during the raign of Episcopacy to be a lawfulâ— Ministry be the parental cause of such horrid and desperate consequences we doubt not but it will be abhorred and abominated by all sober and godly Christians And that our people that read these lines will be rooted and established in this great Truth That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects CHAP. III. Wherein the great Objection against our Ministry as being derived from Rome is answered But the great objection of which we even now spake against this proposition is IF we justifie the lawfulnesse of Episcopal Ordination then it will also follow that we must justifie the Ordination that is in the Church of Rome For if Ordination by our Bishops be lawful then these Bishops themselves must be be lawful Ministers and then their Ordination must also be lawful and so by consequence it will follow That those in the Church of Rome from whom the Protestant Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation had their Ordination were true Ministers of Christ. For if they were not then were not our Ministers made by them the Ministers of Christ. And if they were then may a Minister of Antichrist be a Minister of Christ and Ordination received from the Pope of Rome be a Scripture Ordination Before we answer to this great Objection we shall premise this one distinction It is one thing to receive a Ministry from the Apostate Church of Rome as the author of it another thing to receive a Ministry from Jesus Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome Our Antiministerial adversaries if they would argue aright their objection must be thus framed The Ministry which hath the Pope of Rome or which is all one That hath Antichrist for the author of it is Popish and Antichristian But such is the Ministry of the Church of England Ergo. We deny the Minor For we say That our ministry is derived to us from Jesus Christ. We are his Ministers and his Ambassadors It is he that gave Pastors and Teachers to his Church as well as Apostles and Evangelists We say That Ordination of Ministers by Ministers is no Romish institution but instituted by the Lord Jesus himself long before Antichrist was That our Ministry is descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome And that this great objection which some say is unanswerable must of necessity be summed up into this argument Those Ministers which stand by an institution of Christ descending to them from the Apostles through the antichristian Church of Rome are ministers of Antichrist and not of Christ. But such are our Ministers Ergo. But here we deny the Major as utterly false we say That the Ministry which is an institution ofChrist passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel-Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church Now that this great Truth so necessary to be known in these dayes may be fully made out to our respective Congregations we shall crave leave a litle to enlarge our selves in the proof of it and shall for this end offer these ensuing considerations to be seriously weighed by all that fear God amongst us That the Lord Jesus hath given the Ministery to the Church to continue till we all come to 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 fulnesse of Christ which will never be till the day of judgement And he hath promised to be with the Apostles teaching and baptizing alway even unto the end of the World which must needs be understood of them and their successors He hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church which Mr. Hooker Mr. Cotton and others expound of the universall visible Church existing in its particulars The Apostle Paul also saith That the Sacrament of the Lords supper is to be observed and to continue till the comming of Christ. And that glory is to be given to God by Christ Jesus in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout all generations and ages It is also prophesied concerning the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ both invisible and visible that it shall abide to the end of the world Luc. 1.33 Isaiah 9.6.7 By all these teâ—ts it is evident That there was iâ— and shall be a true Church and a true Ministery preserved by Jesus Christ even unto the end of the World How can glory be given to God in the Church throughout all ages if there should be an age in which the Church should be utterly lost How can the Sacrament be continued in the Church till Christ come if there were so many hundred years in which there was no true Ministery How can it be said That Christ is with his Ministers alway even unto the end of the World and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and that there is no end of Christs Government if during all the raign of Antichrist there was no true Church-state in the world no true Ordinance as some say no true Ministery And therefore though we should not be able to tell how the Church and Ministry was preserved in the midst of that great and general Apostasie that hath been in the Christian World yet notwithstanding we ought to believe that it is so because Christ hath said it shall be so and heaven and earth shall â—asse away but not one title of Gods word shall passe away Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way spends the most part of a Chapter to prove That the essentials of a Church-state together with the Officers Ordinances and administrations thereunto appertaining hath and shall abide for ever in the World This he proveth both by Prophesies promises and precepts of Scripture and also by divers reasons The same task is also undertaken by Mr. Philips of Watertown in New-England but for brevity we forebear transcribing them We read Revel 12. of a great wonder in heaven a woman cloathed with the Sun c. This woman represents the Christian Church she is persecuted by the heathen Emperours and overthrows them by the blood of the Lambe and by the word of her testimonie and by not loving her life unto the death Afterward she is persecuted by Antichrist and then she flies into the wildernesse where she hath a place prepared her of God that they should feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes Vers. 6. and she iâ— said to be
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
done if he had made them at that time distinct orderâ— with distinct Offices or if he had made Titus at that time Bishop or as some would have it Arch-Bishop or Primate and Metropolitan of the hundred Cities that were in Creet So much for the proof that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence 2. The second thing we are to prove is That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and not onely so in a general signification as all Preachers of the Gospel may be called Evangelists but in a special and proper sence This will the better appear if we consider what an Evangelist is and the difference between Evangelists and other Officers of the Church Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a settled residence upon any one charge They were Comites et Vicarii Apostoloâ—um Vice-Apostles who had Curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And they did as Ambrose speakes Evangâ—lizare sine Cathedra Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Act. 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require To this agreeth Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy Evangelists saith he were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in Ecclesiastical affaires wheresoever they found need They were extraordinary and temporary Officers as the Apostles and Prophets were and Officers of a Rank higher then Pastors and Teachers and so they are reckoned Ephesians 4.11 Now that Timothy and Titus were such Officers is made evident Not onely because one of them is in direct terms called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 But also from the perpetual motion of both of them from place to place not onely before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but as much after as before And that they did so move appears from divers Authors who have exactly set down their several peregrinations both before and after We shall not trouble the Reader with their travailes before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but shall onely relate what is said by the Reverend Minsters in their humble answer at the Isle of Wight of their journeyings after their going thither And first of Timothy If Timothy say they was Bishop of Ephesus he must be so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia and he left him there to exercise his Office in regulating ordering that Church and in ordaining but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletum For after Paul had been at Miletum he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with himand those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philâ—mon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus for we find that after all this towards the end of Saint Paulâ— life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand he sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seems that Timothy was not there because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts he saith Tychieus have I sent to Ephesus Now if your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one Totall what is said The severall journeys and stations of Timothy the Order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in several Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like may be said also concerning Titus after he was left at Creet he was sent for by Paul to Nicopolis and after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at Troas and not with Paul in Macedonia whence he is sent againe to Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Creet but unto Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture From all this we gather 3. Conclusions That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense that is were not fixed Stars in Ephesus or Creet And whereas it is answered that the necessities of those times made even the most fixed Stars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services that were of most use for the successe of that great work yet so that after their errands fully done they returned to their own charge and that therefore they might be Bishops notwithstanding their severall journeys We challenge any of them to shew in all the New Testament any one that was appointed Overseer of a particucular Church whose motion was as Planetary as we have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have been or if that fail to shew that after Timothy and Titus went abroad upon the service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment But we are fully assured that they can shew neither the one nor the other and therefore we may safely conclude that they were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and Evangelists in a proper sense and Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers and Officers of an higher Rank and Order That they were not onely Evangelists before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but afterwards also as hath been abundantly proved And the truth is If they were Evangelists at any time we cannot conceive how they can come to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense For we thus argue They that were made Evangelists in a proper sense by the Apostles were never afterwards made Bishops in our Brethrens sense by the Apostles For this had been to degrade them from a superiour Office to an inferiour And if according to the Councell of Chalcedon it be not onely incongruous but sacrilegious to bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter If it be an eternall reproach
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a pastor-Pastor-Bishop and a Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
Ecclesiastical custome Thus far Smectymâ—uns And thus Ierom is made to agree with himself whom our Episcopal Doctors would make to speak contradictions But Ierom saith It was toto orbe decretum and how could this be but by Apostolical appointment The same Author also saith in the same place That it came in paulatim It was not decreed in the whole world all at once but it came in by degrees in some places sooner and in some later The saying of Ambrose or whosoever was the Author of it upon the 4 th to the Ephesians is very remarkable Ideo non per omnia conveniâ—nt scripta Apostoli Ordâ—nationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est c. Nam Timotheum Presbyterum a se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum This quotation we shall have occasion to mention afterwards We bring it now onely to shew 1. That the Ordination that was in Ambrose his dayes if he be the Author was not in all things agreeable to the Apostolical pattern 2. That the change that was made was prospicieâ—te concilio Was by the advise of a Councel and therefore it is not to be wondered if in time the Church of Christ came to be governed by the lifting up of one Presbyter above the rest But how long was it that the Church of Christ was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without a Bishop set over them Dr. Blondel a man of great Reading and Learning undertakes in a large discourse to make out that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters To whose elaborate writings we refer the Reader for further satisfaction in this particular Sure we are that Clemens who lived in the first Century in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians an undoubted piece of Antiquity makes but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons The occasion of that Epistle seems to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 not as B. Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles dayes Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed a high Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospel that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they preached and constituted the first fruits approving them by the spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe Here we observe 1. That in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities Afterwards indeed in the year 347. in the Councel of Sardica it was decreed That no man should be chosen Bishop in a Village or in a little City ne vilescat noâ—eâ— Episcopi That the name of a Bishop might not be rendred contemptible But in the first age of the Church they appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That Bishops and Deacons were the onely Orders of Ministry in the first Primitive Church And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to believe Because when he had reckoned up three Orders appointed by God among the Jewes Highpriest Priests and Levites coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospel he doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons The same Clemens adds pag. 57. That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 About the name Bishop and being indued with perfect foreknowledge they appointed the foresaid that is the foresaid Orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here note 1. That by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2.9 Ephes. 1.21 Heb. 1.4 Revel 11. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie amongst the Corinthians was not about the Name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57.58 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the care of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church unto Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us That the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things Ordained onely Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of all Schismes It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the Justification of our proposition Let the Reader peruse pag. 57.62.69.72 and take notice That those that are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle The like record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of Iohn the Apostle who lived also within the first Century and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and to Christ. Nay Bishop Bilson himself saith pag. 158.159 That Elders at first did govern by common advise is no doubt at all to us That which is doubted and denied by us is That these Elders were Lay-men Gratian in his decrees brings in Ierom word for word affirming That a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same upon which words the author of the glosse saith Some say that in the first Primitive Church the Office of Bishops and Presbyters was common but in the second Primitive Church both names and Offices began to be distinguished And again A third sort say this advancing was made in respect of name and in respect of administration and in respect of certain Ministeries which belong onely to the Episcopal office And the same Author himself is of this opinion saying Before this advancing these names Bishops and Presbyters were altogether of the same signification and the administration was common because Churches were governed by the common advise of Presbyters And again This advancing was made for a remedy against schisme as is here said by St. Ierom. That one should have the preheminence in regard of the name the administration and certain Sacraments which now are appropriated to Bishops Here we have a distinction of the first and second Primitive Church and that in the first Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were all one To all these Quotations we shall subjoyn a remarkable passage of the L.
Ignatius requires of Hero to whom he saith Keep that depositum which I and Christ have committed unto you Christ in his Word hath concredited this holy depositum And whatsoever is agreeable in Ignatius to this holy word we imbrace Other things which neither agree with Christ nor with the true Ignatius we reject as adulterinâ— and not to be born So much in answer to this objection Proposition 4. THat when it is said by Irâ—naeus lib. 3. cap. 3. That the holy Apostles made Bishops in Churches and particularly That Polycaâ—pe was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and that the Apostles made Linus Bishop of Rome after whom succeeded Anacletus and that Clemens was made the third Bishop by the Apostles And when it is said by Tertullian lib. de praescription That Polycarpe was made Bishop of Smyrna by S. Iohn and Clement Bishop of Rome by S. Peter This will nothing at all advance the Episcopal cause unlesse it can be proved that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters a Bishop as Gerrhard saith pâ—rasi Ponâ—ificiâ not a Bishop phrasi Apostolica a Bishop in a Popish not in an Apostolical sense which is all one with a Presbyter For it is not denyed by any that ever wrote of Episcopacy That the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles dayes and many years after And therefore Irenâ—us in his Epistle to Victor cited by Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 23 calls Aâ—iâ—etus Pius Higinus Telesphorâ—s Xistâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Rome and afterwards Presbyter◠〈◊〉 qui te pracesserunt The Presbyters that went before thee And so also Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuâ—tudinem servandam 〈◊〉 dicebaâ— Tâ—rtullian also in his Apolog. cap. 39. callâ— the Presidents of the Churches Seniorâ— or Presbyteâ—â— when he saith Praesident probati quique Senioreâ— c. It is not therefore sufficient for our Episcopal Brethren to say That Bishops over Presbyters are of Apostolical institution because the Apostles made Bishops in Churches unlesse they do also prove that those holy men who are called â—ishopâ— were more then Presbyters Otherwise we must justly charge them of which they unjustly charge us to be guilty of endeavouring from the name Bishop which was common to Presbyters with Bishops to prove a superiority of Bishops over Presbyters Adde to this That when our Brethren do frequently urge those places of Irenaeus where he â—aith That he was able to number those that were madeBishops by the Apostles their successors unto his time and often urgeth the successions of Bishops unto whom the Apostles committed the charge of the Church in every place This will nothing at all as we conceive advantage the Episcopal Hierâ—rchy unlesse they do also prove That those Bishops were Hierarchical Bishops and not the very same with Presbyters For the same Authoâ— doth speak the very same things of Presbyters calling them also Bishops For he saith lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter â—is 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia sunt Presbyterâ—s obaudirâ— oporâ—et his qui successionâ—â— hâ—beâ—â— ab Apostolâ—s sicu◠〈◊〉 qui cum Episcopaâ—us successiâ—â—â— charisâ—a veritatis certâ—m secundum placitum Patris accâ—perunt Reâ—iquos vero qui absistuâ—â— Ã principâ—lâ— successione quâ—cunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi hâ—reticâ—s mala 〈◊〉 vel quasi sciâ—dâ—ntes â—latos sibi placeâ—â—â—s 〈…〉 â—t hypocritas 〈◊〉 grati◠〈◊〉 gloriae hoc 〈◊〉 So also 〈◊〉 4 cap. 44 Ab omnibus â—aâ—ibus absistâ—re oportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut praediximus doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyâ—â—rii ordine sâ—rmonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad informationem corrâ—ctionem aliorum Observe here 1. That Presbyters are called the Successors of the Apostles 2. That they are also called Bishops 3. That the Apostolical doctrine is derived from the Apostles by their succession 4. That there is nothing said in the former places of Bishops which is not here said of Presbyters And that therefore those placeâ— do not prove That the Apostles constituted Bishops in the Church distinct from and superiour over Presbyters As for that which is said about the succession of Bishops from the Apostles unto Irenaeus his time we shall hâ—ve â—ccasion to speak to afterwards Adde also That when in Antiquity Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have been made Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles and Peter to be ordained Bishop of Antioch or Rome c. This doth not contribute to the proof of what it is brought for to wit That there were Bishops properly so called in the Apostles dayes For as Dr. Reynolds againsâ— Hart cap. 2. saith When the Fathers termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that room in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And Dr. Whitakers lib. de Pontif. qu. 2. cap. 15. saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum voâ—ant auâ— etiam Pâ—trum non propriè sumâ—nt Episcopi nâ—men sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquandiu commorati sunt Et si propriâ— de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos fuisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus â—st is Apostolus non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae Aâ— Apostoli plâ—â—ium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant Et postea Hâ—â— eniâ— non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum aut reliquos Apostolos That the Fathers when they call Iames or Peter Bishops do not take the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those places where they abode for any long time And in the same place If we speak properly of Bishops it is absurd to say That the Apostles were Bishops For he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle For a Bishop is onely of one Church But the Apostles were the Founders and Overseers of many Churches And again he saith It doth not much differ from a phrenzy and madnesse to say That Peter or any of the Apostles were properly Bishops For the truth is This were to degrade the Apostles and to bring them into the Rank and Order of common and ordinâ—ry Officers of the Church which is no little Sacriledge And therefore such kind of quotations out of Antiquity do little avail our Brethren So much for the fourth Proposition Proposiâ—ion 5. THat when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
