necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to Ordain and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop which answer I confirmed by divers reasons see them whereunto I now adde That there seemeth to be the like reasons for the imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publick penitents as in the Ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want and absence of the Bishop the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose upon Eph. 4. and Austin qu. ex Vet. Nov. Test. mixt qu. 101. The latter by Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councels Concil Carthag graec cap. 43. Carth. 2. cap. 4. Concil Araâ—sic cap. 2. And the Popish Writâ—rs themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to Ordain so that he to whom such licence is given have those Orders himself which he would give to another Summa Angel ordo c. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved be authorized by necessity which as they say hath no law So far B. Downame Thus also Mr. Francis Mason If by jure Divino you mean That which is according to Scripture then the preeminence of Bishops is jure Divino But if by jure Divinâ— you understand a law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure Divino And no doubt it were a most cruel and unmerciful opinion so to cry up Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination as to condemn all the reformed Churches of France Scotland Holland Helvetia c. as no Churches and their Ministers as no Ministers and their Sacraments as no Sacraments But we shall say no more of this Proposition because there is a Reverend Minister hath spoken largely to it and hath proved That it was the opinion of Dr. Field B. Downame B. Iewell Saravia B. Alley B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel and divers others That Ordination by Presbyters in some cases is lawful and valid and hath also fully and excellently discovered the woful and unsufferable miseries and mischiefs that would flow from the contrary assertion To him we refer the Reader that desires to be further satisfied herein We shall name but one Proposition more and then we have done Proposition 9. THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterianâ— in all their writingâ— for walking contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name if we did desire to recriminate We will instance only in two 1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters Cyprian professeth he would do nothing without the Clergy he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all The fourth Councel of Carthage condemâ—s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur The Church had itâ— Seniores sine quorum consâ—lio nihil agâ—batur in Ecclesiâ There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blondâ—â— and Smectymnuus but we forbear Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise iâ— sufficiently manifest to all the Christian world 2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries And Cyprian tells us That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures and to the first and purest Antiquity but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church in the point of Episcopacy Not that we intend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apostolical Traditions unwritten or by the Fathers or Canons of the Church in this great Controversie For though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity yet we do not Idolize it For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal Irenaeus tells us that S. Iohn told those that told him That Christ lived here upon earth and preached ultra quadragesimum aut etiam quinquagesimum annum beyond 40. or 50. years which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time who was Bishop of Rome celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moneth according â—s the Jewes were commanded to eat their Passeover This they did as a received Tradition not onely from Polycarpe but from S. Iohn himself But now on the contrary the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true And as for the Ancient Fathers though they were famouâ— Lights in the Church yet they have their Naevâ—s and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius A learned Gentleman undertakes in a short Epistle to make out Their Contradictions one to another Their variance from themselves Their Repugnancies both to Protestants and Papists Their want of ability in many points of our Controversies in most of will to decide them And therefore we appeal from men to God from the Canons of the Fatherâ— to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures as the onely infallible Judge of this and all other Controversies of Religion We say with the Prophet Ad Legem Testimonium To the Law and to thâ— Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them And yet we have spoken something
