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
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
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
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
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
ISA. 66.21 I will also take of them for Priests and for Levites saith the Lord. EPHES. 4.8 11 12 13. When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. HEB. 5.4 5. And no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee 1 TIM 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery LUTH Tom. 4. Lat. Ien. fol. 19. Non fortunat Deus labores eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry Divided into two Parts The first Part containing A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in general The Necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of hands The Vnlawfulnesse of private mens â—ssuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawfull Call and Ordination The second Part containing A Justification of the present Ministers of England both such as were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy frâ—m the â—oul aspeâ—sion of Antichristianism And those who have been Ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty Proving that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture-Patern Together with an Appendix wherein the Iudgement and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed Published by the Provincial Assembly of London LONDON Printed by Iohn Legat and Abraham Miller 1654. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER IT is reported of Bucer that he was so eager of Peace with Luthâ—r that he was like to a man Qui prae nimia aviditate etiam foeces haurireâ— who by an overmuch greediness after Unity was ready to swallow down many of Luthers errours For our parts Though we should be loath to buy Peace with the loss of Truth yet such have been the unexpressible mischiefs that the divisions of Brethren have brought upon this Nation and such is our earnest desire after an happy Accommodation that we hope we can truly close â—hough not with the former yet with another saying of Bucers That we would willingly purchase with the losse of our lives the removing of the infinite scandals that have been given to the Churches of Christ by the divisions of Christians Eusebius reports of Constantine though a great Emperour That he was more troubled with the dissentions of the Church then with all the warres in his Dominions That he took them so to heart that he could not sleep quietly for them yea although he had a spiritfull of heroick valâ—ur yet the dissentions of the Church were such evils to him as to cause him to shed many a tear c. Our prayer to God is that the same affection towards the Churches of Christ in these three Nations may be kindled in all our brests And We doubt not but through the grace of God We are able in Sincerity to profess with Luther That we are as desirous to imbrace Peace and Concord as We are desirous to have the Lord Iesus to be propitious to us And therefore fore-seeing that this ensuing Treatise will meet with many Adversaries of different Perswasions and with much opposition We thought fit to give the Reader notice of our intentions here lest We should be thought to be enemies to Peace and hinderers of that long desired and often praied for Union between dissenting Brethren There are six sorts and ranks of men whom We have occasion to deal with in this Book 1. Such as are against the very Office of the Ministery and that affirm That there is no such Office instituted by Christ to be perpetual in his Church We look upon this Assertion as destructive unto Christian Religion and to the souls of Christians 2. Such as say That it is lawfull for any men that suppose themselves gifted though neither Ordained nor approved by able men to assume unto themselves a power to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments This Opinion We judge to be the high-way to all Disorder and Confusion an inlet to Errours and Heresies and a Door opened for Priests and Jesuites to broach their Popish and Antichristian Doctrine 3. Such as hold That the Ministry of England is Antichristian That our Churches are no true Churches but Synagogues of Satan and that there is no Communion to be held with us This Opinion We conceive to be not only false and uncharitable but contradictory to Peace and Unity 4. Such as say That Episcopacy is an higher Order of Ministry above Presbytery by Divine Right That Christ hath given the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction unto Bishops And that Ordination of Ministers is so appropriated to them by the Gospel that all Ordinations by single Presbyters are null and void and that Sacraments by them administred are no Sacraments These Assertions We look upon not only â—s groundlesse and unscriptural but as cruel and utterly overthrowing all the Protestant Reformed Churches and Ministers Now though We hope We can truly say that We have with all Meekness and Christian Moderation managed the Debate with these four sorts of Adversaries and shall be ready to exercise all Offices of Christian Love and Affection towards them and by requiting good for evil labour to heap coals of fire upon their heads yet notwithstanding such is the great Distance between Them and Us in Judgement and Practice and such is the bitternesse of their Spirits in their Opposition against Us that We have little hope for the present till the Lord be pleased to work a happy change of Judgment in them of any real and hearty Accord and Agreement with them 5. A fifth sort are our Reverend Brethren of New and Old-England of the Congregational way who hold Our Churches to be true Churches and Our Ministers true Ministers though they differ from Us in some lesser things We have been necessitated to fall upon some things wherein they and We disagree and have represented the Reasons of Our Dissent But yet We here profess That this Disagreement shall not hinder Us from any Christian Accord with them in Affection That We can willingly write upon Our Study-doors that Motto which Mr Ieremiah Burroughes who a little before his Death did ambitiously indeavour after Union amongst Brethren as some of