the Bottomlesse pit which were innumerable called two like their types Moses and Aaron who brought Israel out of Egypt or as Elias and Elisha which reduced Israel out of Baalism yet these Witnesses though in number few continue in their successions all the reign of the Beast for the daies of their prophecying in Sackcloth are One thousand two hundred and sixty years and so expire not till the 42 moneths of the Beasts Reign be expired Now fifthly we adde that these Sackcloth Prophesiers were not only Saints who mournfully bewailed the abominations of those times that the holy City should be trampled under foot but also that they were holy pious Ministers distinct from the Saints in Office and in the act of their Prophetical function which is intimated to us 1. From the power bestowed upon them the Lord gives to them not only to pray and to mourn but to Prophesie Rev. 11.3 Not so much by prediction of things future as by Preaching the everlasting Gospel It was a mighty power from on high that a few contemned persecuted Ministers should have gifts to be able and power to be couragious to preach against the son of perdition when all the world wondered after the Beast 2. From their effectual exercise of that power and that in their publick detecting those Antichristian abominations and denouncing the wrath of God against them It is said in the daies of their Prophesie though they were poor men and had no carnal weapons to defend themselves or offend their enemies yet in a spiritual sense fire proceedeth out of their mouths and devoureth their enemies Revel 11.5 For the Lord did make his words in their mouth to be fire and the people wood and it devoured them Ier. 5.14 and the holy Ghost adds further that these Prophets tormented them that dwel upon the earth v. 10. 3. The Spirit of truth doth not only call these two by the name of Prophets but elsewhere distinguisheth the Prophets and Righteous men He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receiveth a Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man shall receive a Righteous mans reward Where Christ incouraging poor Preachers of the Gospel against all the hard and harsh usage of the world intimates to us 1. That there are some who by way of Office and distinction from others are Prophets and Preachers 2. That there is some eminent reward due to Prophets 3. That they who do any good to Prophets even because of that Office shall receive a Prophets reward And in this very Prophesie concerning Antichrist the Spirit maketh these two distinct the Prophets and the Saints Babylon is therefore ruined because in her is found the blood of the Prophets and of the Saints Rev. 17.24 Now if we descend from the words of this Prophecy and come to observe the answerable event in History we shall finde that in every age there were Ministers opposing the tenents of Antichrist Their particular names times places and their manner of resisting the man of sin it will be too large to insist upon yet a brief Catalogue of Ministers is here inserted From the time of Christ and his Apostles for 600 years our famous Iewell against the Romanists hath abundantly proved that the truths professed in the reformed Churches were maintained by the Ancients And in the succeeding Centuries when the Man of Sinne began to prevail there were in their several Ages Godly and Learned Ministers who opposed the Popish Errours defending the sufficiency of Scripture Communion in both kindes Justification by free Grace disclaiming the defilements of worship in adoring Images Invocation of Saints praying for the Dead worshipping Reliques and openly testifying against the rising and swelling power of the Pope declaiming against his Supremacy and title of Universal Bishop as Antichristian From the 600 year of Christ to the 700 besides Isidore Hesychius and others there were in this Island these two famous Preachers Aidan who converted from Paganism the Kingdom of Northumberland which then contained not only the Country now so called but also Cumberland Westmoreland Lancashire Yorkshire the Bishoprick of Durham and some part of Scotland Also Finan by whose Ministry the Lord turned to the Christian faith the Kingdom of the East Saxons and of Mercia as our own Countryman doth testifie Bâ—sides our famous Countrymen Bede Alâ—vinus and many others there were Adlebertus and Clemens and Sampson with many other Priests who did mightily withstand Pope Boniface Besides Taurinensis Agobarduâ— Rabanus Maurus there was Scotus accused by the Pope for an Heretique and murdered as is conceived by his own Scholars for his opposing the carnal presence And Bertram a Priest in France was so clear a Protestant in the point of the Sacrament in a Book that he set forth that some Romanists say it was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram And the most learned of the Papists confess that Walafridus Strabo Ionas Bishop of Orleans and Hinâ—marus Archbishop of Rhemes departed from the received opinion of the Church Catholique In this Age the most unlearned and unhappy are recounted Radulphus Flaviaâ—ensis Stephanus Eduensis Smaragdus and our English Alfricke whose Saxon Homily was appointed to be read publikely to the people against the carnal presence In this Age more light began to appear even in the heat and height of Antichristianism not only by the Ministry of Fulbert Bishop of Chartres Anselme of Laon Author of the Interlineal Gloss Oecumenius Theophylact and others but especially by Berengarius and his disciples Besides Arnulphus the Martyr Hugo de Sancto Victore Robertus Tuitiensis Gulielmus de sancto amore Ioâ—chim Abbas Niceas were Peter Bruis and his Scholar Henry of Tholousâ— two famous Preachers against Popish errours insomuch as Peter was apprehended and burnt In this Age the Waldenses appeared who were the famous opposers of Antichrist In this Age are recorded Alâ—â—ssiodore Peter de Vinâ—is Arnoldus de nova villa and those two famous Preachers Gerardus and Dulcinus who preached that the Pope was Antichrist and Rome Babylon Besides our famous Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne the great hammer of the Romanists who wrote to the Pope that he was Antichrist In this Age appeared for Christ Thomas Bradwardin Richard Armachanus Taulerus a famous Preacher in Germany and that glorious instrument of the Lord Iohn Wickliff In this Century besides Peter de Alliaco Nichol. Clemangis and many others we need name no other but those great Worthies and Martyrs Savanorola a famous Preacher in Florence with Iohn Huss and Hierom of Prague whose memories are pretious throughout all the Reformed Churches In this Age the Father of mercies raised up Martin Luther and so many others and from that time the defection from Rome was so eminent that it hath visibly continued to this day and concerning the following times
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
man what may we say of those that intrude upon the work of the Ministry if they miscarry they destroy souls and this is indeed to destroy the man Si navem poscat sibi peronatus arator non meritò exclamet frontem melicerta perisse de rebus In brief shall an exact scrutiny passe upon such as are to feed the bodies of poor men and not upon such as feed the souls Act. 20.28 The work of the Ministry the preaching of the Word is a work of the highest consequence and importance that ever God committed to the sons of men The reconciling of men to God 2 Cor. 5.19 Even an heavenly Embassy of infinite and eternall consequence Now if God allow not these works which are of an inferiour nature to be done by men untried and unappointed to the Office how shall he approve of such as adventure upon this work of preaching the Word which is negotium negotiorum the work of works without any trial or commission If none may administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto then neither may any preach but he that is lawfully called and ordained But none may administer the Sacraments but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto Therefore The minor is easily granted and proved from the nature of the Sacraments They are Seals of the righteousnesse by faith If it be an intolerable usurpation amongst men for a private man to take the broad seal of the Kingdom and put it to what instruments he pleaseth much more intolerable is it for a private man to usurp the dispensation of the broad Seal of the Kingdom of heaven As in all States there are Keepers of the Seals appointed whose office it is to dispose them according to Law Even so it is in the Church of God Jesus Christ hath appointed Keepers of his Seals those whom he cals Stewards of the mysteries of God to whom he hath committed the word of Reconciliation and to whom he hath given power to baptize and to administer the Lords Supper The connexion is clear because that these two works are joyntly in the same Commission Mat. 28.19 20. and of the two the preaching of the Word is the greater work This the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel The negative particle is here as in many other places taken for the comparative he was sent rather to preach then to baptize and by this manner of expression it appears that to preach was his more proper and especiall work This account all the rest of the Apostles had of it therefore they did put off ministring to Tables that they might give themselves to the Word and Praier In the consideration of the greatnesse of this work the Prophet Isaiah being sent about it cries out Wo is me I am undone the Prophet Ieremiah Ah Lord God behold I cannot speak for I am a childe and Paul also Who is sufficient for these things Of this account it hath been alwaies had in the Church of God ancient and modern till these unhappy times of licentiousnesse And therefore we humbly entreat all those that do conscienciously and as we beleeve justly scruple to have their Children baptized by or receive the Lords Supper from the hands of any un-ordained person that they would seriously consider upon what warrant they hear un-ordained men preach Seeing there is the same Commission for preaching and for baptizing and that preaching is the great if not the greatest work of a Minister To usurp authority over the Church is a sin But to preacâ— without calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp authority over the Church Therefore The first Proposition is clear by its own light the other is easily proved by asserting Preaching to be an act of authority which is evident both in that the Apostle 1 Thes. 5.12 gives this charge Know them that are over you in the Lord and admonish you where to admonish is to be over Heb. 7. without controversie the lesser is blessed of the greater and this is further eviâ—enced in that the Apostle suffers not women to preach because they may not usurp authority over the man 1 Tim. 2. but is commanded to be in subjection upon which place Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man Besides them the publike work of the Ministry of the Word is an authoritative administration like unto that of Criers Heralds and Embassadors to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus and therefore may not be performed by any but such as are authorized and immediatly or mediatly deputed by him 2 Cor. 5.19 20. appears because in preaching the key of the Kingdom of Heaven is used to take men in or shut men out and this key is in the hand of ordinary Teachers as well as extraordinary yea the power of binding and loosing is exercised For though to preach be no act of jurisdiction strictly so called yet it is an act not only of order but of power not such as is common to every member of the Church but peculiar to such as are in publike Office Now to perform any authoritative act without authority what is it other then to usurp authority Gifts conferre the faculty of administration but not the power The Question which the Pharisees put to our Saviour being propounded to these men By what authority dost thou these things and who gave thee this authority Could they answer as Christ Ioh. 7.28 I am not come of my self That which the Scripture reproves may no man practice but the Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching Therfore The major will not be denied The minor appears in that the false Prophets are reproved Ier. 23.21 32. not only for their false doctrine telling their own dreams and stealing the Word of God from his people but also for running when they were not sent I am against them saith the Lord a fearfull commination If God be against them who shall be with them if they finde not acceptance with God all that approbatiâ—n and applause which they finde from men what will it profit He is not approved whom man approves but he whom God approves The false Prophets themselves accuse Ieremiah Jer. 29.27 for making himself a Prophet which though it was a most unjust and false imputation yet it holds forth this truth That no man ought to make himself a Prophet the false Prophets themselves being witnesses It is very observable that Shemaiah the Nehelamite a false Prophet and a dreamer writes to Zephaniah the sonne of Maasiah the Priest and to all the Priests and accuseth Ieremiah for a mad man in making himself a Prophet and tells them that upon this account they ought to put him in prison and in the stocks It seems by this that it was no little sin and deserves no little punishment even in the judgement of false Prophets
to preach without a lawfull call The Apostles in the Synod of Ierusalem speak of certain men that went out from them and troubled the Gentiles with words subverting their souls They went out They were not sent out but they went out of theiâ— own accord this is spoken of them by way of reproof And then it followes they troubled you with words subverting your souls He that preacheth unsent is not a comforter but a troubler of the people of God not a builder but a subverter of souls There be many in our daies like Ahimaaz they will be running without either call or message and haply they may out-run Gods Cushi's we wish they meet with no worse successe then he in a spirituall sense to prove uselesse Messengers We argue from the practice of the Ministers of Christ If they have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine then is mission required in him thâ—t will Preach the Word But they have been thus carefull Therefore If any gifted man may preach without a Call why doth the Apostle so often make mention of his Call Rom. 1.1 Gal. 1.15 16. 1 Cor. 1.1 when the Disciples of Iohn murmured against Christ for baptizing Ioh. 3.27 28. Iohn answers A man can receive nothing unlesse it be given him from heaven ye your selves bear witnesse of me that I said I am not the Christ but that I am sent before him Here Christs undertaking to baptize is justified by his Mission When the chief Priests and the Scribes with the Elders asked Christ Luk. 20.2 Tell us by what authority doest thou these things or who gave thee this authority Christ makes answer by demanding another question The Baptisme of Iohn was it from heaven or of men Which teacheth us these two truths First That none ought to preach without being authorized and sent Secondly That this Call and Sending is not only from men but from heaven True it is such as is the Ministry such ought the Call to be if the Ministry extraordinary the Call extraordinary if the Ministry ordinary the Call must be ordinary but we reade of no Ministry allowed in Scripture without a Divine Call There is a threefold Call to the Ministry mentioned Gal. 1.1 The first is of or from man only when any is designed to this work errante clave that hath no inward qualification or Call from God This though it authorizeth to outward administrations in the Church yet will not satisfie the conscience of him that so administers The second is by man as the instrument when any is designed to the Ministry by those whom God hath intrusted with the work of Ordination according to the rule of the Word these God cals by man Act. 20. This is the Call of ordinary Pastors The third by Jesus Christ immediatly and by this it is that Paul proves himself an Apostle an extraordinary Minister Lastly we argue thus That work may not be performed by any which cannot by him be performed in faith But preaching by a Brother Gifted but not Called nor Ordained cannot be done in faith Therefore A Gifted unordained brother may not Preach Concerning the major we shall say little the Apostles general Canon Rom. 14. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin doth evidently demonstrate it The truth of the minor appears in that there is no warrant in Scripture which is the ground of faith for such a practice For first there is no 1. Precept that such should preach if there were a precept it was then a necessary duty that every gifted person ought to perform it was a sin if any gifted person should not preach though he could preach but one Sermon only in all his life Where is the necessity laid upon them as the Apostle speaks of himself that they preach the Gospel 2. There is no Precept that any should hear them or obey them in the Lord or maintain them these duties of the people areappropriated to those that are Preachers by Office Mal. 2. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and the people should enquire the Law at their lips Luk. 10.16 The hearing of them is the hearing of Christ and the refusing of them is the refusing of Christ It is not so said of any that preach without mission but contrarily there is a strict charge not to hearken to such Ier. 17.14 and a complaint of them that heap to themselves teachers 2 Tim. 4. Thus the Apostle Heb. 13 7 17. Remember them obey them submit your selves to them that have the rule over you and have spoken to you the Word of God So 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour c. Nothing of this is spoken of gifted Brethren yet if they may lawfully preach all this may they challenge and all that hear and plead for them are bound in conscience to yield because all this is due for the works sake 1 Thess. 5.12 Secondly There is no promise in Scripture made unto any that Preach and are not thereunto lawfully Ordained We say no promise either of 1. Assistance A Minister must depend upon God for his inabling unto the great work which he undertakes for all our sufficiency is of God and we have no sufficiency of our selves so much as to think any thing 2 Cor. 3.5 and God hath promised this assistance only to those whom himself sends Thus Exo. 4.10 Go saith the Lord to Moses and I will be with thy mouth Isa. 6.7 8 God touches the mouth of Isaiah and sends him Ioh. 20.21 22. Christ sends and gives the holy Ghost to the Apostles and to them is the promise Ioh. 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth Doth God do thus to those that run and are not sent O let the great errours broached of old by Origen and others that presumed the the undertaking of this work without a Call and in our daies by Anabaptists Socinians and others that despise a regular lawfull Call bear witness Surely we may say that if any amongst us Preach without a Call and yet Preach the truth they have not their assistance by vertue of any promise from the hand of God 2. Protection Thus God hath promised to those whom he sends on his message Thus the Lord encourageth Ieremiah ch 1.18 19. I have made thee this day a defenced City and an iron pillar and a brazen wall against this whole Land and they shall fight against thee but shall not prevail against thee for I am with thee saith the Lord to deliver thee Thus also Act. 18.9 the Lord incourageth Paul Be not afraid but speak and hold not thy peace for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee So also Act. 23.11 Be of good chear Paul c. And as we finde that God hath promised protection to those he sends so also the Ministers of God have incouraged themselves to a faithfull discharge of their duty against
That the same Authours make mention also of the ordinary Call which they had That none of our first Reformers ever renounced their ordinary Call but rather asserted it and pleaded it upon all occasions as Gerhard sheweth of Luther in particular Bucan tels us That the Call of our first Reformers was ordinary and extraordinary Ordinary because they were Doctores Pastores Presbyteri ex institutione Ecclesiae Romanae sed abstersis istius sordibus à Deo Doctors Pastors and Presbyters by th◠Institution of the Church of Rome God having washed away the defilements that cleaved to that Ordination It was extraordinary because they were indued with extraordinary gifts and blessed be God with incredible successe even to a miracle And if this be all that is meant by an immediate and extraordinary Call in this sense we willingly and freely own it and acknowledge That our blessed Reformers were men raised up by God after a wonderfull manner to do great things for his Church That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were indued with a singular knowledge of divine mysteries with a rare and peculiar gift of utterance with an heroique spirit and an undaunted courage and owned by God with miraculous successe maugre all the opposition of the enemies of Christ against them The Papists upbraid the Protestants and demand What miracles did your first Reformers work We answer That this was a great miracle That so few men under such great opposition without working of miracles should be able to convert so many thousands to the Protestant Religion So much in answer to the 3. Questions and also about an immediate Call CHAP. VIII Wherein is handled the mediate Call of men to the Ministry and therein one assertion about the peoples Election of their Minister viz. That the Election of a Minister doth not by Divine Right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every particular Congregation THE mediate Call is when a man is called to the Ministry by men lawfully deputed thereunto Concerning this mediate Call we shall offer these Propositions That the mediate Call though it be by men yet it is from God and by divine right as well as the immediate A necessary Proposition for the people of our unhappy age that vilifie the Gospel-Ministry because they are not called as the Apostles were nor have the Apostolical Gifts of Tongus and Miracles Know therefore that when Christ went up to heaven he gave not only Apostles and Prophets to his Church but also Pastors and Teachers That the Apostle Paul tels the Elders of Ephesus that were ordinary Officers That the holy Ghost had made them Overseers over the Flock He cals not only extraordinary but ordinary Officers Embassadors of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God Our Saviour Christ cals the Ministers of the seven Churches of Asia Angels The Apostle commands the Thessalonians To know them that labour amongst them and to have them in high esteem c. who yet notwithstanding were but ordinary Ministers And to the Hebrews he commands To obey them that had the rule over them and to submit themselves c. All which Texts prove That Ministers made by men after a lawfull manner are made by God are Ministers of Christ are to be obeyed submitted unto and had in high esteem for their works sake and we may adde That such Ministers may expect protection from God direction and successe of their labours as well as if they were immediatly called Those rare promises Isa. 49.2 Isa. 51.16 Ier. 1.8 10. are their rich portion The Apostle joyns Apollo with himself not only in the fellowship of the Ministry but also in the promise of a blessing upon it Who then is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye beleeved even as the Lord gave to every man I have planted Apollo watered but God gave the encrease That this mediate Call is either extraordinary or ordinary The extraordinary mediate Call is as Paraeus saith proxima immediatae neer to the immediate but yet not the same with it For though every immediate Call be extraordinary yet every extraordinary Call is not immediate Thus God chose Aaron to be Priest after an extraordinary manner yet it was a mediateCall by Moses his Internuncius or Messenger Thus also he chose Elisha by the intervention of Elias Thus Matthias his Call to the Apostleship was extraordinary by the use of a Lot and yet also by the choise of the people Pareus writes a Story of the Fratres Bohemici The Bohemian Brethren who in the Year of our Lord 1465. when all their Ministers were driven from them by Persecution Tres ex novem sorte sibi designarunt non sine miraculo Chose three out of nine by lot to be their Ministers not without miracle But of this immediate extraordinary Call we spake sufficiently in the former Questions The mediate ordinary way by which God would have all men to enter into the Ministry is by Election and Ordination They are both of them distinctly set down in the choise of Deacons Act. 6.3 5 6. Look ye out seven men whom we may appoint c. Now though we do not purpose to speak much concerning popular Election yet because there are many that lift it up too high and make the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call to consist in it and that look upon Ordination if not as Antichristian yet at best but as a circumstance of the Ministeriall Call which may be as well omitted as used Therefore we are necessitated to propound unto our people these ensuing Propositions concerning popular Election That the Election of a Minister doth not by divine right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every particular Congregation This we shall prove 1. By examining those three Texts that are brought for the divine right of Popular Election 2. By shewing the mischiefs that will inevitably follow from this assertion 1. We will examine the Texts The first is taken from the choice of Matthias into the office of an Apostle which was done say they by the 120. Disciples there present And if the people have power to choose an Apostle much more to choose an Ordinary Minister But we answer 1. That those words And they appoined two Ioseph called Barsabas and Matthias do in all probability relate to the Apostles and not to the Disciples They appointed two that is the Apostles appointed two Thus our Annotators They appointed two that is the fore-mentioned Apostles put two in Election And if the history be well observed it will appear that the 120. Disciples are named only in a Parenthesis and that Peter in his whole Discourse relates especially if not only to his Fellow-Apostles It is said ver 17. He was numbred with us that is with the Apostles not with the Disciples And so ver 21. which have companied with us that is with the Apostles ver 22.