so it was foretold that it should be also in the Christian Church consisting of Jew and Gentile It was Gods great Promise to be fullfilled in Gospel-times that he would take of the Children of them that should be brought into the Church for Priests and Levites alluding to the Officers that then were in being which cannot be understood of spirituall Priests such as all Saints are in some sense stiled for these are said to be singled out from the rest for such a speciall Office And that in the times of the Gospel according to the Promise such an Office was appointed by our Lord Jesus is beyond all question to all who reade and beleeve the New Testament Christ before his death appointed the Apostles to go and preach He ordained twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach And after this the Lord appointed other seventy also and because the Harvest was great and the Labourers were but few therefore they are bid to pray the Lord of the Harvest that hâ— would send firth Labourers into hiâ— Harvâ—st To his Apostles he revealed himself especially after his resurrection and gave them commission and command to preach the Gospel to all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghosâ— And when Iudas being numbred with them had obtained part of this Ministry from which by transgression he fell the rest of the Disciples did not magnifie themselves to be Apostles but sought to the Lord that God himself would shew whom he had chosen to take part of that Ministry and Apostleship and the Loâ— falling upon Mathias he was numbred with the eleven 3. The Ministry in the daies of the Apostles was not only dispensed by the Apostles the seventy Disciples and other Prophets and Evangelists whose Call Gifts and Works were extraordinary but by other ordinary Pastors whose spirits were not insallible and whose commission was not extraordinary The extraordinary Officers were commanded to commit the word to faithfull men who shall be able to reach others also And this Ministry dispensed by ordinary Pastors was by the Apostles themselves and the severall Churches of the New Testament esteemed as a Ministry by Divine Institution Paul stiles Epâ—phras a dear Fellow-Servant who is for you a faithfull Minister of Christ Tychicus he calls a beloved Brother and a faithfull Minister in the Lord. And these ordinary Pastors distinguished from those extraordinary Officers the Scriptures do affirm to be as truly by divine appointment as the former though not so immediatly and eminently 1. The same God that set in the Church first Apostles then Prophets the same God set in the Church some to be Teachers Some by way of distinction from others and not all For the holy Ghost argueth as if it were equally absurd to have all to be Teacherâ— as all to be Apostles and appeals to their naturall conscience about it Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers And if God himself the Father of all mercies hath placed these Teachers in his Church what is man who is but â— worm that he should attempt to displace them 2. The same Redeemer the Lord Jesus who gave some to be Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists the same Christ gave also some to bâ— Pastorâ— and to be Teachers 3. The sâ—me holy Spirit which said Separatâ— me Barnabas and Saul for the work of the Ministery and who committed to Paul thâ— Gospâ—l of Vncircumcision as he did the Gospel of Circumcision to Peter The same blessed Spirit gave charge to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed to thâ— Flock of Christ And though they were no where recorded to have received a Commission extraordinary and a spirit infallible Nay so far were they from being infallible that the Apostle foretelâ— that some of them would speak perverse things to draw away Disciples after them v. 30. Yet is it said expresly that the holy Ghost hâ—d made them Overseerâ— over the Flock As the Saints converted to the Faith of the Gospel by the Ministry of Tychichus Epaphras and Onesimus and the Saints that in those daies were really added to the Church werâ— no lessâ— truly Saints then those which were converted immediatly by Paul and Peter and the rest of the Apostles So these ordinary Pastors and Teachers aforementioned did no lâ—sse truly receive their Ministry from the Lord for their ordinary employment then the Apostles did though they more eminently for their employment extraordinary As he committed to them the Word and Ministry of Reconcâ—liation and gave to them both Commission and Command to dispense his Ordinances so that to them it was not only lawfull or arbitrary but necessity was laid upon them and a Woe denounced if they preached not the Gospel So was it also to the ordinary Teachers and therefore Archippus no where mentioned to be an Officer extraordinary is commanded to fullfill his Ministry which he also received from the Lord. Now if the Father the God of Truth the Son the Way the Truth and the Life and the holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth hath designed peculiar persons to this Office then the Ministry by way of Office is necessary by Divine Institution The Second Argument is drawn from the peculiar Names or Titles whereby the Persons thus designed and distinguished from other Saints If God hath given peculiar Names and Titles whereby the Persons designed to this Office are distinguished from other Saints then this Office is by Divine Institution For as the judgement of God is so are the denominations which God giveth to things according to truth If Adam gave distinguishing Names to all creatures sutable to their beings Surely our only wise God will not distinguish where he himself hath made no difference But God hath given to the persons designed to this Office peculiar Names and Titles 1. These are called Pastors and the other Saints respectively are called the Flock Now is there not a reall distinction as well as nominall betwixt the Flock and Pastor the Sheep and the Shepherd 2. They are called Teachers and doth not the holy Ghost evidently distinguish betwixt them that do instruct and those that are instructed 3. They are called such as Rule well not in any civil way as State-Officers but such as labour in the Word and Doctrine 4. They are such as are Over the Saints in the Lord and the holy Ghost doth expresly distinguish betwixt the Officers in the Church which have rule and inspection over the Saints and all the rest of the Saints under that Inspection 5. They are called Stewards of the Mysteries of God all the rest of the Saints are of the Houshold of Faith and who may appoint Stewards in the House but the Master of the Houshold And if the Master call them Stewards let all Saints do so who