assistances are so farre inferiour that they may attend the special service of God without distraction Have not the Ministers now as much need as Timothy then to give attendance to reading as well as unto exhortation and doctrine to meditate upon these things and give themselves wholly to them that their profiting may appear to all that so they may save themselves and them that hear them 4. Not only wholly to minde this work in private but in publike to Preach the Word to be instant in season and out of season Rebuke exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine With meeknesse they must instruct those that oppose themselves They must labour even to weariness in the Word and Doctrine They must be willing to spend and to be spent upon the Service of the faith of the people A necessity is laid upon them to preach the Gospel the neglect whereof involves them in a Woe If they doe it willingly they have a reward and if not yet a Dispensation is committed to them 5. Not only to preach the Word but also to administer the Sacraments 6. And also to ordain others into the work of the Ministry Of which more hereafter In all these works not to feed themselves but to feed the Flock to look not only to their lives but to their doctrine to watch not only for their own souls but for the souls of others 7. They are commanded so to watch over the Flock as those that must give an account 8. They are commanded to take heed to themselves and to their doctrine not only how they live but how they teach that they may edifie both by living and teaching and though they meet with many discouragements unfruitfulnesse in some and unkinde oppositions from others yet they must continue in these things and persist in their work when they have laid their hands to this Plough they must not look back but must persevere to speak the things which become sound Doctrine to preach the Word to be instant in season and out of season to reprove rebuke and exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine The fifth Argument is drawn From the peculiar distinct duties enjoyned the people in reference to their Teachers If the Lord requires peculiar distinct duties from the people in reference to their Teachers then this Office is by Divine Institution But the Lord requires peculiar distinct duties in the People in reference to their Minister c. 1. To know and acknowledge them such as are over them in the Lord. 2. To remember their guides who have spoken unto them the Word of God We are prone to forget our duty towards them God is sensible of this sin and gives out these commands to cure this forgetfulnesse 3. Highly to esteem them and that in love and this also for their works sake Though the Saints are not to esteem or think of them above what is meet yet this esteem must not be vulgar as that which is only common to ordinary men and believers When the â—nthankful world despise the Ministers the Saints are obliged to account them worthy of double honour and to esteem them highly very highly and abundantly This high degree of esteem must be in love for if we love the Embassage and the Lord who sends the glad tidings of Salvation How beautifull then are the feet of his Embassadours This esteem of them in love must be for tâ—eir works sake Now if this work was not of God he would never give so many injunctions to honour these work-men But this work of the Ministry in reconciling sinners to God is so stupendious that the Angels with admiration desire to look into these things And in the dispensation of this mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God is made known by the Church not only to men buâ— to Cherubins and Seraphims Principalities and powers in Heavenly places the manifold wisedom of God 4. To obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves unto them 5. To encourage them that they may do their work with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable to the Flock as uncomfortable to the Pastour 6 To maintain them He that is taught in the Word must communicate to him that teacheth in all good things Why doth the holy Ghost spend almost a whole Chapter upon this Subject and after many arguments why doth the Apostle make that appeal Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they that wait aâ— the Altar are partakers with the Alâ—ar And whereas some might say This practise is Mosaicall and fit for the Jewish Priesthood but not for Gospel-times He prevents this Objection and asserts as a Divine Institution that God hath thus ordained that they which preach the Gospel shoâ—ld live of the Gospel But this doctrine of the maintenance of Ministers hath been of late so largely and solâ—dly asserted by several able pens that we shall not need to sâ—y any more about it But no wonder that those which would take away and detain the maintenance should also be willing to deny the Office They that take away the Oyl would break the Lamp in sunder as a thing uselesse and unnecessary Object But some may say the Apostles did work with labour and travell night and day that they might not be chargeable Doth not Paul himself appeal to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Yea you your selves know that these have ministred to my necessities and if the Apostles laboured and had no maintenance though they were extraordinary why should not other ordinary Ministers labour and why is