and Barnabas to the Lord. Answ. 1. This interpretation cannot consist with the Antecedents and Consequents as we have already shewed 2. If this Interpretation were true it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is illis not sibiipsis 3. Tremellius that translates the Syriack of the New Testament renders it Et constituerunt eis in omni coetu Seniores And they appointed that is Paul and Barnabas to them that is to the people The Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illis Object There is another that confesseth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can agree with no other but Paul and Barnabas and therefore he labours to finde the Election of the people in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith he doth not signifie in every Church as it is translated but according to the Church instancing in the Orators phrase faciam secundum te I will do it according to thy minde So they that is Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders according to the Church that is according to the will and minde of the Church Answ. If this were granted it would not prove the matter in hand That the major part of a Congregation by divine right have the whole and the sole power of Election it would only conclude an acquiescency in the people and that they had satisfaction in the Ordination carried on by Paul and Barnabas A phrase to the same purpose is used Tit. 1.5 where Titus is left in Crete to appoint Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we may as well say that the whole City had their vote in Election in Crete and that every thing was done according to the minde of the City as to say here that every thing was done according to the minde of the Church See more of this in M. Blake his Treatise of the Covenant So much for the first Argument The Second Argument by which we prove That the power of Election of Ministers doth not by divine right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every particular Congregation is drawn from the mischiefs that will inevitably flow from this assertion For 1. It is certain that every one that is to be made a Minister is first of all to be tried and proved whether he be fit for so great an Office 1 Tim 3.10 Let these also be proved c. These also that is the Deacons as well as the Bishops The Bishop therefore is to be tried and examined whether he be apt to teach whether he be able to convince gainsayers whether he be a workman that needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth Now there are many Congregations wherein the major part are very unfit to judge of ministeriall abilities and if the whole and sole power were in them they would set up Idol-Shepherds instead of able Shepherds 2. There are some Congregations wherein the major part are wicked and if left to themselves wholly would choose none but such as are like themselves 3. There are some wherein possibly the major part may be hereticall and will never consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister 4. Sometimes there have been great dissentions and tumults in popular Elections even to the effusion of bloud as we reade in Ecclesiasticall Story Sometimes Congregations are destitute of Ministers for many years by reason of the divisions and disagreements thereof as we see by wofull experience in our daies Now in all these or such like cases if the whole and sole power of Election were in the major part of every Congregation how sad and lamentable would the condition be of many hundred Congregations in this Nation And therefore it is that in all well-governed Churches great care is had for the avoiding of these Church-undoing inconveniences In the Church of Scotland the power of voting in Elections is given to the Presbytery of the Congregation with the consent of the major or better part thereof And therefore M. Gillespie though a great friend to the due right of particular Congregations yet when he comes to state the question about Election of Ministers he puts it thus Whether the Election of Pastors ought not to be by the votes of the Eldership and with the consent tacit or expressed of the major or better part of the Congregation c. he durst not state it precisely upon the major part and afterwards he tels us That the Election of a Minister is not wholly and solely to be permitted to the multitude or body of the Church and that an hereticall and schismaticall Church hath not just right to the liberty and priviledge of a sound Church And that when a Congregation is rent asunder and cannot agree among themselves the highest Consistories Presbyteries and Assemblies of the Church are to end the controversie and determine the case after hearing of both parties Bucanus tels us That the Election of a Minister for the avoiding of confusion ought not to be by every member of a Congregation but by the Presbytery or by the Pastors and Teachers of neighbouring Congregations directing and guiding the people as being most fit to judge of Ministerial abilities The Lutheran Churches put the power of calling of Ministers into the Presbytery Magistracy and People To the Christian Magistrate they give nomination presentation and confirmation To the Presbytery examination ordination and inauguration To the People consent and approbation He that would be further satisfied in this point may reade the Discourse of our Reverend Brother Dr Seaman about Ordination where he shall finde the custome and practice of most of the Reformed Churches in calling of Ministers for the avoiding of the forementioned mischief So much for the first Proposition CHAP. IX Wherein a second assertion about Election is largely proved namely That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination THat the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination There are many Learned and Godly men whom we much reverence though we dissent from them in this particular that say That Ordination is only Adjunctum consequens consummans an adjunct following and consummating the Ministeriall Call but not at all entring into the constitution of it That Ordination is nothing else but the approbation of the Officer and a setling and confirming him in his Office and that Election is that which gives him the essentials of his Office Dr Ames saith That the vocation of a Minister doth properly and essentially consist in Election Mr Hooker saith That the Election of the People rightly ordered by the rule of Christ gives the essentials to an Officer or leaves the impression of a true outward Call and so an Office-power upon a Pastor Our Brethren in New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline say That the essence and substance of the outward Calling of an ordinary Officer in the Church doth not
consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election c. For our parts we crave leave to dissent from these worthy men and that upon these grounds Arg. 1. Because our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their assertion as we can finde nor do we think that any can be brought Arg. 2. Because that those very Texts fore-mentioned which are the chief if not the only Texts that are brought for popular Election do seem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this assertion When Matthias was made an Apostle it was not the Election of the people that did constitute him an Apostle The people chose two if they chose at all but that which did constitute him an Apostle was the determination by lot As in a Corporation when the community chooseth two and the Aldermen one of these two in propriety of speech it is the Aldermen that choose the Mayor not the community All that the 120. did if they did that was to set two before the Lord but it was God that did constitute and appoint Matthias to be the Apostle In the choise of Deacons the people nominated seven Persons to be Deacons but it was the Apostles Ordination not the peoples Election that did constitute and make them Deacons So saith the Text expresly Look ye out among you seven men whom we may appoint or constitute over this businesse The essence and substance of the Deacons Call is placed not in the peoples nomination but in the Apostles Ordination As for Act. 14.23 we have already shewed that they that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Apostles and not the Churches And that if they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by suffrages it was per suffragia propria non aliena by their own suffrage not the Peoples though we think as we have formerly said that the word is to be taken for a bare decerning and appointing without the ceremony of lifting up of hands as it is taken Act. 10.41 There is nothing at all in this Text that proves That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call is in the peoples Election but it rather proves the quite contrary That the Apostolicall Ordination was that which did constitute Elders in every Church Arg. 3. All those Texts that we shall hereafter bring for the asserting of the divine right of Ordination do prove that the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth consist in Ordination and not in Election There are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for Election and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct but an essentiall constituent of the Ministeriall Call as we shall hereafter God willing prove at large Arg. 4. We argue from the nature of popular Election Election by the people properly is nothing else but their designation of a person that is to be made their Minister or that is already a Minister to his particular charge It is not simply a making of a Minister but the making of him a Minister of such a place As it is one thing saith Mr Rutherford to make a gold Ring another thing to appropriate it to such or such a finger Election is nothing else but the appropriation of a Minister for the exercise of his Ministry in such a place It doth not give him the Office but the opportunity of exercising his officiall authority over those that choose him This appears in the Election of Deacons all that the people did by Election was only to design the persons and to set them before the Apostles but it was the Apostles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons This likewise appears from Deut. 1.13 which place though it speaks of the choice of civil Officers yet it doth very clearly describe unto us the nature of Election Take ye wise men and understanding and known among your tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The peoples taking of men did not give them the essentials of their office They nominated the persons but it was Moses that made them Rulers Our brethren of New-England in their Platform of Church-discipline tell us That all Office-power is proper to the Eldership and that the brotherhood have only a power of priviledge Now then we demand If the people have no Office-power belonging to them how can they by Election make an Officer Indeed they may and do design persons unto office by choosing of them but that they that have not the power of Office neither formally nor virtually committed unto them and that cannot act or exercise an Office-power that they by a bare Election should communicate Office-power and give the essentials of a Ministeriall Call is to us a riddle we understand not Nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter The lesser is blessed of the greater not the greater of the lesser Adde further If Election be as our Brethren say the constituting of a Minister and the giving him the essentials of his Office why then did the Apostles take so much pains to return to Lystra Iconium and Antioch to ordain them Elders in every Church and why did Paul leave Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Why did they not spare their journey and send to the people to make their own Ministers by Election Can we imagine that they took such pains only to adde an adjunct to the Ministeriall Call an adjunct which doth not give essence but follows the essence supposing the Subject compleat in its essence before For our parts we are far from so thinking but rather conceive it much more sutable to Scripture to say That Titâ—â— was left to make Ministers in Crete and that the Apostles went about from Church to Church to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call and that all that the people did was to nominate the person to be ordained or rather to approve and accept of the Ministers made them by the Apostles Arg. 5. If Election gives the essentials to a Minister then may a Minister elected administer the Sacraments without Ordination For as Mr Hooker well saith in another case He that hath compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without exception he cannot justly be hindred from doing all acts of that Office For to be an Officer compleat without an Office or being compleat in his Office yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his Office implies a contradiction for it 's all one to say a man is bound to a rule and yet by a rule he should not do it But a person Elected cannot administer the Sacraments without Ordination he cannot do it lawfully it being cross to Scripture-Presidents nor can he do it in the opinion of those Reverend men with whom we now dispute Mr Hooker cals it an Anabaptisticall phrensie to say That an un-ordained person may baptize And
besides This is contrary to their own practice in New-England where it is frequent to have a man Elected and preach half a year a whole year nay as Mr Gi. Firmin once a Preacher there saith he knew one elected and preached two years to his people and they maintained him all that while and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament but he and they when they would partake the Lords Supper went ten miles to the Church out of which they issued to receive the Sacrament which practice without doubt was very unnecessary if Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call and Ordination be only an adjunct We say in Logick Forma dat operari Effects depend upon the Form not upon extrinsecall circumstances This is Argumentum ad hominem Arg. 6. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election then it will follow That a Minister is only a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place This consequence is confessed by Reverend Mr Hooker who saith That a Minister preaching to another Congregation though he ceaseth not to be a Pastor yet he doth not preach as a Pastor nor can he do any Pastorall acts but in that place and to that people to whom he is a Pastor Thus also it is said in the answer of the Elders of severall Churches in New-England unto nine Positions Pos. 8. If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can perform any Ministeriall act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no further then his Call This is also confessed in the New-England Platform of Church-Discipline And therefore we need not say more for the proof of the consequence But as for the minor That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation is an assertion 1. Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years 2. Contrary to the practice of the Brethren themselves with whom we dispute It is acknowledged by all of them that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministeriall act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and yet it is ordinary both in Old England and in New England for members of one Congregation to receive in another Congregation M. Firmin tels us That M. Phillips Pastor of the Church in Water-town while M. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England went to Boston and administred the Lords Supper to that Church This surely was a Pastorall act and M. Phillips acted herein as a Pastor to those that were out of his own Congregation And if we may argue from our Brethrens practice we may safely conclude That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation Thirdly Contrary to Scripture For the Scripture tels us 1. That there is a Church generall visible as well as a particular Church visible Act. 8.1 Gal. 1.13 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 3 15. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church generall visible and but secondarily in this or that particular Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Teachers are set by God in the same Church with the Apostles Eph. 4.11 12. Pastors and Teachers are given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints and for the building of the body of Christ in general 3. That every Minister hath a double relation one to his particular Church another to the Church general visible And though he be actually to exercise his Ministry especially over that charge where he is fixed yet he hath a virtual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture under a general notion to shew the indefinitenesse of their Office They are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4.1 Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the Gospel 1 Thess. 3.2 and Ministers in the Lord Ephes. 6.21 Embassadours for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 But never Ministers of the people Indeed they are for the people but not of the people That a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible appears thus He that can ministerially admit or eject a Member into or out of the Church-Catholick visible is a Minister and Officer of the Church-Catholick visible But every Minister by Baptism or Excommunication admitteth or ejecteth Members into or out of the Church-Catholick visible Therefore c. This Argument is urged by Apolloâ—iâ—s and also by that godly learned Minister Mr Hudson who hath largely handled this point and to whom we must necessarily referre the Reader that would be further satisfied about it We shall onely relate a passage out of Mr Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way p. 33. collected by Mr Hudson A Minister chosen and set over one Society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. But he is a Minister in the Church universal For as the Church is one so is the Ministry one of which every Minister sound orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the later is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In Ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely though they be set over a certain people And as the faithfull in respect of their community between them must and ought to perform the offices of love one to another though of different Societies so the Ministers in respect of their communion must and ought upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices toward the faithfull of distinct societies And one more passage out of Mr Rutherford in his peaceable plea pag. 263. Ordination saith he maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Fourthly This Assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation as it is contrary to the universal Church to the practice of our Brethren themselves to the holy Scriptures so also it is contrary to sound reason For hence it will follow 1. That when a
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
left in Crete to Ordain Elders c. But there is no mention made of any command for reiterated Ordination neither indeed can it be For Ordination being a setting a man apart to the Office of the Ministry as we shall hereafter prove and not only to the exercise of it in such a place though the local exercise should cease yet his Office still remains and therefore needs not be reiterated To this truth we have the consent of the Universall Church who do not only not allow but condemn a second Ordination Neither do we know any of the Reformed Churches that teach or practise after this manner but many that teach and practise the contrary Object What then will you answer to the example of Paul who had hands twice laid upon him once by Ananias Act. 9. and afterward at Antioch Act 13 Answ. 1. It will not easily be proved Thaâ— the Imposition of hands by Ananias upon Paul was for the consecration of him to the Office of an Apostle and not rather for the recovering of his sight and for that only The Text seems to hold out the last Sure we are that Paul was baptized after this Imposition of hands and it is not probable that he was outwardly and visibly ordained to his Apostolical Office before his Baptism As for Act. 13. M. Hooker in his Survey par 2. pag. 83. saith expresly That here is no Ordination to Office at all for the Apostles had their Office before and if so then it makes nothing for our New-England Brethren to prove an iterated Ordination unto the same Office Of the like minde with M. Hooker is Learned Chamier who saith That before this Ordination Paul and Barnabas had preached and exercised the Offiâ—e of their Apostleship And therefore we doe not think saith he that this Imposition of hands was an Ordination properly unto any New Ecclesiasticall Function but onely a confirmation of their sending to the Gentiles to whom they were not yet professedly sent For in that excursion of theirs unto Antioch there is no mention made of the Gentiles and that was a kinde of Prologue to that great work which now they were to put in full execution The Text it self seems to give countenance to this Interpretation because it saith Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work c. not for the office but for the work whereunto I have called them Called they were before and designed by God to be Preachers to the Gentiles and now they were publiquely inaugurated to that great and eminent service Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius as they are cited by Chamier say That this Imposition of hands was unto the Office of an Apostle Thus Deodate They laid their hands on them that is for a sign of Consecration unto the Office of an Apostle But how can this be when the Apostle Paul himself tels us that he was an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ immediatly and also when he was an Apostle as Calvin saith long before this time And therefore we rather think that this separation was not unto the Apostolicall Office but unto that great and as Calvin cals it now unusual work of preaching unto the Gentiles But howsoever whether this Imposition of hands were unto the Apostolicall Office or only unto a peculiar work it makes nothing for the proof of that for which it is brought to wit That an Officer loosed from his Office-relation may be ordained again unto the same Office For Paul was never loosed from his Office after he was once called unto it If the Imposition of hands by Ananias were unto the Office of an Apostle as we beleeve it was not yet if it were we then demand Either this Ordination was afterward null and void or remained firm and valid If it alwaies remained firm what need a new Ordination If null and void we desire a proof of it which we are sure they cannot produce and till that be done this instance makes nothing for the proof of their assertion Besides all this we adde That this separation and imposition of hands was by the immediate appointment of the holy Ghost The holy Ghost said Separate me c. and ver 4. They were sent forth by the holy Ghost This was an extraordinary thing and therefore not sufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon Thirdly and lastly If the whole essence of the Ministerial Call consisteth in popular Election then will two other great absurdities follow 1. That Ordination can in no case precede such Election 2. That there must be Churches before there be Ministers First that Ordination can in no wise precede Election Now though ordinarily no man is ordained in the Presbyterian way without a title to some châ—rge yet we conceive many cases may be put in which Ordination may lawfully go before Election We shall only give two Instances 1. When an ordained Minister removes upon warrantable grounds from one charge to another the people to whom he removes â—hoose him not as oâ—e that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister for his removing from his former place doth not nullifie his Ministerial office as we have sufficiently proved 2. When there is a necessity of sending men as there is now in New-England for the conversion of Heathen people we thâ—â—k it very agreeable unto Scripturâ—-rules that these men shoâ—ld be first ordained before they be elected by the Heathen to whom they are sent And the reason is because that the conversion of souls is the proper work of the Ministry When Christ went up into heaven he left not only Apostles Prophets and Evangâ—lists but also Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.11 12. And the office of oâ—dinary Ministers is to be Embassadors for Christ and in Christs Name or in Christs stead to beseech people to be reconciled unto God not only to build them up in grace when reconciled but to be instrumental to reconcile them to open their eyes and to turn them from darknesse to light and from the power of Satan unto God c. We finde no place in Scripture to warrant a Church to send out gifted brethren without Ordination for the work of conversion What may be done in extraordinary cases where Ordination cannot be had we dispute not but where it may be had there we conceive it most agreeable to the Word that men should be first Ordained before sent Hereby they shall have a divine stamp upon them they shall go with more authority and shall have power to baptize those whom they do convert which otherwise they cannot lawfully do It is an unscriptural opinion and of pernicious consequence that some amongst us have taken up That a Minister should preach only for the building up of Saints and not for the conversion of sinners That when a Minister converts