that their Persons are better but that their Ministry is higher Therefore let us all take heed of despising the Ministry lest the Lord smite the Earth with a Curse For he that despiseth despiseth not man but God So much shall suffice for the First Proposition CHAP. II. Containing the Second Proposition PROVING That the Office of the Ministry is perpetually necessary THat it is so will appear by these ensuing Arguments If all the former Arguments which evince the necessity of this Office by divine Institution be of a moral nature then are they of perpetuall Obligation by Divine appointment For the Commands of the Morall Law given to the Jews oblige all and Precepts of the Gospel given both to Jews and Gentiles in the Apostles times do equally oblige all beleevers in these daies as they did beleevers in the daies of the Apostles to whom they were at first immediatly prescribed because those precepts are of a moral nature Whatsoever duties God râ—quired in the Churches of Galatia Philippi Câ—losse c. all these Scriptures do as really binde now aâ— they did then binde them for Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning The same evils which were sins then are sinnes now the duties enjoyned then are duties now and shall binde all ages until the appearance of Christ This Rule is so exact and perpetuall that they and they alone which walk according to this Rule Peace shall be on them and upon the Israel of God But all the former Arguments which prove the Office of the Ministry to be necessary are of a morall nature Not given to Apostles as Apostles but to them as Stewards and Ministers of God and so appertain to all Ministers of Christ. And in every Argument there are those proofs produced out of Scripture which were not given only to Apostles but to ordinary Pastors as may appear by a particular review of all the fore-going Arguments If the Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution till the day of Jesus Christ then the Office of the Ministry to dispense those Ordinances is perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution The reason of this consequence appears thus If the Lord had only appointed Ordinances to continue and had appointed none to administer them then the Ordinanres would fail because that which is every mans work is usually and effectually no mans work and though God hath immediatly appointed these Ordinances yet now he doth not immediatly administer them but the administration of these Ordinances he hath committed unto others not to Angels for their glory is so great and our infirmities so many that we could not endure their visible ministration but this Ministry he hath committed unto men to some and not to all as hath been proved in the former Proposition and these are called the Ministers of Christ Stewards or dispensers of the Mysteries of God and are workers together with God and such have this Treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power might be of God The Ministry of the Word and the dispensing of the Sacraments we finde conjoyned in the Institution of Christ to whom Christ gave Commission to preach to them he also gave Commission and Command to Baptize and he promiseth to concur with them in their administration But that any others have any such Command to enjoyn them or Commission to enable them or any such promise of Gods concurrence with them if they undertake these Administrations or that any suâ—â— practise was in the daies of the Apostles we reade not in the New Testament and because the whole nature and vertue of the Sacraments of the New Testament depends solely and wholly upon the Authority of God being the Institutour of them therefore we may neither adde to nor detract from his Institution lest the Lord adde to the Plagues written in this Book and take away our part out of the Book of Life So much for the consequence of the Major Now to the Minor which is this The Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution which will be evident if we consider the publike Ordinances of the Word of Baptism and of the Supper of the Lord. 1. For the Word It is evident that the Word preached shall continue in all ages from Mat. 28.20 where Jesus Christ commands his Apostles and Ministers to teach all Nations and promiseth to be with them in that work to the end of the world as also from Eph. 4.11 12 13. Christ gave 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 to the unity of the Faith 2. For Baptism we desire these particulars to be considered 1. That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament appointed by God himself Iohn was sent to baptize he did not go about this work till he was sent and because Baptism was first adminisâ—red by him therefore he is so frequently called Iohn the Baptist not that Baptism was his invention but that the Administration thereof was first committed unto him the Institution it self was of God God was the Authour Iohn only the Minister therefore the Baptism of Iohn is denied to be of men and affirmed to be of