their maintenance a duty necessary We answer 1. This travell with their own hands for a subsistence was a peculiar case of Pâ—ul and Barnabas and was not the practise of the other Apostleâ— for Paul saith I only and Barnabas have not we power to forbear working as the other Apostles and Brethren of the Lord and Cephas 2. When they refused to receive maintenance this refusal was upon especiall occasion As 1. Either the Churches extream necessities the daies of danger and exigencies of the Saints In such case though marriage was lawfull I suppose it is good for the present distresse I say it is good for a man to forbear marriage and so Paul did both forbear marrâ—age and also refused maintenance but none can conclude from hence the marriage of Ministers is unlawfull or their maintenance unneedfull Or 2. This refusall of maintenance was in case of scandall when false Teachers had crept into the Church of Corinth who boasted of themselves and their own doctrine and that they would Preach the Gospel freely and so cried down Paul and his Ministry therefore in this case Paul preached the Gospel freely I was chargeable saith he to no man and in
all opposition especially upon this ground that they had their commission from God and his immutable promise for protection Isa. 49.1 2 3 4 5. Isa. 51.16 Ier. 26.14 15. But no where hath God made any such promise to those that intrude themselves into this work but threatens to be against them as hath been declared The Angels of God have a charge to keep us in our waies Psal. 91. but they that go out of them may fear the portion â—f the sonnes of Sceva the Jew Act. 19.15 that they be beaten by the evil spirit they undertake to cast out 3. Success in respect of the weighty ends of the Ministry the principall the glory of God the secondary the conversion and salvation of souls How is it possible that he who intrudes himself into the work of the Ministry should glorifie God in the work since God is honoured only in his own waies and means and therefore cannot be glorified when his waies are not observed To obey is better then sacrifice saith the Prophet and to hearken then the fat of Rams Christ glorified not himself to be made an High-priest such therefore as assume the Ministry glorifie themselves and not God Neither is there any promise made neither is it to be expected that he who assumes this work of the Ministry without a Call should ever become the instrument of the conversion and edification of souls Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the preaching of such as are sent Rom. 10.14 17. but unsent Preachers have the curse of God upon their labours that they shall not profit the people at all Ier. 23.32 Luther hath a good saying to this purpose Deus non fortunat labores corum qui non sunt vocati quamvis salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant that is God doth not prosper their labours who are not called and though they preach some profitable truths yet do they not profit the people Hence it comes to pass that they that hear uncalled Preachers fall i nto so many errours as a just punishment of God upon them according to that the Apostle saith 2 Tim. 4.3 4. For the time will come that they will not indure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables Gods blessing of conversion is promised only to his own Ordinance which they cannot expect who either by preaching without a Call or hearing such as so preach do overthrow Thirdly There is no one approved example recorded in Scripture of any one not being Sent and Called either immediatly or mediatly by God especially in a constituted Church that undertook this work of preaching or any other work appropriated by God to the Ministry And thus we have also finished this second Chapter and sufficiently and clearly proved as we suppose That it is unlawfull for any man not lawfully called and set apart to the Office of a Minister to undertake and intrude upon the work of Preaching appropriated by God to that Office CHAP. VI. Answering the Arguments brought for the Preaching of men out of Office IN this Chapter we shall give Answers to the chief and main Arguments produced by such as maintain this unwarrantable practice of Preaching by men out of Office for though a Christian ought not to depart from the plain rule of the Word of God though he be not able to satisfie all the Sophistical cavils of gain-saying adversaries yet that we may remove all stumbling blocks and occasions to fall out of the way that if it be possible some may be reclaimed from their â—rrour others may be more firmly established in the truth when they see discovered the vanity and invalidity of pretenders Arguments for the preaching of gifted men out of Office we shall likewise undertake this task The first and principal Argument is drawn from 1 Cor. 14.31 Ye may all prophesie one by one that all may learn and all may be comforted Whence is thus inferred That the Apostle giving liberty to the gifted Brethren of the Church of Corinth out of Office to Prophesie you may All Prophesie warrants this practice of Preaching in all men that have gifts though they be not set apart to this Office In Answer to this Argument we first lay down this Rule which is also of excellent use for the understanding of many other places of Scripture viz. That this universal All is to be restrained and limited according to the subject or matter treated of As when the Apostle saith All things are lawfull for me he means not simply All things but restrainedly All indifferent things of which he was there treating 1. Cor 6.12 and 10.23 In like manner when the same Apostle 2 Cor. 5.17 saith All things are made new This Proposition is to be restrained from the subject and matter of which he was speaking unto Beleevers The like may be observed in many other places Luk. 