any out of his own Congregation he doth it not as a Minister but as a gifted brother That the great work of conversion which is the chief work of a Minister doth properly belong to gifted Brethren All this ariseth from that groundlesse conceit That a Minister is no Minister out of his own Congregation which we have abundantly disproved Secondly It will also follow That there must be Churches before there be Ministers which is against Scripture and sound reason We do not deny but that there must be a Church before their Minister but not before a Minister The Church-Entitative is before the Church Ministerial but yet a Minister must needs be before a Church For every Church must consist of persons baptized Unbaptized persons cannot make a Church And therefore there must be a Minister to baptize them before they can be made capable to enter into Church-fellowship Our Saviour Christ chose his Apostles for the gathering of Churches There were first Apostles before Churches and afterward◠the Apostles ordained Elders in these gathered Churches And one great work of these Elders was to convert the neighbouring Heathen and when converted to baptize them and gather them into Churches And therefore Elders as well as Apostles were before Churches And whosoever with us holds as our Brethren do that none but a Minister in Office can baptize must needs hold that there must be ordinary Ministers before Churches and that therefore the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in the Election of the Church So much for the proof of the second Proposition It will be expected that we should answer to the Arguments that are brought by these Reverend men that hold the contrary to this Proposition As for Texts of Scripture there are none brought nor as we said before can be brought The great argument used by D. Ames and improved by M. Hooker is this Arg. 1. One Relate gives being and the essentiall constituting causes to the other But Pastor and People Shepherd and Flock are relates Ergo. He addes further That they are simul natura and that the one cannot be without th◠other There cannot be a Pastor before there be a people which choose him c. Answ. We shall answer to this Argument according to the grounds formerly laid That every Minister hath a double relation one to the particular Church of which he is a Minister the other to the Church universall As to his relation to his particular Church it is very true That Pastor and People are relates and simul naturâ He cannot be their Pastor but by their submission to his Ministry and when he leaves them he ceaseth to be their Minister But now besides this particular relation he hath a relation also to the Church universall and by his Ordination is invested as we have said with habituall power to act as a Minister beyond his particular Church when he is lawfully called thereunto and as long as this correlative the Church universall lasteth so long his ministeriall office lasteth though his particular relation should cease In a word The people give being to a Minister as to be their Minister but not as to be a Minister Another Argument brought by M. Hooker is Arg. 2. It is lawfull for a people to reject a Pastor upon just cause if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his life or hereticall in his doctrine and put him out of his Office Ergo It is in their power also to call him outwardly and put him into his Office The consequence is proved from the staple rule Ejusdem est instituere destituere He that hath power to invest hath power to devest The Antecedent is as certain by warrant from the Word Mat. 7.15 Mat. 7.15 Beware of Wolves Phil. 3.2 Beware of false Prophets Answ. If by putting him out of his office be meant only a putting him from being their Officer then the argument must be thus framed They that have power to put out a Minister from being their Minister have power to choose him to be their Minister and this we deny not But if by putting him out of office be meant a putting him absolutely from being an Officer we deny that the people in this sense have power destituere to put him out of office or instituere to put him into office And we retort the Argument They that have not power instituere have not power destituere They that have not power to put a Minister into office have not power to put him out of office But people not being Officers have not power to make an Officer as hath been shewed Ergo. But it seems that Mr Hooker by the peoples rejecting their Pastor and putting him out of office doth mean their excommunicating of him for he saith afterwards That this rejection cuts him off from being a member in that Congregation where he was c. For answer to this we refer the Reader to what is said by a Minister that is come out of New-England who saith That if Reverend Mr Hooker had been alive and had seen what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches it would have caused him to bethink himself again of the Peoples power Something we hear of saith he is done in a Church not farre from the place where he lived it cannot be kept close the light of that fire shines into England Afterwards he brings Mr Cotton to confute Mr Hooker Mr Cotton saith That Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers Then he cites Mr Burroughs If the Church be without Officers they cannot do that which belongs to Officers to do they have no Sacraments amongst them neither can they have any spiritual Iurisdiction exercised amongst them only brotherly admonition and withdrawing from such as walk disorderly for their own preservation Much more to this purpose is brought by this Author to whom we refer the Reader As for those two Texts of Scripture Matth. 7.15 Phil. 3.2 by which Mr Hooker proves his Antecedent they do not at all come up to the point in hand Though people are to beware of wolves and of false prophets it doth not therefore follow that a people may excommunicate their Minister Indeed this will follow That people are to be careful to preserve themselves from heretical Ministers and to withdraw from them and this withdrawing if it be upon just grounds makes him cease to be their Minister but not from being a Minister as we have often said We will not trouble the Reader with answering any more Arguments because they seem to us to have no weight in them these two already answered being the chief that are brought Only we shal speak a little to a similitude that is often brought by our Brethren of the contrary judgment For it is ordinarily said That there is the same relation between a Minister and his particularCongregation as
is between a man and his wife And as it is the mutual choise one of another that makes them man and wife So it is the peoples choise and the Ministers accepting that choise that makes them to be Pastor and flock Dr Ames saith That Ordinatio Episcopalis sine titulo est aquè ridicula ac si quis maritus fingâ—ritur esse absque uxore And indeed saith Mr Hooker It is ridiculous to conceit the contrary In another place the same Doctor saith Oves rationales possunt eligere sibi pastorem sicut sponsa eligit sibi sponsum non per jurisdictionem aut gubernationem sed potius per subjectionem But we answer That Symbolical Theology is not argumentative Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam Similitudes do beautifie not fortifie There is nothing almost more dangerous in Divinity then to overstretch similitudes of which fault we believe our Brethren are much guilty As for the Similitude it self we conceive it will not hold For 1. If Minister and people be as man and wife then it will follow that they may not separate till death unlesse it be in case of adultery The Wife is as much bound to the Husband as the Husband to his Wife But there are few people if any that think themselves obliged to abide with their Ministers till death It is ordinary even with men professing godlinesse to forsake their Minister and that oftentimes upon worldly interest And there are few Ministers if any that think that they may in no case leave their people There are three cases in which we conceive all agree that a Minister may remove from his people if he cannot have his health where he is if he be denied competent maintenance and if the glory of God may be in an eminent manner advanced But we hope that it will not be said that a Husband may separate from his Wife in these cases 2. This Similitude sounds ill For it makes every Minister to be as a Husband to his Church and so by consequence the Head of his Church which complies too much with the Antichrist of Rome who cals himself the Husband and Head of the Church The Church hath no Husband but Christ 2 Cor. 11.2 3. This Similitude makes Christ to have as many Wives as there are particular Churches Our Brethren hold That every particular Congregation is the Body of Christ and the Spouse of Christ which if it were true Christ should have as many Bodies and Spouses as there are particular Churches which we conceive cannot be right For it is as absurd to say That one Head hath many Bodies and one Husband many Wives as to say That one Body hath many Heads and one Wife many Husbands But now we say That the whole Church of Christ throughout the world is but one That Christ properly hath but one Body and one Wife And that particular Churches are but members of this one Body and limbs and members of this one Spouse even as every particular Saint also is And that every Minister hath a relation to this Church-Catholick as a member thereof and seated therein and as one that by his Ordination hath power to act as a Minister wheresoever he is if called for the good of the whole And that he is placed in a particular Church for the actual and constant exercise of his Ministry as in a part of Christs Body or a limb or member of his Spouse And that they by their choice make him their Minister their Pastor their Shepherd but not a Minister a Pastor a Shepherd So much in answer to the Arguments against the second Proposition and also concerning Election of Ministers CHAP. X. Concerning Ordination of Ministers wherein the first Assertion about Ordination is proved Namely That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. THat the method which we propounded in the beginning may not be forgotten we crave leave to put the Reader in minde of what we have already said That the Call of men to the Ministry is either immediate or mediate That the mediate Call is by Election and Ordination And having finished what we thought fit to say about Election we are now to proceed to speak about Ordination concerning which we shall offer this general Proposition That the work of Ordination that is to say An outward solemn constituting and setting apart of persons to the Office of the Ministry by prayer fasting and imposition of hands of the Presbytery is an Ordinance of Christ. For the more methodical proving of this general Proposition we shall undertake to make good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial Call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with prayer fasting and imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. For the understanding of this Assertion we must distinguish between the Substance Essence and Formal Act of Ordination and the Rite used in Ordination The Essential Act of Ordination is the constituting or appointing of a man to be a Minister or the sending of him with Power and Authority to preach the Gospel The Rite is Imposition of hands In this Assertion we are not at all to speak of Imposition of hands but onely of Ordination as it relates to the setting of a man apart to the Office of the Ministry Now that this is an Ordinance of Christ we shall not need to spend much time in proving it 1. Because we have already made this out in our third Proposition where we asserted That no man ought to take upon him the Office of a Minister but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto 2. Because the proving of the other three will prove this also 3. Because we have not so many enemies to contest withall in this as in the other three Propositions For though there be many that hold Ordination to be onely an adjunct of the Ministerial Call and not an Essential ingredient which is against the second Proposition And many that deny Imposition of hands against the third And many that say that a Church without Officers may ordain against the fourth Proposition And though there be very many that hold That an unordained man may preach as a gifted Brother yet there are but few in comparison who say That a man may enter into the Office of the Ministry and preach authoritatively as a Pastor without Ordination Our Brethren in New-England in their Plat-form of Church-Government say That Church-officers are not only to be chosen by the Church but also to be ordained by Imposition of hands and prayer c. And in their Answer to the thirty two Questions they say expresly That Ordination is necessary by Divine Institution The very Socinians themselves though great enemies to the Ministerial Calling and no wonder when such great enemies to Christ himself
though they deny the necessity of Ordination yet they acknowledge that for order and decency it is fit to retain it in the Church For our parts we think the Scripture to be so clear for the proof of this Assertion that we wonder there should be any found to stand up in opposition against it For First In the Old Testament not onely the high-Priest but all the other Priests and Levites were by divine appointment inaugurated to their Ministerial Offices and when any men unconsecrated intruded themselves into the Priestly or Levitical Office they were remarkably punished by God himself Witnesse Corah and his company of whom we have formerly made mention Now surely this was written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come to teach us that it is the will of Christ that no man should enter into the Ministerial Office unordained or unconsecrate To hint this the Prophet Isaiah tels us That in the times of the New Testament the Lord would take from among Christians some to be Priests and some to be Levites where the New Testament Ministers are cloathed with Old Testament titles and are called Priests and Levites not in reference to any real unbloudy and propitiatory Sacrifice by them to be offered as the Papists falsly imagine but as we conceive to signifie unto us 1. That there should be an Office of the Ministry distinct from all other Offices undeâ— the New Testament as well as under the Old and therefore it is said that God would take of them for Priests not take all them for Priests And 2. That these Ministers were to be consecrated to their respective offices as the Priests and Levites were Secondly In the New Testament we read 1. That in the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferiour Office and serving only for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not onely be elected by the people but also ordained to this office Much more ought this to be done in the choise of persons who are called to the work of preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. That even the very Apostle Paul though chosen immediately by Christ unto the great Office of preaching unto the Gentiles and that in a miraculous way yet notwithstanding it was the pleasure of the holy Ghost that he must be separated and set apart by men for this great work And if this was thought necessary for an extraordinary Officer If Paul that was separated from his mothers womb to preach Christ to the Heathen and was separated by an immediate voice from Heaven to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles must also have an outward solemn separation by the Prophets at Antioch unto this work how much more is this necessary in ordinary Officers 3. That Paul and Barnabas who were themselves separated to the work of the Ministry Act. 13.1 went about Act. 14.23 ordaining Elders in every Church The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as we have shewed not a choosing by the suffrages of the people but a special designing and appointing of Ministers by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas 4. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every Church which surely had been very vain and superfluous if Ordination be not an Institution of Christ and necessary in his Church 5. That Timothy was ordained not only by the laying on of Pauls hands but also by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery By laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche is meant the whole work of Ordination and hence we see that it is the will of the holy Ghost that not only Paul an Apostle as formerly but Timothy an Evangelist must be set apart unto his Office by Ordination 6. That Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on no man neither to be partakers of other mens sin but to keep himself pure This negative command implies an affirmative that it was his Office to lay on hands that is to ordain Elders but his care must be not to do it rashly and unadvisedly upon men insufficient lest he should thereby be made partakers of other mens sins This Text doth necessarily imply a precept for Ordination 7. That Timothy is commanded to commit those things which he had heard from Paul among many witnesses to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Where we have 1. A Separation of some men to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The Qualification of these teachers they must be faithfull men and such as are able to teach others 3. We have an injunction laid upon Timothy that he should commit what he had heard of Paul unto these faithfull men Now this committing was not only to be by way of instruction but also by way of Ordination Pauls charge committed to Timothy was not so much to make men fit to teach others as by Ordination to set men apart for the teaching of others that there might be a perpetual Succession of teachers For the further making out of this truth let the Reader consider what is said by Mr Gillespy in his Miscellany Questions and what we have before said pag. 84. 8. That laying on of hands is reckoned not only as an institution of Christ but as one of the principles of the Doctrines of Christ but of this Text we shall speak more in the third Assertion By all these places it is evident That it is the will of Christ that those that enter into the Ministerial Calling should be consecrated set apart and ordained thereunto Most of the Objections brought against this Assertion have been answered at large in the handling of the third Proposition If any shall further object and say Obj. 1. That these are but examples and examples do not amount up to a Rule Answ. 1. That Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a Rule Of this nature is Ordination 2. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary Elders we should be left at uncertainties and every man might do what seemeth good in his own eyes which would tend to confusion and the dissolution of the Church 3. The Apostles taught the Churches to do nothing but what they had a commandment from Christ to teach them Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 11.28 and in all their Disciplinary Institutions which were not meerly occasional and had only a temporary reason of their Institution of which kinde Ordination we are sure is not are to be imitated as though they were the immediate Institutionâ— of Christ. 4. For Ordination of Ministers we have not only Apostolical example but Apostolical preâ—â—pt as we have already proved out of 1 Tim. 5.22 Object 2. If it be further objected That the Ordination mentioned
in the Text fore-named was onely for those times and not to continue to the end of the world Answ. 1. This is not true For if the Ministry he to continue to the end of the world then the way of entring into the Ministry enjoyned by the Apostles is also to continue And there can no reason be brought why the one should be abolished and not the other 2. Timothy is enjoyned to keep this commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec mandatâ— Keep these commandments that is saith he all the commandments commanded him in the whole Epistle Thus Deodate That thou keep this commandment that is Not only that which is contained vers 11. 12. but generally all other commandments which are contained in this Epistle Now this commandment of laying hands suddenly on no man is one of those commandments which he was to keep without spot untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which evidently proves That Ordination is an Ordinance of Christ and is to last to the end of the world It is worth observing which is also hinted by a Reverend Minister that there are 4. descents of men sent and ordained 1. Christ himself was sent and had his Commission from his Father Ioh. 20.22 23. Iesus Christ did not glorifie himself to be made an High-Priest but was anointed thereunto by God his Father Act. 10.38 2. Christ Jesus as he was sent of his Father so he sent forth his Apostles Ioh. 20.23 It is said Mat. 10.1 That Christ called unto him his twelve Apostles and sent them forth and gave them their commission Nay it is said Mar. 3.14 And he ordained twelve The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he made twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach This making was an authoritative appointing them to their Office The Apostles would not have dared to have preached the Gospel had they not been commissionated by Christ thereunto 3. The Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church Paul ordained Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 4. Timothy and Titus did ordain others as they themselves had been ordained and that by the Apostles own appointment Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 Nay we reade of a Presbytery ordaining 1 Tim. 4.14 And as Timothy was intrusted with the Word of Christ so he is commanded to commit the same trust to faithfull men able to teach others also that so there may be a succession of Teachers Thus we have four descents recorded in Scripture 1. God anoints Jesus Christ and ordains him to his Ministerial office 2. Christ ordains his Apostles 3. The Apostles ordain extraordinary and ordinary Officers 4. And these ordain others And this commandment is given to be observed till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus as the Authour fore-mentioned saith The Apostles admitted men in their own practice into the Ministry and thus they appointed for succeeding times and can any think that Ordination ended with that age Is there not the same cause necessity use and reason for it in after ages as in the first times of the Church when there were as yet extraordinary gifts stirring in the Church which are now ceased and therefore the more need of a standing Ministry Sure we are of two things 1. That there are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for popular Election Our Brethren in New-England and many in Old England are very much for Election by the people And so are we if it be rightly ordered and managed But we desire them to shew us as clear Scriptures for Election as we have done for Ordination 2. That there is as much if not more in Scripture for the Justification of Ordination as for any other part of Church-Government as for the divine right of Synods of Excommunication of Ruling Elders or any other part of Discipline in which we agree together How then it should come to passe that many in our daies should cry up the divine right of Election by the people of Excommunication and other parts of Church-government and cry down the divine right of Ordination we know not Indeed we confesse That the Papists do too much extoll it calling it a Sacrament and not only a Sacrament in a generall sense as Calvin seemeth to do but a Sacrament in a proper sense as Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments And also in appropriating it to Bishops as distinct from Presbyters Hence it may be it is That some in our age running into the other extream as the nature of man alwaies is apt to do do too much vilifie and undervalue it and because they like it not brand it with the black mark as they do other of the Ordinances of Christ of Antichristian Ordination But we hope better things of our people and beseech them to take heed of those that call good evil and evil good and that call the Institutions of Christ the doctrines of Antichrist So much for the first Assertion CHAP. XI Proving the Second Assertion about Ordination to wit That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth properly consist in Ordination THe Second Assertion is That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth properly consist in Ordination The contrary to this Assertion is maintained by many Reverend Divines who set up Election in the room of Ordination and make Ordination â—o be but an adjunct unto and a consequent of this Ministeriall Call and a confirmation of a man into that office which he hath bestowed upon him by his election The essence and substance of the outward calling of an ordinary Officer in the Church say the Ministers of New-England in their Platform of Church-Government doth not consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election In opposition to this we have already endeavoured at large to prove That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in popular Election And therefore we intend to be very brief in proving the contrary That it doth consist in Ordination This we make out by these ensuing arguments 1. If Election doth not give the essentials of the Ministeriall Office then Ordination doth For the outward Call of a Minister as it is agreed on all sides doth consist only in his Election or Ordination But Election doth not c. as we have formerly shewed by divers arguments Ergo. Ordination doth 2. If Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before then it gives the essence of the Ministeriall Office But Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before Ergo c. That this is so appears 1. From the Ordination of Deacons Act. 6.3 Look ye out seven men c. whom we may appoint over this businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a man into an Office which he had not before Thus it
then commended them to the Lord in whom they believed The Reasons why Ministers should be set a part with prayer and fasting are weighty and still the same 1. The inidoneousnesse and insufficiency of any meer man though of the greatest abilities and indowments whether for nature art or grace for such a work wherein we have to do withthe highest mysteries of God and heaven and with the most precious things on earth the truths of God and souls of men 2. The discouragements which every where attend this work when most faithfully performed from Satan and wicked men 3. The successe of every ones Ministry depends wholly on Gods blessing For neither is he that planteth any thing neither he that watereth but God that giveth the increase Nor doth the faith of believers depend at all on the wisdome or or power of the Minister but on the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 And therefore it is necessary in the most solemn manner that is by prayer and fasting to implore aid from God whensoever we ordain Ministers But this will be granted by all sides and therefore we will adde no more about it The second thing we are to make out is That Ordination of Ministers ought to be with imposition of hands That we may more orderly handle this Assertion which is so much controverted in our unhappy dayes and be rightly understood we shall crave leave to premise three things 1. That Imposition of hands is not a proper Gospel-duty never used but in the New Testament but it is a Rite and Ceremony borrowed from the Old Testament and by Christ made a Gospel-institution That which Grotius saith in his Annotations That the whole Government of the Churches of Christ was conformed to the patern of the Synagogues is true in many things and especially in this of Imposition of hands We finde it was used in four cases under the Old Testament 1. In benediction and blessing Gen. 48.14 20. 2. In offering of Sacrifices unto God Lev. 1.4.3 In bearing witness Lev. 24.14.4 In ordaining or appointing unto an Office Thus Moses when he ordained Ioshua to succeed him he was commanded by God to lay his hands upon him and to give him a charge in the sight of the people Num. 27.18 23. Under the New Testament it is used 1. In benediction Mark 10.16.2 In curing of bodily diseases Luke 13.13 Mark 16.18 Acts 9.17 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost Act. 8.17 18. Act. 19.6 4. In Ordination of Church-officers and of this last way of Imposition of hands are we now to speak Secondly That it is not our purpose accurately to enquire whether Imposition of hands be an Essential part of Ordination without which it is null and void or an integral part without which it is deficient and imperfect or onely an inseparable adjunct It is enough for us to assert That it is lawfull and warrantable and not onely so but that it is the duty of all that are to ordain Ministers to lay hands upon them and that it is a sin in any that is to be ordained to refuse it Thirdly That though we assert the Divine Right of Imposition of hands yet we plead for it onely in a Scripture-sense but not in a Popish-sense The Papists make it to be an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace They make Ordination a Sacrament and Imposition of hands an operative instrument of conveying not only grace in general but even justifying grace Hence it is that some few of our Divines speak a little too slightly of it at which those that are enemies to it take much advantage but yet there are no Reformed Churches that we know of but do retain it and plead for it some as a Rite and Circumstance and moral sign others as an integral part and others as an essential part of Ordination These things premised we come now to prove That it is the will of Christ that all that are ordained Ministers should â—lave Imposition of hands This appears 1. From the examples of this Ceremony used by the Apostles in Ordination 1. We finde that the Deacons though inferiour Officers must have hands laid on them 2. We finde that the Apostles Paul and Barnabas though extraordinary Officers had hands layed on them 3. We reade that Paul layed hands upon Timothy and also the Presbytery Hence it is that Calvin saith Though there be no certain precept extant concerning Imposition of hands yet because we see it was in perpetual use by the Apostles that their so accurate observation ought to be in stead of a precept to us And it is a wonder to us that they that are so exact in urging every other circumstance in Church-Government and have suffered much prejudice in their outward estate rather then they would forbear sitting at the Sacrament which yet is but an outward gesture should take such strange liberty to themselves in dispensing with a duty that hath so many examples for the enforcing of it 2. From that command of Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man This is a divine precept for imposition of hands For when Timothy is forbidden to lay hands suddenly it is implied that it was his duty to lay on hands Hence it is that the New-England Ministers do assert That Church-officers ought to be ordained by imposition of hands And from this Text Walaeus hath a memorable passage which though it be long yet we will not think much to transcribe I see this saith he speaking of Imposition of hands to be required in almost all confessions And truly since that the Apostles have alwayes used it yea the Apostle gives a precept to Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man we judge it ought not to be omitted because in that negative commandment an affirmative is included that he should lay on hands upon men that are worthy where because it is taken by a Synecdoche for the whole calling of a Pastor certainly it is to be esteemed either for a rite or an essential part otherwise it could not be taken for the whole or at least for a proper adjunct and common to this with all other callings So far Walaeus Thirdly Because the whole work of Ordination is comprehended under this Ceremony of Imposition of hands 1 Tim 4.14 1 Tim. 5.12 Ordination is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imposition of hands and the gift or office of the Ministry is said to be given by this as by the sign 1 Tim. 4.15 Now then if Imposition of hands as a part be put for the whole work of Ordination it seems very strange to us that there should be any amongst us that expresse a willingnesse to be ordained and yet an unwillingness to have Imposition of hands We rather judge That they that refuse Imposition of hands which is put for the whole will in a little time make no conscience of refusing the whole it self We reade in Scripture That prayer and
a debate about it For we deny not but that a Congregation sufficiently Presbyterated that is wherein there are many Ministers may ordain though we believe that there are but very few such if any and therefore are of the opinion of the Reverend Assembly in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Ordination That it is very requisite that no single Congregation that can conveniently associate do assume to it self all and sole power in Ordination Quest. 4. What part hath the Ruling Elder in Ordination Answ. Supposing that there is such an Officer in the Church for the proof of which we referre the Reader to our Vindication We answer That the power of ordering of the whole work of Ordination belongs to the whole Presbytery that is to the Teaching and Ruling Elders But Imposition of hands is to be alwayes by Preaching Presbyters and the rather because it is accompanied with Prayer and Exhortation both before in and after which is the proper work of the Teaching Elder Quest. 5. Whether may one Preaching Presbyter lay on hands without the assistance of other Ministers Answ. Imposition of hands ought to be performed not by one single Presbyter but by a combination of preaching Presbyters In the Ordination of Deacons not one Apostle alone but a company of them laid on hands Act. 6.6 When Paul and Barnabas were separated unto the work whereunto they were called by God the Prophets and Teachers joyned together in laying on of hands It is observable that in all the Texts where mention is made of Imposition of hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular or Dual Number and so there must of necessity be more then one Imposer of hands Timothy was ordained by the Imposition not onely of Pauls hands but also of the Presbytery And therefore when we reade that Timothy is enjoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man and Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders we must not imagine that they were indued thereby with the sole power of Ordination For surely the Apostle would not require Timothy or Titus to do that which he himself would not do If Paul with the Presbytery laid hands upon Timothy then no doubt Timothy was also together with other Presbyters to lay hands upon those whom he should ordain The naming of one doth not exclude others especially if we consider that Titus was left to ordain Elders as Paul had appointed him Now it is without all peradventure that Paul did appoint him to do according as he himself practised Quest. 6. Whether a company of Believers associated together may ordain without Ministers Answ. The Answer to this Question is that which we especially aim at in this our fourth Assertion and wherein we desire most of all to satisfie the expectation of the Reader For this end we shall offer this Proposition in Answer to the Question That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church-Officers and not to a Church without Officers And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a perverting of the Ordinance and of no more force then Baptism by a Midwife or consecration of the Lords Supper by a person out of Office For the proof of this we might argue from what is recorded by Jewish Writers concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin When Moses by Gods appointment assumed the seventy Elders to assist him in Government and part of his spirit was by God put upon them this was done saith Maimonides Sanhedr cap. 4. by Moses laying hands upon them And at length before his departure out of this life when a successour was to be provided for him God commands him to take Ioshua and lay his hand upon him c. and accordingly it was done Numb 27.18 And so for those seventy Elders it is certain from the Jewish Writers that the succession of these was continued through all Ages by their creating others in the place of those that died by this Ceremony of Imposition of hands To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by Imposition of hands and the divine Majesty rested on them and those Elders imposed hands on others and others on others And they were found created untill the house of judgement of Ioshua and unto the house of judgement of Moses that is from time to time ascending to the Sanhedrin in Ioshua's and Moses's time Petrus Cunaeus de Rep. Hebraeâ—rum cap. 12. saith This Senatorian dignity because it was most honourable was granted to none without a legitimate act namely Imposition of hands So Moses laid his hand upon Ioshua and the seventy Elders which solemnity being performed presently a divine Spirit from above fell down upon them and filled their brests And these being thus initiated themselves admitted others after the same way The same Authour tels us also out of Maimonides of a constitution made That no man should after such a time use Imposition of hands but by grant from Rabbi Hillel that divine old man who was Prince of the great Council and how afterwards it came to cease And what care was taken by Juda the son of Baba to support and uphold it But because these things are not recorded in Scripture we shall wave all such way of arguing and rather dispute First From the constant practice of the Church of Christ as it is set down in the Apostolical Writings We challenge any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament for the justification of popular Ordination We reade of Ordination by Apostles Act. 6. Act. 14. And by Prophets and Teachers Act. 13. And by Evangelists Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5.22 And by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 But for Ordination by the people we meet not at all with it And without all peradventure If Ordination be an Ordinance of Christ it is to be managed according to the will of Christ and that is by Ministers and not by the community of believers May we not say to such Churches that usurp upon this work as it is said Matth. 21.23 By what Authority do you these things And who gave you this Authority Shew us your warrant out of the Word We reade indeed of Ordination in Churches Act. 18.23 and in Cities Tit. 1.5 but no where of Ordination by Churches or by Cities taking them for believers without Officers We adde Secondly That Ordination by the people is not onely not written in Scripture but it is against the Scripture For to what end and purpose should Jesus Christ appoint Officers extraordinary and ordinary for the doing of that work which the people themselves may do To what purpose did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain Elders Why was Titus left in Crete to appoint Elders in every City Might not the people say What need Paul leave Titus to do that which
we can do our selves Frastra â—it per plura c. If this Doctrine were true the Apostles needed only to have preached and to have converted the people to the faith and when they had done to have said We have now done our work you may now elect and ordain your Officers your selves the power to do these things belongs to you But the Apostles did quite contrary and therefore certainly Ordination is not the peoples but the Ministers Office Adde thirdly that which to us seems to be of weight That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the ordained c. is all written in the Epistles unto Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers In the other Epistles which were written unto the Churches there is no mention made of these things which doth abundantly prove unto us That the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the people Lastly We might argue from the nature of Ordination It is a potestative and authoritative mission It is an eminent act of Jurisdiction not onely confirming a Minister in that Office which he had before by Election but conveying the very Office-power of preaching and administring the Sacraments It is that as we have said which gives the essentials of the Ministerial Call And therefore by the rule of the Gospel it belongs to Officers and not to private persons The Scripture doth accurately distinguish between Church-Rulers and private believers Heb. 13.17 24. 1 Thess. 5.12 Private persons can with no more lawfulnesse convey power to another to administer the Sacraments then they can themselves lawfully administer the Sacraments Church-power is first seated in Christ the head and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to Church-Officers And they alone who have received it from the Apostles can derive and transmit it to other Ministers And though we freely confesse That all Church-power is in the people finaliter objective that is for their use and benefit according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.22 All things are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas all are yours i.e. for your service and salvation yet we are farre from thinking that all things are theirs formally and originally that is of their making and authorizing Or that they that are not Ministers themselves can derive the Ministerial Office to others This we beleeve to be both against Scripture and reason The serious consideration of these things is of marvellous concernment for the people of our age upon this one account especially because there are a generation of men risen up amongst us that renounce and disclaim all Ordination from Ministers as unwarrantable and Antichristian and take it up from the people as the only way of the Gospel herein committing amongst many other these three evils 1. In renouncing the Ordinance of Christ and calling that which is truly Christian Antichristian 2. In setting up a new way of Ordination which hath not the least footing in the New Testament or in all Antiquity 3. In plunging themselves into this inextricable difficulty for he that renounceth Ordination by Ministers as Antichristian must of necessity renounce not only our present Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches in the Christian world he must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-communion as some in our unhappy dayes do For all Ordination by the people is null and void as being not only not grounded upon Scripture but against Scripture And to intrude into the Ministerial Office without Ordination is as the sinne of Corah and his company as we have formerly shewed Our desire is that these particulars may be duly weighed by all sober Christians It will not be amiss here to consider what is said against this Thesis by the Elders of New-England In four things they agree with us 1. They say Church-officers are to be ordained 2. And to be ordained by Imposition of hands 3. That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be performed by those Elders 4. That where there are no Elders if the Church so desire Imposition of hands may be performed by the Elders of other Churches But they differ from what we have asserted when they say In such Churches where there are no Elders Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the Brethren chosen by the Church thereunto For the proof of this they bring a Reason and a Scripture The Reason is If the people may elect Officers which is the greater and wherein the substance of the Office consists they may much more occasion and need so requiring impose hands in Ordination which is the lesse and but the accomplishment of the other Answ. 1. If this Argument were valid it would follow that people might ordain their own Ministers not only when they want Elders but when they have Elders For if Election give the essence to a Minister and Ordination only an adjunct we see no reason why they that give the essence should not also give the adjunct And why an adjunct should belong to the Officers in that Church to whom the essence doth not belong But 2. We say That Scripture-light being Judge Election is not the greater and Ordination the lesse It is possible that it is upon this ground that some men have made so slight of Ordination that so they might entitle the people thereunto But we have abundantly shewed 1. That Election doth not give the essence of the Ministerial Call That Election is only the designation of the person that is to be made a Minister not the making of him a Minister 2. That Ordination is that which gives the essence That it is an Authoritative appointing of a person to the Ministry and an actual investing him into the office That it is held forth in the Scripture as the greater and therefore not given to one and the same persons but this later referred to the more honourable persons as appears from Acts 6.3 5. Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 The Text they quote in the Margine for the proof of this is not out of the New Testament but the Old out of Numb 8.10 11. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. Ans. 1. This Text doth not prove that for which it is brought but makes rather against our Brethren For they say That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be by the Elders and not by the people but in case of want of Elders But here Aaron and his sons were present And if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders which our Brethren will in no case consent unto 2. That the children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites But
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
nothing will more encourage him to persevere in it and to expect a blessing from it than the evidence that he is deputed by God to this Office That he is feeding the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made him oversâ—er This was Gods encouragement to Ieremy and Isaiah There is required in Ministers a singular confidence in Gods assistance and a singular expectation of direction protection provision supportation and benediction which they cannot have unlesse they be fully assured that their function and Ministry is from heaven heavenly Hence it is that Paul laboureth to make out the authority of his calling to the Corinthians and Iohn unto the Pharisees and Christ unto the Iewes Thirdly For our enemies sake that cry down the prâ—â—ent Ministers as â—â—als Priests as Popish and Antichristian That Goliah-like defie the Armies of the living God That tread under their feet not onely the Ministers but their Ministry And say to us Bow down that we may go over That make our bodies as the ground and â—s the street for them to go in That say of us just as the Jewes did of Christ Crucifie them crucifiâ— thâ—â— Now that such as these may know That when they fight against our Ministry they fight against God whose Ministry it 〈◊〉 And that when they persecuâ—e us they persecute Christ whose servants we are And that it is in vain to kick against pricks That we are 〈◊〉 in Christ's right hand and that they shall feel the power of his right hand that would pluck us out of his right hand That even Ieroboam's hand though a King shall wither if he stretch it out against a true Prophet of the Lord That we are a plant of Gods planting and therefore shall not be rooted up Therefore it is that we have undertaken this work The Thesis we shall lay down is this That the Ministers of the Church of England that now are and have been since the reformation of Religion are lawfully called to their Office so as they need not renounce their Ordination nor have their people any just ground of separation from them in that respect The present Ministers of the Church of England are of two sorts either such as have been made Ministers since the abolishing of Prelacy by the imposition of the hands of preaching Presbyters or such as were ordained heretofore by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop together with other Ministers And there are two sorts of Dissenters amongst us There are some that dislike our present way of Ordination and say it is invalid because performed by Ministers without a Bishop There are others dislike our former way of Ordination and say it is null and of no validity because we were made by Antichristian Bishops One side deny our Ministry to be of God because we want Bshops to Ordain us The other side deny our Ministry to be of God because we had once Bishops to Ordain us And thus is the present Ministry like Jesus Christ himself crucified between two opposite parties But as Christ though crucified yet rose again and is ascended up into heaven So we doubt not but the Ministers of Christ though they prophesie in sackcloth for the present and may perhaps â—e slain and lye in the streets for three dayes and an half yet they shall rise in spight of all their enemies and be called up into heaven in the sight of them In opposition to these two sorts of Dissenters we shall lay down these two Propositions That the Calâ— to the Office of the Ministers which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid That the Call to the Office of Ministry which our present Ministers do now receive since the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawful and valid CHAP. I. Containing the first Prâ—position and proving it by Arguments drawn from the Principles of our Adversaries THat the Call to the Office of the Ministâ—ry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid THere are some amongst us that refuse to hear our Ministers because they were Ordained as they say by Antichristian Bishops and think they are bound in conscience to renounce our Ministery till we have renounced our Ordination And as the Antipaedâ—-baptist would rebaptize all that are baptized amongst us So the Brownist would re-ordain all that are ordained amongst us For our parts we are confident that there is neither warrant out of the Word of God for rebaptization nor re-ordination That the latter which is our present work may the better appear we must premise a distinction which we have formerly made use of in our Vindication where we have also spoken something about this subject We must distinguish between a defective Ministery and a false Ministery as we do between a man that is lame or blind and a man that is but the picture of a man We do not deny but that the way of Ministers entring into the Ministery by Prelates â—ad many deâ—ects in it for which they ought to be truly and greatly humbled but yet we adde Thâ—t notwithstanding all accidâ—ntâ—l corrâ—ptions it is not substantially and essentially corrupted so as there should be need of re-ordination The Scribes and Pharisees were not onely wicked in their conversation but mingled the leaven of false doctrine with their teachings and had many defects in their entrance yet our Saviour saith Matth. 23.2 3. The Scribes and Pâ—â—risees siâ— in Mosâ—s his seat All therefore c. If they that sate in Moses his Chair were to be heard in all things that they taught according to the Word though they did not live as they taught and had many failings in their entrance much more they that sâ—t in Câ—thâ—drá Christi in the châ—iâ— of Christ and teach 〈◊〉 quae sunt Christi those things which Christ would have them teach and live according to what they â—each although there were many defects in their entrance into the Ministry Aâ— every defect in a Christian doth not make him no Christian and every defect in the administration of the Gospel-Ordinances doth not make them no Gospel-Ordinances So â—very defect in the way of entrance into the Ministry doth not make that Ministry a false Ministry or no Ministry Now that our Ministry during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawfull and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantiall dâ—fectâ— appears two manner of wayes 1. We will arâ—ue â—ccordiâ—â— to the judgement of those who hold that the whole essence of the Ministeriall call consisteth in the election of the people and that Ordination is nothing else but a solemne installing of a Minister into that Office which he had before conveyed unto him by his election Our Brethrâ—n of New â—ngland though they hold Ordination by imposition of handâ— to be of divine institution yet not so necessary as if a Ministers call were a nullity