13.15 1 Cor. 12.7 Isa. 9.17 c. These things thus premised We say First In this place of the Apostle Ye may all prophesie the word All is to be restrained according to the subject of which the Apostle speaks He saith not of the Body or People of the Church of Corinth that they might All Prophesie but of the Prophets in that Church that they might All Prophesie This is evident both from the antecedent and subsequent words In the 29th verse the Apostle saith Let the Prophets speak two or three c. then he subjoyns For ye may All prophesie and then it follows immediatly And the spirit of the Prophets shall be subject to the Prophets By this discourse of the Apostle it evidently appears that the liberty of prophecying was not given to every member of the Church of Corinth but only to the Prophets that were in that Church Now it is clear they were not all Prophets c. 12.29 Are all Prophets i. All are not Prophets and therefore all had not granted them this liberty of prophecying And thus far we have the consent not only of Beza and others upon the place but even of the most sober of our adversaries who will not assert a promiscuous liberty of prophecying to every member of the Church but only to such as are gifted and qualified for the work and desired by the Church to exercise that Gift Secondly The Prophets both in this place and where ever else in the Scriptures mentioned were an order of Ministry not only gifted Brethren but constituted Officers in the Church Thus 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. As the Apostles and Teachers were Officers set by God in his Church so also were the Prophets Reade also Eph. 4.11 12. When Christ gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts Officers for the good of the Church he gave amongst these Officers Prophets And we do not beleeve that there can
is in him and for Christians to speak often one to another in evil times to teach admonish exhort one another to pray together and one for another but all this comes short oâ— the Ministers duty there being a vast difference between this private charitative way of exhorting which belongs to all Christians and the office and work of the Ministry as hath been above distinguished Object 6. Private Christians Act. 8.4 11.19 when they were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word Therefore gifted men though not ordained may also preach the Word Answ. This instance which is much insisted upon by many is not of strength to conclude the lawfulnesse of preaching by gifted un-ordained persons For First Some allowing these scattered Christians to have been private persons yet do rationally distinguish between a Church constituted and a Church scattered and dissolved between what may be done in a Church gathered and in an ordinary way and in the gathering of a Church and in the â—ase of necessity It is not recorded that these did preach while they were at Ierusalem in a setled Church but when they were scattered then they went every where preaching what warrant soever this instance may give to persons uncalled to preach amongst Indians and in places where no Churches nor Ministers are yet can it not warrant them in their preaching in our Churches in which Ministers are or may easily be had Secondly It may justly be denied that the Christians here spoken of were private Christians it may be asserted that they were men in Office and had commission to do what they did This appears 1. From the first verse where it is said At that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Ierusalem and they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Iudea and Samaria except the Apostles These All that were scattered must be either All the Teachers and Church-Officers or all the Beleevers not all the beleevers for it is said in the 3. verse That Saul made havock of the Church entring into every house and haling men and women committed them to prison And Act. 11.22 there is expresse mention made of the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding the persecution Had all the Beleevers been scattered what should the Apostles have done at Ierusalem their tarrying would have been dangerous to themselves and useless to the Church And therefore we judge that by all is meant all the Church-Officers of whom there were many at Ierusalem were scattered except the Apostles and when they were scattered they went every where preaching the Word To make the Interpretation clearer observe First That the word All is used here with an exceptive particle which necessitates it to be meant not of beleevers but of men in office for if all relate to beleevers then it will follow that there was not one Beleever left in Ierusalem except the Apostles The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Genitive case in the New Testament being alwaies exceptive to the utmost as appears Ioh. 8.10 Act. 15.28 22.22 Mar. 12.32 but this we are sure is false as hath been already proved Secondly That it is said That they that were scattered went every where preaching the Word It is not said teaching which may be actus charitatis but Preaching which is actus officij How can they preach except they be sent Rom. 10. The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren observe that those that were scattered went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the act of men in office and they desire the Brethren to produce one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used concerning any that are not Preachers by Office they bring many where it is used concerning those that were in Office even by the pen-man of this history and conclude that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their Commission to preach before this persecution though the persecution occasioned their preaching in Iudea and other places Thirdly Act. 8.5 there is but one of this scattered number named and he was a person in office to wit Philip not the Apostle but who is numbered among the Deacons Act. 6. and called an Evangelist Act. 21 8. By the singling out of this one who was in Office we may judge that the rest were persons in office as well as he Fourthly 'T is probable that these that were scattered did baptize as well as preach which we gather from Act. 11.26 It is said there There was a Church setled at Antioch which could not be unlesse they were first baptized but there were none in Antioch to baptize them if they of the dispersion did not for Barnabas Agabus and other Prophets came not to Antioch till the Church was founded Act. 11.25 26 27. and this Church of Antioch is expresly said to be founded by the scattered brethren Act. 21.19 now baptism is to be performed only by men in office Mat. 28.19 Fifthly These scattered brethren are said to be Prophets and Teacherâ— Act. 13.1 where mention is made of Lucius of Cyrene who in all probability was one of the scattered Preachers as appears Act. 11.19 20. where it is said That some of these scattered were men of Cyrene If it be said that there is no where mention made of the Ordination of or any commission given to these scattered brethren It is answered that it doth not follow that therefore they had none because none is mentioned It is sufficient for us that there are Scripture-Reasons to perswade us that they had a Commission They did a work peculiar to Officers of the Church as hath been proved which godly men out of Office durst not have done they had successe and the blessing of God upon their labours which he promiseth not to those that go in an evil way as hath been demonstrated But let thus much suffice for this instance Obj. 7. All the People of God are called Priests Rev. 1.6 why then may they not preach Answ. They are indeed all made Priests unto God and Kings unto God not unto men They are Priests not ministerially but spiritually not as to the ministeriall function but as to the offering up of spirituall Sacrifices unto God Thus it is expounded 1 Pet. 2.5 Praier Thanks-giving and Almes-deeds are called Sacrifices in Scripture and these a Beleever offereth up to God and so he is made a Priest to God Secondly All are made Priests unto God but are all made Prophets Are not all made Kings And may therefore all exercise regall jurisdiction amongst men May all be Magistrates Away with such fanatick Monasterian conceits If we be Priests let us sacrifice our lusts if Kings let us rule over our passions and our pride this would quickly prevent such unwarrantable practices and put a happy issue to these Disputes Object 8. But if a Master of a Family may instruct his own Family why may he not
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
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
Minister preacheth in his own Congregation to Members of another Congregation he doth not preach to them nor they hear him preach as a Minister but as a gifted Brother And that at the same time he preacheth as a Minister by vertue of his Office to those of his own Congregation and to others of another Congregation then present onely as a gifted Brother ex officio charitatis generali out of the general office of charity which to us is very irrational 2. Hence it will follow That when a Minister preacheth out of his own Congregation he preacheth only as a private Christian and not as an Ambassadour of Christ and when he acts in a Synod his actings are the actings of a private Christian and when he preacheth a Lecture out of his own Congregation though it be in a constant way yet he preacheth only as a gifted Brother Now what a wide door this will open to private men to preach publickly and constantly in our Congregations we leave it to any indifferent man to judge 3. Hence it will follow That when a Minister baptizeth a childe he baptizeth him only into his own Congregation For if he be not an Officer of the Catholick-Church he cannot baptize into the Catholick-Church which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12.13 4. Hence it will follow That a Christian who by reason of the unfixednesse of his civil habitation is not admitted into a particular Congregation hath no way left him to have his children baptized but they must all be left without the Church in Satans visible Kingdom because they are no particular Members and according to our Brethrens opinion there is no extension of the Ministerial office beyond the particular Congregation 5. We adde That according to this Assertion there is no way left us by Christ for the baptizing of Heathens when it shall please God to convert them to the Christian faith We will suppose an hundred Heathens converted We demand by whom shall these be baptized Not by a private Christian. This our Brethren abhorre as well as we To baptize is an act oâ— Office and can be done only by Officers Not by a Minister For a Minister say they cannot perform any Pastoral act such as this is out of his own Congregation Neither can these hundred converts choose a Minister and thereby give him power to baptize them for they must first be a Church before they have power to choose Officers and a Church they cannot be till baptized Neither can they joyn as Members to any other Church and thereby be made capable of Baptism by that Minister into whose Church they are admitted For in the way of Christ a man must first be baptized before he be capable of being outwardly and solemnly admitted as a Member of a particular Church The three thousand were not first added to the Church and then baptized but first baptized and thereby added to the Church We cannot conceive how such Heathen converts should regularly be baptized unlesse it be granted that every Minister is a Minister of the