without it for they say in the same place that the outward Call of a Minister consisteth properly and essentially in election by the people and that this election is so necessary as that the Ministerâ— Câ—ll withouâ— it is â— nullity but not so without ordination The Brownistâ— and Anabaptists doe speake fâ—rre more slightingly and undervaluiâ—gly of Ordination and therefore we â—rave leave to use â—rgumentum ad hâ—minem Thus They that are lawfully elected by the people are lawfull Ministers But sucâ— are the Ministerâ— of Englâ—â—â— c. Ergo. Or thus If a Minister rightly chosen by the people be a true Minister though not at all ordained then a Minister rightly chosen by the people is a true Minister though â—orruptly ordained But according to these men a Miâ—ister rightly chosen by the people is a true Minister though not at all ordained Ergâ— But many Ministers during the prevalency of Episcopacy wâ—re not at all elâ—cted by the pâ—ople But mâ—ny were â—nd thiâ— argument serves to justifie their Ministry 2. Though there are some that were at first obtruded unjustly and unduely upon the people yet the pâ—opleâ— aftâ—r â—cceptance â—nd â—pprobâ—tio◠〈◊〉 supply thâ— want of elâ—ction â—t first 〈…〉 afâ—er â—onsent â—nd â—â—ceptance of Leah made her to be his wife though he chose her not at first And by thiâ— sâ—y oâ—r Brethren in New-England we hold the calling of many Ministers in England may be excused who at first came into their places without the consent of the people But the people that â—hose them were wicked and ungodly and therefore they were not rightly chosen This is not true of many placeâ— where Ministers were chosen by Congregations wherein there were many godly people 2. Visible Saints and unblameable livers are sufficient to to make up the matter of a true Church and who can deny but that there are such in many if not in most of the Congregations in England But what though we judge that the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in popular election yet the Ministers whom we plead against look upon their Ordination as that which giveâ— them the essence of their Call and think they stand Ministers by that What is that to you what they â—hink their 〈◊〉 â—hinâ—ing in your opinion is their personal errour but it câ—nnot nullifie their Ministry for he that hath the essentials of a true Minister is a true Minister but he that is rightly elected hath the essentiâ—ls of â— true Minister â—ccordâ—ng â—o you and therefore whatsoever his judgement is about ordination he must stand a true Minister to you unlesse you will crosse your own position Suppose as one saith a Deacon thinks his Ordination gives him the essentials of his office the people think their election doth what then â— will you separate froâ— him and not go to him for reliefe in case of want he hath election and ordination so that to be sure a Deacon he is The case is the same with the present Ministry This instance is urged by Mr. Burroughs of which we shall have occasion afterwards to make further use We shall add another Argument of the same nature to prove that the Ministry of England is a true Ministrie If there were true Churches in England during the prevalency of Episcopacy then there was a true Ministry For according to those men it is the true being of a Church that giveth being to the truth of Ministry and Ordinances and not the Ministry and Ordinances that give being to a Church But there were true Churches in England during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo c. That there were true Churches appears From what the New-England Ministers say in their Answer to the 32. Questions pag. 24.25.26.27 And in their Apologie for the Church-Covenant pag. 36 37 38 39 40. where they shew 1. That the Gospel was brought into England in the Apostles dayes or a little after and that Churches were by them constituted in England according to the Evangelicall pattern 2. That though Popish Apostacy did afterwards for many ages overspread all the Churches of England as in other Countries yet still God reserved a remnant according to the election of Grace amongst them for whose sake he preserved the holy Scriptures amongst them and baptisme in the name of the Trinity onely 3. That when God of his rich Grace was pleased to stir up the Spirit of King Edward the â—ixt and Queen Elizabeth to cast off the Pope and all fundamentall errors in doctrine worship and a great part of the tyranny of PopishChurch-government c. the people of the Nation generally reâ—â—ived the Articles of religion c. wherein is contained the marrow and summe of the Oracles of God c. 4. That wheresoever the people do with common and mutuall consent gather into settled Congregations ordinarily every Lords day as in England they do to teach and hear this Doctrine and do professe their subjection thereunto and do binde themselves and their Children as in baptisme they do to continue therein that such Congregations are true Churches notwithstanding sundry defects and corruptions found in them wherein say they we follow the judgement of Calvin Whitakers and many other Divines of chief note nor can we judge or speak harshly of the wombes that bare us nor of the paps that gave us suck This also appears 2. From that Mr. Phillips of Watertown in New-England saith in a Book of his written for the Justification of Infant-Baptisme and also concerning the form of a Church therein he proveth that there is a true Ministry in England because there are true Churches and that there are true Churches in England and in other Reformed Churches of the like consideration he Proveth 1. Because the true visible state of Christs Church is by Gods promise to continue unto the end of the World Luk. 1.33 Matth. 16.16 and 18.18.20 Mat. 28.19 20. 1 Cor. 11 26. Then he argueth If the visible Church-state be to continue then either it continued in England and other places of like consideration or in some other places of the World But not in other places of the world c. Ergo. Again If there be no other Churches in the World nor have bin for many hundred years but Popish or Reformed Then if the visible state of Christs Church must abide for ever either the Popish or the Reformed Churches must be the true Churches of Christ. But not the Popish Ergo the Reformed 2. He argueth If Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God and the Courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time to tread under foot then there was a true Church-state where he sate and whilest he sate there and it was the true measured Temple whose Courts he treads under foot nor can there be Antichrist unlesse there be the Temple and Courts thereof where he is And if Antichrist â—ver sate in England then
are called A Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.32 And if all the Churches in the World are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But how doth it appear that it is the will of Christ that the Churches of one Nation should be governed by lesser and greater Assemblies and so become a Nationall Church For this we desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government wherein this very thing is largely proved both by the light of Nature and by the Scripture See Vindicat. p. 20. 26. And thus we have endevoured by two Arguments to convince those that oppose our Ministry from their own principles and to give them to understand that according to their own Tenents they are bound in conscience to acknowledge many of our Ministers at least to be true Ministers although it should be granted them that our Ordination is unwarrantable and Antichristian For most of these men are amongst the number of them that vilify and disregard Ordination The best of them make it but a meer circumstance or adjunct to the call of the Ministry And who knowes not but circumstances may be wanting or corrupted and yet the substance remain intire If we be true Churches then according to their own positions we are true Ministers If rightly Elected then we have that which they say is essential to the Ministerial call Suppose Ordination by Bishops should be an humane addition not agreeable to the Rule yet notwithstanding humâ—nâ— additioâ—â— do not nullify divine institution Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this saying I confesse for my part I never yet doubted of the lawfulnesse of the call of many of the Ministers of the Parishional Congregations in England though they had something superadded which was sinfull yet it did not nullify that call they had by the Church that communion of Saints amongst whom they exercised their Ministery If a man be Baptized in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost though there should be many Ceremonial additions of Sâ—le Spiâ—â—l◠〈◊〉 the sign of the Crosse c. Yet these additions would not nullify the Ordinance of Baptismâ— Now more can the superaddition of Ordination unto our election though it be supposed by them to be sinful nullify our Ministry which in their judgements is for the 〈◊〉 of it conferâ—ed by Election CHAP. II. Wherein the same Proposition is proved by Arguments taken from our own Principles BUt omitting this way of Argumentation we shall now God assisting undertake to prove according to our own Principles who hold That Ordination is that which gives the Essâ—rice to the Ministerial call That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects This appears by these ensuing Arguments They that for the substance of their call were called to the Ministry according to the mind of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers that were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ Ergo. Here we desire the Reader to take notice that in this Argument we shall not at all speak of the peoples election of their Minister Not because we are enemies to popular Election rightly managed and ordered or because we think that the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election as well as Ordination for we have formerly declared the contrary But because the great stumbling stone and Rock of offence against the present Ministry is in reference to to their Ordination therefore it is that we insist upon that onely The Minor is proved by surveying the Book of Ordination established by Act of Parliament according to which Ministers were to be Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Out of which we thus Argue They who were sufficiently gifted and qualified for the Ministry and were inwardly called by God and outwardly called by prayer and fasting with the imposition of the hands of Preaching Presbyters were called to the Office of the Ministry for the substance of it according to the mind of Christ. But such were they who were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. That they were such that is ought to have been such according the Rule established and that many were such de facto and if any were not such it was viâ—ium personae ordinantis not vitium regulae the fault of the person ordaining not of the Rule for Ordination appears by viewing the Book it self in which we shall find 1. That the party to be Ordained is to be one that is apt to teach willing to take pains in the Ministry found in the faith of honest life and conversation And sure we are many were such and if any were not it was a personal not a Church error 2. The party to be Ordained is to be examined touching his perswasion of an inward calling by the Spirit whether he be inwardly moved by God to the work of the Ministry and touching his faith of the sufficiency of the Scriptures his purpose to execute his Ministry according to the word of God to oppose all erroneous and strange doctrines to fashion his conversation according to what may become a Minister of the Gospel c. 3. The party thus qualified after a Sermon Preached and prayer made to God for a blessing is to be Ordained and set apart to the work of the Ministry by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop together with other Preaching Presbyters This is the substance of the Book as touching the Ordination of Ministers from which it appears That Ministers made during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ and therefore lawful Ministers But it will be objected That the Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them and not onely so but by Bishops who held themselves to be a superiour Order of Ministry by divine right above Presbyters who were not onely Bishops but Lord Bishops who were wicked and Antichristian and whom we have renounced and sworn to endeavour to extirpate in our late solemn League and Covenant What our opinio n is concerning the divine right of Episcopacy and what difference there is between a Presbyter Bishop and a Bishop over Presbyters between a Scripture Bishop and the Bishop that obtained in the Primitivâ— times and the Bishop of our times we shall have occasion to declare hereafter For the present before we return an answer to this great objection consisting of many particulars we must crave leave to premise these few conclusions many of which we shall in the next proposition prove at large That according
points they were Heretical So certainly a Minister ordained to Preach the Word and administer the Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is a lawful Minister though ordained by a Bishop in other points Antichristian considering that in that one act he is not Antichristian but doth that which he hath warrant from the Scripture to do though he were not a Bishop The word Sacraments and Ministery are the institutions of Jesus Christ. And these are not made null and void though the power to dispence them in foro externo be conveighed to us by corrupt Instruments no more then the Scriptures were polluted because offered by Hophni and Phinehas or the Chair of Moses defiled because the Scribes and Pharisees sat in it We must carefully distinguish as a learned Minister well saith the acts of office which have their form and being from a root or fountain without us from the qualities of the man that performes the office The man may be naught yet his office good and acts done by vertue of his Office Just and allowable although the man and his religion be naught As for instance A Popish Landlord makes you a lâ—ase of a Farme your lease is not antichristian but good in Law though he that demised it be for his Religion a Papist A Popish Judge doth passe a sentence in Court which stands good in Judicature his sentence is not Popish though he that pronounced it be a Papist the reason is because the legall sentence is not of him nor from him as a Papist but as a Judge who doth but deliver that which he hath received from an higher root the Law So in this case Ordination is an act of Office received from Christ and is not Antichristian though executed by one that is in other things Antichristian We do not rebaptize them that were baptized by a popish Priest because the power ofGods Ordinance depends not on theperson that does execute the same but upon an higher foundation the institution of Christ. Ministerial acts are not vitiated or made null though they pâ—sse through the hands of bad men But stand good to all intents and purposes to such as receive them aright by vertue of their Office authoritatively derived from the first institution A Bishop in his Presbyterial capacity hath divine right to ordain and therefore his Ordination is valid though it be granted that he is Antichristian in his Episcopal capacity If a Minister made by a Bishop be a lawfull Minister why then did you in your late covenant abjure Episcopacy with all its dependencies We did not swear in our covenant to endeavour the extirpation of Scripture Episcopacy which is Presbytery but of Prelacy that is of those Lordly titles which Bishops were invested withal and of their unjust usurpation of a sole power of jurisdiction and of a Majority of power in Ordination together with their Chancellours and Commissaries and the rest of the Hierarchy But we never did and never shall by Godâ— Grace renounce them as Presbyters which by consent of all sides are by divine right nor Ordination by them upon that account which we doubt not but is lawful and valid and will appear so to be at the great Tribunal And thus we have answered this objection with all the branches of it There is one objection of great concerment yet behind But before we mention it we shall propose three other Arguments for the Justification of the Ministry made during the prevalency of Episcopaâ—y From the glorious successe God gave unto it during the raign of Prelacy For since our Ordination God hath sealed to the truth of our Ministry and hath blessed it with the Conversion of many Thousand souls unto God Now that Ministry that God doth ordinarily blesse with bringing forth sons and daughters unto God that Ministry must needs be a Ministry sent of God For God hath threatned as we have often said That a false Ministry shall not profit And the Apostle proves the lawfulnesse of his Ministry by the successe it had upon the hearts of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 9.1 2. There are many of those that cry down our Ministry as Antichristian and separate from us as no Ministers that cannot deny but that they had their conversion if they are at all converted from us And if our Ministry be Antichristian how is their conversion Christian From the ends and purposes for which we were Ordained They that were Ordained by Bishops together with other Ministers for no other end and purpose but to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments according to the will of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But so were the Ministers Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. He that shall say That a Minister that Preacheth Christ and his truths and administreth â—he Sacraments according to the mind of Christ is an Antichristian Minister because of some defects in his entrance doth more advance and honour Antichrist then he doth disparage or disgrace us Mr. Ball no friend to Episcopal Government in his answer to Mr. Can hath these words In every true Church where the Word of God is intirely preached and received and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred there is a true Ministry ' and a true calling to the Ministry though in some things maimed and faulty From the destructive mischiefes and Church-ruining consequences that do naturally flow from this assertion For he that shall undertake to make good this desperate proposition as that learned and godly man so often cited justly calls it That a Minister made by a Bishop is no Minister of Christ but of Antichrist must also be forced to confesse and acknowledge 1. That Mr. Bradford Mr. Rogers Mr. Philpot Dr. Taylâ—r Mr. Saunders and the rest of those blessed Saints and Ministers who laid down their lives in defence of the Gospel against Antichrist were Antichristian Ministers 2. He nulliâ—ieth and and maketh void all the Ministerial acts performed by the Ministers of England ever since the Reformation For if our Ministry be no true Ministry then is our Baptisme no true Baptisme the Sacrament of the Lords Supper no true Sacrament our Church no true Church 3. He must acknowledge that there was neither Church Sacraments nor Ministry in the whole Christian World for many hundred years past For it is without dispute that there was no other way of entring into the Ministry for many hundred years in the Church of Christ but by the Ordination of Bishops 4. He must be forced if a Minister to renounce his Ministry and take it up again from the people who as the old Non conformists well say have neither commandement nor example in all the New Testament to authorize them to Ordain him And by this means he overthroweth the whole Ministry a nd Church of Jesus Christ and will be necessitated at last to renounce all Churches and all Ministry and turn Seekers as some do in our dayes even upon
in this Temple The man of sin is no part of this Temple of God but as a Plague of Leprosie infecting defiling and polluting it But yet the Temple of God which is his visible Church as appears from 1 Cor. 3.16 17. Revel 3.12 Revel 11.1 2. 2 Cor. 6.19 doth remain where the man of sin sits even as the Church of Pergamus did where the seat of Satan was And though we renounce the Antichristianisme which pollutes the Temple of God yet we do not renounce the Temple in self This is that which some of our Divines say That we differ no more from Rome then Rome differs from it self and from what it was in the Apostles dayes neither do we refuse any Doctrine that they hold simply because they hold it unlesse it can appear to us that that doctrine is part of the Antichristianisme of that Church The Religion of the Church of Rome is like a peece of bread mingled with a great deal of poison They hold many truthes but then they poison them by their Heretial additions They hold most that we hold and their Apostasie consisteth rather in adding to the truth then in detracting from it They hold the Scriptures we hold but they add Apocryphal to the Canonical Scriptures They hold Christ the Head of the Church but the Pope also They hold Justification by Faith as we do but they add Justification by works also They hold praying to God but add praying to Saints They hold two Sacraments but add five more c. Thus their Religion is bread and poison mingled together and whosoever living amongst them can separate the bread from the poison shall find bread enough to nourish him unto eternal life And the reason why we separated from them was because they would not suffer us to eat the bread unlesse we would eate the poison also Even as a man that is drinking a cup of Wine and another comes and puts a Toade in it and will not suffer him to drink the Wine unlesse he will drink the Toade also This was our condition Unlesse we would swallow down all their Antichristian additions to Gods Word they would not suffer us to live amongst them and hereupon we separated and may justly be said to be non fugitivi sed fugati Not withdrawing but driven away And which is very observable When the Protestant Churches did separate they did not erect a New Church but reformed a corrupt Church And therefore ours is called The Protestant Reformed Religion Not A New Religion We take away their hereticall superstructions but still keep the Truths which they hold We put away the poyson but keep the bread We take out the toad but yet do not fling away the Wine We remove the rubbish of Antichristianisme but yet we do not renounce any thing of God or of the Scriptures that is yet remaining sincere in that Church All this we the rather observe that thereby we might heed our people of that great cheat that is now put upon the Saints of God in this Nation in crying down all the truths of Jesus Christ as Antichristian and scaring people from the doctrine of Christ by perswading them to avoid Antichrist There is hardly any Truth of Christ but it is charged by some or other in our unhappie dayes to be Antichristian Thus. 1. The Doctrine of the souls Immortality was excogitata ab Antichristo ad stabiliendam suam culinam per fictum Purgatorium et invocationem Sanctorum Invented by Antichrist to uphold his Kitchin c. as is said by the Cracovian-Socinians And in the Book called Mans Mortality it is said That the most grand and blasphemous heresies that are in the World the mystery of iniquity and Kingdom of Antichrist doth depend upon this doctrine of the Souls immortality 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a doctrine that hath Antichrist for the author of it Zanchius in responsione ad Arianos 3. That Christ is God coaequal and coaeternal with the Father this also is called antichristian doctrine Sic clamat Antichristus So cryeth Antichrist say the Arrians Zanch. in responsione ad Arianos 4. The doctrine of the Magistrates power in punishing Anti istian heresies and blasphemies which the Scripture saith will be the way by which God will at last destroy Antichrist is said to be Antichristian Thus Blackwood in his storming of Antichrist 5. The Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme is also called Antichristian 6. The Doctrine of humiliation Repentance Sanctification and of good works done out of obedience to Gods command is antichristian as say the Antinomians And who knoweth not That the very places where we meet to worship God and the worship which we perform in those places and that our Government of the Church by lesser and greater Synodâ— is called Antichristian And therefore it is no wonder if our Ministry be also so called For we are now come to that height That there are some that renounce all Churches as Antichristian even those Churches themselves that renounce us as Antichristian And thus by the great subtlety of Satan under the notion of avoiding Antichristianisme there are many people tumbling down apace to direct Athiesme and are brought to renounce Christ himself lest therein they should comply with Antichrist And therefore we earnestly beseech and intreat our respective Congregations not to be affrighted at the bugbear word Antichristian or Popish But to examin Whether the Charge be true and to renounce whatsoever is truly Antichristian But to take heed that they be not frighted from Christ and from his Ordinances and Government Worship Ministery under the notion of renouncing Antichristianisme So much for the third consideration these three first considerations are more general We shall now apply our selves more punctually to the answer of the great Objection and desire it may be considered Consid. 4. In the fourth place That it hath pleased God out of his infinite Wisdom and providence to continue the two great Ordinances of Baptisme and Ordination found for the substantials of them in the Church of Rome even in their greatest apostacy We deny not but they have been exceedingly bemudded and corrupted Baptismâ— with very many superstitious ceremonies as of Oyl Spettle Crossings c. Ordination with giving power to the party Ordained to make the body of Christ c. But yet the Substantials have been preserved Children were Baptized with water in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost And the parties ordained had power given them to Preach the Word of God Now the Protestant Religion doth not teach us to renounce Baptisme received in the Church of Rome neither is a Papist when converted Protestant rebaptized Nor doth it teach us simply and absolutely to renounce Ordination but it deals with it as the Jewes were to do with a captive maid when they had a mind to marrie her They must shave her head and pare her nailes and put the raiment of â—er