Church-Catholick and that every Minister hath an habitual indefinite power to act as a Minister in any place of the world where he shall be lawfully called That the desire of these hundred converts to be baptized is a sufficient call to draw forth this habitual power into act and that he may being thus desired according to the rules of the Gospel regularly and warrantably baptize them 6. Hence it will follow That a Minister preaching out of his own Congregation cannot lawfully and warrantably pronounce the blessing after his Sermon which yet is practised by our Brethren For to blesse the people from God is an act of Office and to be done only by an Officer Numb 6.23 24 25 26. compared with Revel 14.5 where the same blessings and persons from whom they come are expresly mentioned And so also Isa. 66.21 where under the name of Priests and Levites to be continued under the Gospel are meant Evangelical Pastors who therefore are by Office to blesse the people and they onely Deut. 10.8 2 Cor. 13.14 Ephes. 1.2 7. Hence it will also follow That when a Minister of a particular Congregation is sick or necessitated to be a long while absent upon just occasion that all this while though it should be for many years the Congregation must be without the Sacrament of the Lords Supper without having their children baptized and without any Preacher that shall preach amongst them as a Minister of Christ but only in the capacity of a private Christian. Neither can it be answered by our Brethren as some of them do that a Neighbour Minister in such cases may come in at the desire of the Congregation and administer the Sacraments amongst them by vertue of Communion of Churches unlesse they will also hold Communion of Offices which they do not For these acts being acts of Office cannot be done unlesse there be an habitual indefinite power of the Ministerial Office which by the desire of the Congregation is drawn out into act There are divers other absurdities that flow from this Assertion That a Minister cannot act as a Minister out of his own Congregation brought by Mr Hudson to whom we refer the Reader Onely we shall craâ—e leave to cite a passage out of Mr Ball alledged by the fore-named Author That to suppose a Minister to be a Minister to his own Congregation only and to none other Society whatsoever or to what respect soever is contrary to the judgment and practice of the Vniversal Church and tendeth to destroy the Vnity of the Church and that Communion which the Church of God may and ought to have one with another For if he be not a Minister in other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the flock which they feed one nor the Ministry one nor the Communion one which they had each with others Again pag. 90. he saith If a Minister may pray preach and blesse another Congregation in the name of the Lord and receive the Sacrament with them we doubt not but being thereunto requested by consent of the Pastor and Congregation he may lawfully dispense the Seals among them as need and occasion require That distiâ—ction of preaching by Office and exercising his gifts onely when it is done by a Minister and desired of none but Ministers and that in solemn set constant Church-Assemblies we cannot finde warranted in the Word of Truth and therefore we dare not receive it Before we part with this Argument we must necessarily answer two Objections Obj. If a Minister be a Minister of the Church Universal Visible and can act as a Minister out of his particular Congregation wherein doth he differ from an Apostle Was it not the peculiar priviledge of the Apostles Evangelists c. to have their Commission extended to all Churches This Objection is made by Mr Hooker Answ. Though we believe that every Minister is a Minister of
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
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
there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other Reformed Churches The Temple or Church is the subject wherein he must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor Constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing therefore of Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it to â—ease to be but changeth it into a better estate He adds 3. If ever there were true Churches Constituted in England they remain so still or else God hath by some manifest act unchurched them But there were true Churches in England in the Apostles dayes or a little after and God hath by no manifest act UnChurched them Ergo. Thus farr this Reverend Author That there are true Churches in England and so by consequence true Ministers appears further 3. Where there are a company of visible Saints meeting constantly together in publike to worship God according to his own way prescribed in his Word for the substance of it there are according to these mens opinion a true Church and a true Church-state and a true Ministry But during the prevalency of Episcopacy there were in our Congregations companies of visible Saints meeting together to worship God according to his own way prescribed in the Word for the substance of it Ergo. The Congregations in England are not combined together by a Church-Covenant which is the essential form of a particular Church and therefore are not true Churches and so by consequence have no true Ministry We acknowledge no such Church Covenant as commanded in Scripture distinct from the Covenant of grace Supposing but not granting that a Church-Covenant is necessary to the being of a Church yet we desire that our Brethren in New-England may be heard pleading for us Mr. Hooker saith that this Church Covenant is dispensed after a double manner either explicitely or implicitely An implicite Covevant is when in their practise they do that whereby they make themselves ingaged to walk in such a Society according to such Rules of Government which are exercised amongst them and so submit themselves thereunto but do not make any verbal profession thereof Thus the people in the Parishes in England when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place attend all the Ordinances there used and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them submit thereunto c. By such actions and a fixed attendance upon all such services and duties they declare that by their practise which others do hold forth by their profession And therefore it is a great Scandal for any to say that for want of a Church-Covenant we Nullify all Churches but our own and that upon our grounds received there must be no Church in the World but in New-England c. So likewise in their Apology for a Church-Covenant they say Though we deny not but the Covenant in many Congregations of England is more implicite and not so plain as were to be desired yet we hope we may say of them with Mr Parker Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 16. pag. 167. Non abest realis substantialis quanquam magis quam par erat implicita Coitio in faedus eaque voluntaria professio fidâ—i substantialis qua Deo gratia essentiam Ecclesiae idque visibilis hucusque sartam tectam in Anglia conservavit That is there wants not that real and substantial coming together or agreeing in Covenant though more implicite then were meet and that substantial profession of Faith which thanks be to God hath preserved the Essence of visible Churches in England unto this day But the Congregations of England are Parochiall Churches and therefore no true Churches of Christ and so by consequence have no true Ministry There is much opposition in our dayes against distinguishing of Congregations by local bounds and much endeavour to break this bond asunder and to leave people at liberty to joyn notwithstanding their dwellings with what Church they please with no Churches if they please and most People speak of Parochial Churches in a most contemptible way as of so many cages of unclean Birds and of Parochiall Ministers as of so many Parish Priests But we hope this ariseth not so much out of Malice and from a spirit of opposition as from a misunderstanding of our judgement concerning Parochial Congregations We will therefore briefly declare what we do not hold and what we do hold 1. We do not say That the bare dwelling in a Parish is sufficient to make a man a member of the Church of Christ within that Parish A Turk or Pagan or Idolater may be within the bounds of a Parish and yet we do not hold him a member of the Church in that Parish 2. We do not say That all that dwell in a Parish and that joyn constantly in hearing of the word of God therein Preached should upon that account be admitted to the Lords Table We heartily desire and sincerely endeavour to keep all Ignorant and Scandalous People from the Sacrament although they dwell within the same bounds with those that are admitted 3. We do not allow but much dislike the unequal division of Parishes and we heartily desire a redresse herein But we say 1. That it is most expedient for edification and most agreeable to the Evangelical pattern that Congregations should be distinguished by the respective bounds of their dwellings Thus all the Christians in Corinth did belong to the Church of Corinth and all the Believers in Ephâ—sus to the Church of Ephesus The Churches in the New Testament are distinguished one from another by the places where the believers dwelâ— As the Church at Corinth from the Church at Ephesus And we do not read of any of one Town member of a Church in another Town distinct from it The Reverend Assembly gave 3. reasons for the proof of this Assertion 1. Because they who dwell together being bound to all kind of Moral duties one to another have the better oportunity thereby to discharge them which Moral tie is perpetual for Christ came not to destroy the Law but to sulful it 2. The Communion of Saints must be so ordered as may stand with the most convenient use of the Ordinances and discharge of Morall duties without respect of persons 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done unto edifying Heb. 10.24 25. Iam 2.1.2 3. The Pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency 2. We say That all that live within the same Parish being Baptized persons and making profession of Christianity may claime admission into the society of Christians within those bounds enjoy the priviledges and Ordinances there dispensed if by their Scandalous lives they make not themselves unworthy For we believe that all Baptized Persons
are members of the Church general visible and have right unto all the Ordinances of Christ as the circumcised Iew had and wheresoever they come to fix their dwellings may require an orderly admission unto the Ordinances there dispensed unlesse by their sins they have disinherited themselves 3. We say That it is agreeable to the will of Christ and much tending to the edification of his Church That all those that live within the same bounds should be under the care of the same Minister or Ministers to be taught by them and Governed by them and to have the other Ordinanceâ— dispensed unto them sutable to their condition as they shall manifest their worthinesse to partâ—ke of them And â—hat to remove altogeher those Parochial bounds would open a gap to Thousands of people to live like sheep without a shepheard and insteed of joyning with purer Churâ—heâ— to joyn with no Churcheâ— and in a little time as we conceive it would bring in all manner of prophanenesse and Athiesme Suppose a godly man living under a wicked Minister or â—n Hereticall Minister or a Minister that admits all men promiscuously to the Sacrament without any examination would you have this man bound to hear him and to receive the