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
are others that say That till the last Councel of Trent the Church of Rome remained a true Church for the essentials and substantials of it and then it ceased to be a true Church The Scripture saith That Antichrist sits in the Temple of God though he be no part of it as we have formerly said no more then Satan who had his seat in Pergamus was part of the Church of Pergamus But for our parts we conceive we are not at all forced by any thing that we have said to entermeddle with this Controversie For it doth not follow That because Ordination which is an Ordinance of Christ for the substance of it was preserved in the Church of Rome that therefore the Church of Rome is a true Church no more then it followeth That a Theefe having the goods of an honest man in his house which he hath stolen should thereupon be accounted a True man Surely The Theefe is still a theefe And so is Rome still the Mother of Harlots notwithstanding her possessing the Essentials of Ordination and Baptisme Even as Babylon of old A type of Rome was Babylon still and far from being the Church of God although it had the Vessels of the Temple with her So is the Church of Rome still an Antichristian Church The Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth although it hath had the Essentials of a true Ministry by Gods overruling providence continued in her 7. The Seventh and last consideration doth more immediately concern the Ministry of England and it consisteth of three branches 1. That the first conversion of the English Nation from Heathenisme unto Christiaâ—ity did not proceed from Româ— but from Hierusalem Mr. Fox and Dr. Iohn White have learnedly demonstrated out of Gildas and sundry other Authors who affirm that Britaine received the Gospel in the time of Tiberius the Emperour under whom Christ was crucified from some of the Apostles or some Apostolical men It is mostly received that Ioseph of Arimathea was sent by Philip from France to Britaine about the year 63. and laid the first foundation of the Christian faith amongst us To this Tertullian attesteth in his Book against the Iewes And therefore it is a falsity for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English Nation and no lesse absurdity for us to derive our succession from them 2. That the Churches of England in their first Plantation were rightly gathered and constituted as being planted by the Apostles or men Apostolical And that true Christianity after it's first settlement in Britaine was never wholy exâ—â—nguished but hath continued from the very first Plantation of it to this very day This Dr. VVhite proveth â—gainst the Papists in his way to the Church § 49. Where he sheweth That the Faith continued here from King Lucius to the coming of Austin the Monk whom Gregory sent hither 600. years after Christ who when he came found divers Britaine Bishops and learned men with a Monastery at Bangor who did oppose Arrianisme and Pâ—lagianisme and the pride of Austin the Popes Ambassador 3. That during the raign of Antichrist here in England God reserved unto himself many Thousands that never bowed their knees to Baal as appears in the Book of Martyrs And amongst otherâ— he raised up Mr. VVickliffe and made him a great and famous instrument of Church-reformation Our London Divines in their Appendix to the jus divinum of Church government prove out of good Authors that in this Church of England the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordinations of Ministers and other Ecclesiastical affairs were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England c. So that if the whole be well considered it will puzzle our Antiministerial adversaries to prove that the Church of England was beholding to the Church of Rome for either the first plantation after reformation or continuation of the Gospel Church and Ministry therein from the begining to this day We will conclude this consideration with the remarkable speeches of two New-England Ministers The first is Mr. Philips of Watertown who having proved That England was not beholden to Rome for its first conversion nor after reformation at last hath these words When it pleased God more fully to clear up the light of his Gospell in this Nation so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian and were made the first fruits unto God and the Lambe The Church-state was not essentially altered all this time nor were these first fruits unto God New constituted Churches but members of some Churches clearing themselves from corruption and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition into a more healthful and sound estate In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places especially after Luthers time yea even in England something by Henry the 8 th more by Edward the 6 th and Queen Elizabeth who did not constitute new Churches but reformed the Churches deeply degenerated from the first constitution and the pure state thereof as they did the like in the state of Iudah often sometimes better and more fully and sometimes not so fully in the dayes of the Judges David Asa Iehoshaphat Hezekiah Iosiah Ezra and Nehemiah The other is Mr. Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 7. Pag. III. where he saith Four things we observe in the State of the Churches in England which make way for Reformation amongst them First the Efficient instruments of their first plantation which were either Apostles or Apostolicall men whether Philip or Ioseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as any of our Countrymen may read in Mr. Foxe's Book of Acts and Monuments in the beginning of it next after the story of the ten persecutions out of Gildas Tertullian Origen Beda Nicephorus which being so we cannot but conceive the Churches in England were rightly gathered and planted according to the Rule of the Gospel and all the corruptions found in them since have sprung from Popish Apostacy in succeeding ages and from want of through and perfect purging out of that leaven in the late times of reformation in the dayes of our Fâ—therâ— So that all the work now iâ— not to make them Churcheâ— which were nonâ— before but to reduce and restore them to thâ—ir primitive institution c. And thus we have â—t lâ—st finished our several considerâ—tions in answer to thiâ— great Objection and shâ—ll here put an â—nd to our first Proposition to wit That the Call to the O ffice of the Ministry which some of our Ministerâ— did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lâ—wfull and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantiall dâ—fects We have proved it by arguments drawn from the principles of our adversaries and also from our owne principlâ—â— We have indeavoured to give full satisfaction to all the Objectionâ— that are brought against it We had thought to have given our people a summary recapitulation
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the greek-Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
already proved That Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called a Bishop of Ephesus in their sense It will not follow because Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus in 3. St. Johns dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle for St Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe For our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number Rev. 2.10 And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one So much for the first head of answers 2. But now in the second place Let us suppose it though we will not grant it That these Angels were Personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken Individually yet we conceive That this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause For 1. First Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth That by these words To the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the President as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church likewise But then he addeth But that Episcopal Degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetual President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligâ—rchical Tyranny whose head is the Antichâ—istian Beast now at length with â—he most certain ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest by which quotation it is evident that though Beza hâ—ld the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus presâ—s not Angâ—lus Princeps And that he was Praeses prâ— tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament To this effect do the Reverend Divines speak in their humble answer at the Isle of VVight where they say That these writings to the Angels are directed as Epistolary letters to Collective bodies usually are That is To one but intended to the body which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the Houâ—e of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person or if he were that therefore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least and so your Majestie hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators Secondly Dr Reynolds who hath written a letter in Print against the jâ—s divinum of Episcopacy acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart dial 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith That Presbyters when they met together for the carrying on of the affairs of the Church by common Councel and consent chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth The Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know From which saying we may safely conclude That though we should grant which yet we do not that this Angel is a single person yet it will not at all help the Episcopal Hierarchy For this Angel is but a Moderator of the Presbytery having no superiority of power either in Ordination or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is himself also a Presbytery and for ought appears to the contrary from the judgment of Dr. Reynolds a Moderator onely pro tempore Which kind of government is purely Presbyterial and not at all Episcopal much lesse as some would have it even from this text Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical But it is objected by some learned men That the Seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation unto the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them And that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops To this we answer 1. That it will hardly be proved that these Seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in St. Iohnâ— dayes And the situation of the most of them lying near together by the Sea side makes it very improbable 2. But suppose it would yet we answer 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferr the greatnesse of the Churches For though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 2. We do not believe that ever it can be proved That the Apostles did model the government of the Church according to the government of the Roman State This was the after-policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolical policy And therefore it doth not follow That because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of these seven Cities That therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to these seven Asian Churcheâ— 3. We are fully assured That it can never be made out That any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven starrs are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches If this opinion were true Then Tertullian did noâ— do well in saying That St. Iohn made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said That he made him Arch-Bishop And our Saviour Christ had not given unto these seven Angels their due Titles For he must have written To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other Six Surely this device was found out for the honour of Archiepiscopacy by some that did aspire unto that dignity But we hope that our more moderate Brethren are far from stamping a divinum jus upon Archbishops and Primâ—tes and Patriarchs for fear lest by the same proportion of reason they be forced to put a divine stamp at last upon the Pope himself And therefore we forbear to say any more about it For the conclusion of this discourse about the Asian Angels we shall add 4. That it can never be proved That these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Prelatical sence much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could lose their Apostleship Had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more parted with their power of Governing then they did in setting up Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the office of teaching c. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commitâ— the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in ordinary in his own hands who took his last farewell of them as never to see them more As the reserving of that part of the power of Governme nt called Legislative in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties judgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops at Ephesus and Creet to whom the Apostle gives rules for ordering and governing the Church So likewise there is no reason why the Apostle reserving of that part of the power of Government called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought m eet should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at first then that they never did There is a third answer given which is quite contrary to the second and that is that these Bishops of Philippi were Bishops in a proper sence and that at that time when the Apostle wrote his Epistle there were no single Presbyters at Philippi 1. This answer is quite contrary to the sence that Hierom Theodoret and Theophylacts and others give of this text 2. This answer supposeth that there were more Bishops then one planted in one City by the Apostles which is quite contrary to the judgment of Episcopall divines and quite destructive of the Episcopal Hierarchy Theodoret sayth that the Apostles by Bishops understands single Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Otherwise it had been impossible for many Bishops to go vern one City And so also Theophylact The Apostle calls Presbyters Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there were not many Bishops in one City And the truth is To affirm That there were many Bishops in one City in the Apostles dayes is in plain English to grant the cause and to say That the Apostolicall Bishops were mere Presbyters 3. Another text brought by us to prove the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter was 1. Tim. 3. where the Apostle reckoning up the qualifications of a Bishop passeth from Bishops unto Deaconâ— leaving out the qualifications of Presbyters there by giving us to understand that Presbyters and Bishops are all one To this it is answered That because Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus who were Bishops therefore there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of officers then such as belonged to their Ordination and inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons onely and no Bishops 1. This answer would have some weight in it if it could be proved That Timothy and Titus were Bishops in a forâ—all sence or if there could be found any rule for the Ordination of an Hierarchicall Bishop or for the qualification of him in some other place of Scripture but we are sure that neither the one nor the other can be made out 2. It is reasonable to think as our Divines at the Isle of Wight say the Apostle when he passeth immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon in the place forementioned would have distinctly exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whether the Bishop over Presbyters or the Presbyter Bishop to have avoided the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the Eschocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house 3. According to the judgement of Episcopal men as our divines do well observe Bishops might then have ordained Bishops like themselves for there was then no Canonâ— forbidding one single Bishop to Ordain another of his own rank and there being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this answer fights against the principle of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops 4. This answer is opposite to all those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been made by the Apostle Arch-Bishops of Ephâ—sus and Crâ—â—tâ— If they were Arch-Bishops then their Office was to constitute Bishops in a proper sence There is one of no little note among our Prelatical Brethren that stoutly maintains this and till our Brethren be reconciled among themselves we need make no other reply to this answer 5. Whereas out of 1 Pet. 5. we proved That the Elderâ— are not onely called Bishops but have the whole Episcopal power committed unto them being commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feed and take the Episcopal charge of the flock of God To this it is said That by Elders are meant Bishops in our Brthrens sense Because These Elders are required to feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as being Lords over Gods heritage So it is translated But say some it must be translated Not as being Lords â—ver the Clergy committed to your care which hints unto us say they That these Elders were Bishops over Presbyters and not meer Presbyters This Interpretation is Novel and not to be found for ought we can discern in all Antiquity and we believe our more Moderate Brethren are ashamed of it and therefore we will be very brief in answer to it All that we shall say is 1. That though after the Apostles dayes there came in this Nominal distinction between the people and their Ministers insomuch as the people were called Laici and their Ministrs Clerici yet it is evident that in the Apostles dayes there was no such distinction The people of God are in this very Epistle called an holy Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 and a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 And Deut. 32.9 The Lords portion and the lot of his inheriâ—ance And if the Reader wil be pleased to view al the translations that have been of this text he will never find it translated As being Lords of the Clergy but as being Lords of Gods heritage 2. We answer That the Apostle as if on purpose he had intended to have fore-armed us against this misunderstanding of the words in the latter clause of the verse he sheweth what he maeneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as Lords over Gods heritage but as being ensamples to the flock The latter is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the sense of the whole verse can be no other but this That the Elders be careful not to
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
Digby recorded in a letter of his full of excellent learning writen to Sr. Kenelme Digby This Gentleman was a great adorer of Monarchical Episcopacy and yet observe what he saith He that would reduce the Church now to the form of government in the most Primitive timeâ— should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a form not chosen for 〈◊〉 best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forc'd the Church from what it wish't to what it might not suffering that dignity and state Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it to manifest it self to the world and which soon afterwards upon the least lucida intervalla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy of which way of government I am so well perswaded that I think it pitty it was not made betimes an Article of the Scottish Catechisme That Bishops are jure Divino By this passage it is easie to perceive the indiscreet zeal of this Gentleman towards Lordly and Monarchical Prelacy and yet we have here his free clear and full confession That in the first and best and purest times of the Church the Presbyterian government was practised and not the Episcopal which is the thing which we undertook to make out in this third Proposition Against all thâ—t hath been said in this Proposition it is objected That the Blessed St. Ignatius who lived in the first Century hath in his Epistles clearly and fully asserted Episcopal government as it is distinct from Presbyterial And that therefore there was no space of time wherein the Church ofChrist was governed by the common Councel of Preâ—byters without Bishops properly so called In answer to this we must intreat the Reader to take notice that in the Primitive times there were abundance of spurious and supposititious works put forth under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs which were none of theirs but fatherâ—d upon them ut ementitis titulis fidem authoritatemque erroribus suis â—onciliarent That by their counterfect titles they might gain belief and authority to their errors Such were the Epistle of Paul to Seneca and Seneca's to Paul The lawes and constitutions Apostolical The works of Dionysius Arâ—opagita and divers others The like fraud hath been used in Ignatius his works It is certain That the Epistle of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Ignatius and of Ignatius to the Blessed Viâ—gin and two other Epistles of Ignatius unto St. Iohn the Apostle are spurious and counterfeit And as for his other twelve Epistles five of them are by invincible arguments as we conceive proved by Vedelius to be written by à Pseudo-Ignatius Eusebius and Ierom make mention but of Seven And for those seven though with Scultetus Vedelius and Rivetus we do not renounce them as none of hiâ— yet sure we are they are so much adulterated and corrupted that no man can ground any solid assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius his works The Reverend Archbishop of Armagh saith That there are but six of these Epistles that are genuine and that even these six are miserably depraved and corrupted Rivet saith very judiciously That in these Epistles some things are defective some things added some things changed And therefore they cannot merit oisr belief but onely in those things in which thâ—y agree with the Apostolical writings Baronius indeed saith that all his Epistles are come to us integrae inâ—orruptae intire and uncorrupted But yet notwithstanding it seems forgetting what he had said he tells That when there is mention made in the Epistle to the Philadelphians of the marriages of Pâ—ter and Paul That the word Paul iâ— foysted in And he also tells us as Vedelius observes That the words Gratia and Amâ—â— with which Ignatius was wont to conclude his Epistles were left out incuria librariorum in all his Epistles except two And whereas it is said in the Epistle to the Philadelphians That not onely the bread was given but the cup also was distributed to all Bellarminâ— saith That the Greek Copâ—es are corrupt For our parts we will not trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject If he please he may read that what thâ— Archbishop of Armagh what â—ivet Vedelius and Cook in his Censura Patrum And what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles There is a learned Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the objectionâ— of the two last But this Doctor should do well to answer also to what the learned Archbishop of Armagh hâ—th written about these Epistles who proves at large That six of them are Nothae the other six Mixtae and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincâ—rae gâ—nuinae Who also tellâ— us out of Casaubâ—nâ— That amongst all the Ecclesiâ—stical monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence then in Ignatius his Epistles That Baronius in his first Tome almost in every page cites Ignaâ—ius to confirm his Popish traditions In the Second Tome Anno. 109. he confesseth and disputeth it at large That these Epistles are the very Tower of the Pontifician doctrine and that it stands upheld by them as by a pillar and he often saith That there was never any found who called the truth of these Epistles into question c. And therefore this Reverend Doctor ought not to be offended if we advise him to take heed how he complies with Baronius in justifying of Ignatius from all depravations and interpolations left out of overmuch love of Prelacy he be found an advancer of Popery We shall briefly offer three Reasons why we cannot build our judgment concerning the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Episcopacy upon Ignatius his Epistles Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theoâ—oret which are either not to be found in their Epistles or to be found altered and changed and not according as they are quoted This is Rivets argument and pursued at lâ—rge by the Archbishop to whom we refer the Reader From his overmuch extolling himself in his Epistle to the Trallians where he saith That he had attained such a measure of knowledge That he understood heavenly things The Orders of Angels The differences of Archangels and of the heavenly Host The differences between Powers and Dominations The distances of Thrones and Powers The magnificencies or magnitudeâ— of Aeâ—nes or Principalities The sublimity of the Spirit The excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims The Kingdom of the Lord and the incomparable divinity of the Lord God
Almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such Arrogant boasting can proceed from such a holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was The third Reason which is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacy were not upheld and with such multiplied repetitions ad nauseam usque That we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supposititias esse vel foedè corruptas And that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such a holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them In his Epistle to the Trallians he saith What is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principalitie and authority beâ—ond all as much as is possible for men to be possest of being made an imitator according to thâ— power of Christ who is God He that can find in these words an Apostolical Spirit breathing hath little acquaintance with the Apostolical writings How unlike is this to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe In the same Epistle he saith Reverence the Bishop as yeâ— do Christ at the holy Apostles have commanded But where is this commanded In his Epistle to the Magnâ—sians He saith It becomes you to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him For it is a terrible thing to contradict him And again As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father So must you do nothing without your Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Lâ—y man Let nothing seem right and equal to you that is contrary to his judgment For that that is such is wicked and â—nmity to God In his Epistle to Polycarpe It becomes those that marry and are married not to marry without the consent of the Bishop And again my soul for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In his Epistle to the Philadelphians Let the Princes obey the Emperour the Souldiers the Princes The Deacons and the rest of the Clergy with all the people and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop Observe here how the Princes and Emperours are enjoyned to obey the Bishop when there were not at this time nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Christian In his Epistle to the Smyrâ—enses he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King But I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things And the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God Of God for his Principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the salvation of the whole world c. and afterwards He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured by God and he that injur's him shall be punished by God And if he be justly thought worthy of punishment that riseth up against Kings and is therein a violator of good Lawes Of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy that will undertake to do any thing without his Bishop thereby breaking concord and overturning good Order c. We need not paraphrase upon these passages Onely we desire the Reader in the fear of God to passe sentence whether these high and supertranscendent expressions This prelation of Bishops above Kings do savour of the first Primitive times or can be imagined to proceed from Blessed Ignatius even then when he was in bonds and ready to be Martyred In the same Epistle he saith Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father Let no man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop Let that Eucharist be allowed on which is done by the Bishop or by his concession c. It is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or offer c. That which he approves on is accepted of God and whatsoever is so done is safe and firm It is right that God and the Bishop be known He that honours the Bishop is honoured of God He that doth any thing without first consulting with the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Worshipper of the Divel If this Doctrine be true what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as Ioannes Major saith lib. 2. hystoria de gâ—stis Scotorum cap. 2. was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230. years without Episcopal government We will not cite any more passages of this nature These are sufficient to justifie that censure which the Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their humble answer to the second Paper delivered them by his Majestie at the Isle of Wight do passe upon Ignatius where they say That there are great arguments drawn out of these Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronius and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rights and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter That which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy names The considerations of these things makes Salmasius to believe that these Epistles were written by a Pseâ—do-Ignatius at that very time when Episcopacy properly so called came into the Church that so the people who had been accustomed to the Presbyterian government might the more willingly and easily receive this new government and not be offended at the novelty of it And this he the rather thinkes Because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of the Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy For in the Epistle to the Trallenses He bids them be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ. And a little after he calleâ— the Preâ—bytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the sâ—me Epistle he saith That the Colledge of the Presbyters is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which passage must needs be understood of the second Primitive times For afterwards the Presbytery was much neglected and laid aside as Ambrose complaines upon 1 Tim. 5. We will conclude our discourse concerning the The Epistles of Ignaâ—ius with a remarkable saying of Riveâ— in his Critica sacra We are ready to ascâ—ibe to the genuine writings of the Fâ—thers as much as
grounded upon a Ius Divinum but upon prudential reasons and arguments And the chief of them was as Hierom and divers after him say in remedâ—â—m Schismatis ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out of the Church Now that this prudential way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appeares as Smectymnuus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles daies there were divisions Rom. 16.17 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiâ—â—t inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestâ— fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are manifest amongst you may be removed 2. Because the Holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into the saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth history and our own experience Hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 Titus 1.5 1 Pet. 5.1 that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he addes But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elderâ— of the Church as Hierome saith Schismes arose and aâ— I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one among the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in a higher degree and called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth That if Hierome and others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schismes as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast and destroy the former Ministry that fed the flock Thus far Musculus Sadeel also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a gate they opened to the ambition of Bishopâ— Hence also Dr. Whiâ—akers asking How came in the inequality between Bishops and Presbyters answereth out of Hierome That the Schisme and faction of some occasioned the ancient Government to be changed which saith he how ever devised at first for a remedy against Schisme yet many holy and wise men have judged it more pernicious then the disease it self and although it did not by and by appear yet miserable experience afterward shewed it First ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his chair and brought the yoak of bondage upon the neck of the Church The sense of these mischiefs made Nazianzâ—n wish not onely that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place but also that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no principal dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking But now saith he Contentions about the right hand and the left about the higher and the lower place c. have bred many inconveniencies even among Ministers that should be Teachers in Israel Proposition 6. THat there is a widâ— and vast difference between the Bishops of the Primitive times and the Bishops of later times as much as between ancient Rome and Rome at this day A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter or Episcopus Praeses as a Moderator in a Church-Assembly or a Speaker in a Parliament that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum and had neither power of Ordination nor of Jurisdiction but in common with his Presbyters Ambrose upon the 1 Tim. 3. saith That there is one and the same Ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Dr. Reynolds saith That when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Gost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serve Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospel is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop So the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual language of of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders From which quotation it appeares that in the judgment of learned Dr. Reynold A Bishop at his first appearing was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President or Moderator of the Presbytery D. Blondel a man of vast Reading indeavours strenuously to make it out That when Episcopacy first came up in the Church the custome was to choose the Eldest of the company of the Presbyters whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the first of those that were ordained to be their Bishop or Moderator And after his decease the next in age succeeded him not advanced in degree of Ministry or power above his Brethren but onely in order and dignity as being the first Presbyter This opinion is agreeable to that passage out of St. Ambrose if that Book be his where he saith Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recâ—dente uno sequenâ— ei succederet Sed quia ceperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad Primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio ut
non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episâ—opum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temâ—re usurparet esset multis scandalum Iâ— lege nascebantur Sacâ—rdotes ex genere Aaron Leviâ—ae c. Whether this conjecture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be true or no or whether as others think it was true in some Churches and not in others we will not now debate But sure we are that in Alexandria as St. Ierom tells us The Bishop was chosen not onely out of the Presbytery but by the Presbytery and by them constituted Bishop and placed in excelsiâ—ri gradu in an higher degree of honour not Office He was not made by 3. Bishops Sed Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiore grâ—an collocatuâ— Episcopum nominabant Indeed afterwards in processe of time This Epâ—scopus Pâ—aeses came to be Episcopus Princeps and usurped sinfully upon the priviledges of Ministers and people and made way for the coming in of Antichrist Famous is that so often mentined in several writings in this age saying of Ambrose upon 1 Tim. 5 1 Vnde Synagoga postâ—a Ecclesia Seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod quâ negligentiâ obsolevâ—rat nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ— aut magis superbiâ dum volunt aliguid videri From hence came that distinction of Beza's between Episcopus divinus humanus and Diabolicus By the divine Bishop he means the Presbyter by the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his own will and authority And therefore when men argue from the practise of the Primitive times and from the Bishops of those dayes to the Bishops of our dayes they do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit a fallacy just as if a man should argue That the Church of Rome is now a true Church because it was so in the Apostles dayes For the further handling of this proposition we refer the Reader to Smâ—ctymâ—â—us where he shall have many pages spent to prove the imparity between the Bishops of the Primitive times and our dayes Onely we shall crave leave to relate a passage from a Reverend Divine now with God who holdeth forth this assertion That the ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist then from the Presbyterian This he proveth Because The Presbyterians alwayes have â— President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual dâ—rante vitâ â—â—do sâ— benâ— gâ—sseriâ— or temporary to avoid inconvenience Which Bilson in his preface again and again in his Book of the Perp. government takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintainâ— But now the high Prelatists excluâ—e a Presbytery â—s having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphaere of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher Order whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery and in divers cases Councels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them And so it is clear The high Prelatistâ— are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Prebyterians Afterwards he also adds If we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them consider in how many thingâ— we jumpe with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practise as 1. touching promiscuous dancing especially upon the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes all Pluralities 3. Frequency and diligence in Preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health-drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intanling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of state in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others Proposition 7. THat the great argument that is brought for Episcopacy from the lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles daies to our dâ—â—eâ— hath not that validity in it that is imagined Bishop Bilson and others â—ake a great deal of pains to give us a Catalogue of the Bishops in Rome Alâ—xandria Hierusalem and Antioch from the Apostles daies unto Constantine's time But we desire the Reader to consider First That these Catalogues labour much of an Homonymy in the word Bishop For the Bishops of later times were Bishops of a fâ—r different nature from the Bishops of the first times Though the same name be common to all in the Catalogue yet in the nature of their Office they differed very much The later peece by peece taking that authority to theâ— which the former neither might nor did â—njoy The later were Diocesan the former were Bishopâ— onely of one Congregation At first the Churches were governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters and the line of succession was drawn saith D. Bloâ—del from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that iâ— the first Ordained Minister Even â—s amongst the Athenianâ— there were 9. Archontes or chief Rulerâ— equal in power and authority and yet the succession of Governours in Athens was desiâ—ed from one of them onâ—ly who wâ—â— the first Arâ—bon or Ruler which was not done to diminish the â—â—thority of the â—est sed ut compendiâ—sioâ—â—â— minus 〈…〉 But that the enumerâ—â—iâ—n of the 〈◊〉 of their successive Governourâ— might 〈…〉 compendious and expedite Even so at first there were divers Presbyters in every City which did govern with equal power and authority and yet the line and succession was deduced from one who was the first of those that were ordained not thereby incroaching upon the joynt authority of the rest but for the more expedite way of reckoning And when afterwards one was chosen out of the Presbytery he was for a long time but as the Moderator of a Synod amongst the Scotch and Dutch and at most but as a Superintendent amongst the Germaâ—s of whom Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. saith That they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are only presidentâ— while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their Prerogative ceaseth They have no prerogative over their fellow-Ministers they are subject to their Presbyteries The Synod ended they return to the care of their particular Churches Secondly That these Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles daies are the more â—ncerâ—in and indeed contradictory one unto another Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore as Ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
subjungit vâ—rba Alii â—amen non minorâ—s authoritatis existimant Chorâ—piscopos fuisse tantùm Presbyteros Ita expresse sentit Ayala de traditionibus Ecclesiasticis 3. part Consideratione 4. ubi haâ—c râ—m ex prâ—fâ—ssâ— disputat noster Franciscus Turrianus in annotationibus ad Consilium Nicaenum Can. 54. â—it Ordinâ—m Chorepiscoporum non fuisse nisi Presbyterorum tantùm eandem sententiam sequuntur docti aliqui recâ—ntiores c. Porro Damasum duo illa genera Chorepiscoporum minimè distinxisse sed de omnibus etiam illis quoruâ— mâ— minit Concilium Antiochenum pronunciasse veros non esse Episcopos ita ut si Presbyteri essâ— nollent nihil omâ—ino essent probat ex instituto Ayala loce citato Potestque ex ipso Damaso sâ—aderi Nunquam dicit Damasus hos Chorepiscopos diversos esse à prioribus aut verè Episcopos esse imo verò ex professo probat licet à pluribus consecrati verè tamen Episcopos non esse Haec Vasquez So much of this argument A second Argument to prove That it was not held unlawful in Antiquity for Presbyters to Ordain may be drawn from the opinion of the Schoolmen and Canonists during the prevalency not onely of Episcopacy but even of Papal Tyranny For it is a received opinion in the Church of Rome That the Pope may by his Commission authorize a single Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters he cannot say they commissionate a Lay-man but he may a Presbyter Mr. Francis Mason citeâ— many Authors to attest this The Author of the Glosse saith Diâ—o quod Papa potest hoc delegare simpliâ—i Sacerdotâ— non Laico sicut credo sic ex tali delegatione adminiculo habiti Sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Imo quilibet Clâ—ricus hoc facere potest qui verâ— non habet non potest conferre Rosâ—llus also saith Vâ—lunt Doctores quod Papa potest committere cuilibet Clerico ut conferat quae babet ipse ut si est Presbyter possit Ordinare Presbyterum Diaconus Diaconum ex manâ—ato Papae And again Ego teneo quod Papa possit demandare Presbyterâ— quod conferat omnâ—s sacros Ordines in hoc 〈◊〉 cum sentenâ—ia Canonistarum Dr. Forbes brings also many quotations to this purpose some of which we shall recite as being very observable Panormitaâ—â—â— saith Ego potiuâ— pâ—tarem ut Sacerdoti hoc possit delegare indistinctè quia 〈◊〉 de Sacrâ—â—â—nto Eucharistiâ— sit dispositâ—m institutione Domiâ—icâ— quâ— haâ—â—ant illud administrare hoc tamen non est dispositum in collationâ— Ordinum Nam olim Presbyteri in commâ—ni râ—gebaâ— Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes Vndâ— quemadmodum olim poterant ita videtur quòd Papa possit hoc concedere Sacerdoti maximè delegando quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio In decretalibus Gregorii 9. de consuetudine cap. 4. c. It is said Dico quod Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti et non Laico sicut credo et sic ex tali delegatione et in adminiculo habiti sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Very remarkable is that passage in Petrus Aureolus in quartum Sent. Distinct. 24. In habente animam rationalem quandoque impeditur â—ctus rationis et postea removetur impedimentum non datur nova anima vel forma sed tantum removetur illud quod impediebat prius animam nâ— exiret in actum rationis Sed Ordinare in Sacerdotem est actus conveniens Sacerdoti in quantum Sacerdos est tantùm est actus impeditus in â—o Probo Quia nemo dat quod non habet sicut in naturalibus ubi forma transfundit seipsam Ergo non Sacerdotis non est ordinare in Sacerdotem sed hoc pertinet ad Sacerdotem qui habet formam illam in actu potentem transfundere seipsam Vnde Papa non posseâ— Ordines committere nisi Sacerdoti ut Diacono vel Laico Potest autem committere cuicunque Sacerdoti Ergo videtur quod conferre Ordines sit pertinens ad Sacerdotem Probo Quia Pone quod sit Sacerdos omni alio circumscripto potest Papa committere â—i Ordines Pone autem alia omnia circumscribe Sacerdotium non poterit Papa committere potestatem Ordinandi Hoc videtur satis rationale quia omnis forma ex quo est in actu videtur quod possit se communicare infra eandem speciem apud Capreolum est in eandem speciem ergo Sacerdos hoc modo quantum est ex potestate sibi conveniente absolutè poterit Ordines celebrare Ergo si potestas â—lla modo sit impedita sicut est de facto impedimentum removeatur per hoc quod fit Episcopus Non datur â—i Nova potestas sed tantummodo pristina potestas prius impedita reducitur ad usum impedimento remoto haec reductio illius potestatis ad usum dicitur ampliatio potestatis Hac Aureolus From these two arguments and the quotations alledged we may safely gather these conclusions 1. That there was a time when Presbyters did govern by Common Councel and did Ordain without Bishops So saith Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam Ordinabant Sacerdotes 2. That whole Nations have been converted to the faith and governed for hundreds of years without Bishops This Conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel Sect. 3. de Ordinationibus where he tells us That Ioannes Major de gestis Scotorum lib. 2. cap. 2. saith Per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi That Ioannes Fordonius saith Ante Palladiâ— adventum habâ—bant Scoti fidei Doctoros ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodò vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesia Primitivae The Scots were Christians 220. years and more without Episcopal Government The like he proves of the Gothes and French For brevity sake we refer the Reader to the Author himself 3. That in Aegypt when the Bishop was absent Presbyters did consecrate 4. That in Alexandria for almost 200. years the Presbyters constituted and Ordained their Bishop 5. That though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in Ordaining was restrained yet it was the judgment of Antiquity That every Presbyter hath actum primum and an inward power to Ordain and that though his power was impedited by the Canons yet it was not utterly extinguished 6. That when a Presbyter is made a Bishop he hath no new power conferred upon him but onely his former restraints and impediments are removed as saith Aureolus 7. That the Chorâ—piscopi for a certain space did Ordain of their own authority without receiving authority from the Bishop Afterwards though they were meer Presbyters yet notwithstanding by the leave of Councels had liberty with the Bishops licence to Ordain 8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to Ordain From whence saith Dr. Forbes it evidently followeth
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