Sacrament from him If the Government of the Church were once setled and countenanced by the Civil Magistrate care would be taken that there should be no place for such kind of objections 2. Such a person in such a case ought rather to remove his Habitation if it may be done without any great prejudice to his outward estate then that for his sake that good and old way of bounding of Parishes rightly understood should be laid aside Suppose he cannot remove without very great prejudice to his outward estate In sucâ— a case It is much better as we conceive till the Church Government be further setled and hath further countenance from Civil Authority to relieve such a one by admitting him into another Congregation for a while than wholly to break and dissolve that Laudable and Church edifying way of distinguishing Congregations by local bounds But would you then have every man bound to keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives We are not so rigid as to tie people from hearing other Ministers occasionlly even upon the Lords day But yâ—t we beliâ—ve that it is most a greeable to Gospel order upon the grounds forâ—mentioned that he that fixetâ— his hâ—bitâ—tion wherâ— there is â— godly able Orthodox Minister should ordinarily waite upon his Ministry joyn to that Congregation where he dwells rather then to another In Scripture To appoint Elders in every Church and in every City is all one They that were converted in a City who were at first but few in number joyned in Church-fellowship with the Elders and Congregation of that City and not with any other But the Church of England is a National Church and therefore cannot be a true Church because the Church of the Iewes was the only National Church and there are no National Churches now under the New Testament This objection lies as a great stumbling block to hinder many Christians from joyning with our Churches and therefore we shall take some pains to remove it For the better answering of this objection we shall premise this distinction of a national Church A Church may be called National in a two fold respect Either because it hath one national Officer worship and place of worship Thus it was among the Iewes they had one high Priest over all the Nation they had one place to which all the Males were bound thrice in a year to assemble and one special part of worship to wit Sacrifice which was confined to that publick place unlesse in case of extraordinary Dispensation Such a National Church we are far from asserting or endeavouring to establish Or a Church may be called National when all the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one civil Government agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their lesser and greater Assemblies and in this sense we assert a national Church But there is no example of any national Church in the New Testament The reason is because we have no example there of any Nation converted to the faith 2. There are Prophesies and promises of National Churches Psal. 72 10 11 17. Isai. 2.2 Isai. 19.18 In that day shall five Citiâ—s spâ—ak thâ— Languagâ— of Caâ—aan â—nd swear to the Lord of Hostâ— â— and v. 19. then shall be an Altar 〈◊〉 the midst of the Land of Egypt and a pillaâ— at thâ— border tâ—â—reof to the Lord. And so on to vers 24 25. In that day shall Isrâ—â—l be the third with Egypt and with Assyâ—ia â—ven a blessing iâ— the midst of the Land Whom the Lord of Hosts shall blessâ— saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of mine hands and Israâ—l mine inheritance From this full place we gather 1. That in the times of the New Testament there shall be National Churches 2. That these Churches shall combine in one way of worship by Oath and Covenant 3. That the Lord own 's those Churches thus combined as hiâ— own and promiseth to blesse them 3. Even the Iewes themselves when their Nation shall be turned to the Lord and return to their own Land shall become a National Church not as having one High Priest one place of worship and one special publick worship in that one place for these things were Typical and Ceremonial and so were to vanish but as agreeing together in the same way of doctrine worship and covenant as other Christian Nations doâ—â— This is evident from Ezek. 37.21 to the end of the Chapter But we do not find in the New Testament that the particular Churches of any Nation are called a Church in the singular number But Churchâ—â— And therefore we look upon it as an unscriptural Expression to call the Congregations of this Nation The Church of England We find that several Congregations in the same City are called a Church as in Ierusalem Act. 8.1 That there were many Congregations in Ierusalem is evidently proved both in the Reasons of the Assemblie of Divines against the dissenting Brethren where they prove it both from the variety of Languages and from the multitude of professours and Ministers as also in our Vindication of the Presbyterial Government And so Act. 12 1 5. And Act. 15.4 22. Thus it was with the Ephesians called â— Church Act. 20.17 and Revel 2.1 and yet had many Congregations as appears from the Bookeâ— fore-quoted And if five Congregations may be called one Church why not five hundred 2. We might instance that the Churches in divers Cities are called A Church compare Gal. 1.13.22 23. with Act. 26.11 where the Churches of divers Cities are called expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Yet further it appears that all the visible Churches in the World
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
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-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
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
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
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