Heaven And when the Pharisees rejected his Baptism it is asserted they rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him And the Lord Jesus Christ to declare the Baptism of Iohn to be of God even he that came to fullfill all righteousnesse came from Galilee to Iordan to be baptized of Iohn 2. It is evident that Baptism was appointed not only to the Jew but to the Gentile it was indeed first administred to the Jew by Iohn and by the Disciples of our Lord and after Christs Resurrection by the Apostles to those primitive Converts but when the partition Wall was broken down Baptism of Repentance was preached unto the Gentiles not only in Iudea but in Samaria also they that beleeved were baptized both men and women and so Cornelius the Roman Centurion and so the Jaylor and all his at Philippi and Corinth Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanus 3. This Ordinance of Baptism instituted both for Jew and Gentile was not to continue only in the Infancy of the Church as the Photinians and Socinians affirm but is perpetuall as may appear by these Arguments 1. The promise and precept of Christ wherein the Lord commands the Word to be preached unto all and all Nations to be baptized and Christ promiseth that he will be with his Officers in the Administration of his Ordinances to the end of the world If to the end of the world there shall be Disciples and if all Disciples must be baptized then Baptism must continue to the end of the world 2. The ends for which Baptism was ordained are not
despise the balm of Gilead and reject all healing medicines It is in the number of those sins which go before us unto judgement when people put away the Ministry of the Word from them they are said by the holy Ghost before the day of Judgement come to judge themselves unworthy of eternall Life And thus we have done with the Arguments proving the perpetuity of the Ministry there remains one great Objection to be Answered CHAP. III. Wherein the grand Objection Asserting the Loss of the Ministry under Antichrist is Answered WE confesse that there was a Ministry Ordained of Christ and continued all the daies of the Apostles and some Centuries after yet the Mystery and Ministry of the Man of Sinne was then working which at length so farre prevailed that all the world wondered afâ—er the Beast and power was given him over all Kindreds and Tongues and Nations so that be causâ—d all both great and small rich and poor bond and free to receive his Mâ—rk in their Right hand or in their Foreheads In this Apostacy the Church which had been a chaste Virgin became the Mother of Harlots and Abominations and not only the Kings and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the Wine of her Fornications but especially the Priests in all Nations were the abominable Pandors to promote the filthinesse of her Whoredoms they were the Merchants made rich by her Fornications Now under this Reign of Antichrist Bethel was turned into Bethavâ—n the Ministry was wholly lost being only in pretence for Christ but in reality for Antichrist And therefore we look upon all Ministers now as Members of that notorious Strumpet as Locusts from the bottomlesse Pit as Priests of Baal and Limbs of Antichrist and so account it not a sinne but a duty to contemn their persons and abhorre their Ministry We acknowledge first that the Apostacy under Antichrist was exceeding dreadfull Secondly That not only the people and the Princes but the Priests also had a great hand and were chief agents in this defection Thirdly That its the duty of Gods people to come out of Babylon that they partake not of their sins nor receive of their plagues But yet we need the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in Christ that we may know the things that differ that we may not call good evil and evil good but according to the Word of truth judge righteous judgement And therefore we intreat the Reader or this Objector conscientiously to ponder these Considerations 1. Consider as there have been many false Christs so there are and have been many mistaken Antichrists and the holy Ghost bids us not to beleeve every Spirit but to try the spirits when many shall say Loe here is Christ and loe there is Christ And it s as true of Antichrist some say Lo here is Antichrist Some Lo there yet the Lord commands us saying beleeve them not The Truths Ordinances Servants and Ministers of Christ do not therefore cease to be of Christ because some either by mistake or by design shall say they are of Antichrist The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ who is God blessed for ever will not cease to be a most precious Truth because Michael Servetus Georgius Blandatra Franciscus David Laelius Socinus and his adherents condemn it as an Antichristian Errour Was Valentinus Gentilis therefore a friend and Martyr to God the Father because he died as an enemy to God the Son Were the Valdenses who appeared against the Romish errours the limbs of Satan because some of the Romanist affirm that Satan was let loose in Berengarius and his Disciples How luxuriant and confident are the fancies of many concerning the things contained in the Revelations wherein modest Christians would chuse rather to be humbly inquisitive then Dogmatically positive Was Innocent the third the lesse nocent or was Pope Calixtus the more holy because some of their followers make them to be the Angel coming down from heaven having the Key of the bottomlâ—sse pit to binde Satan as if the binding of Satan were nothing else but to Excommunicate Emperours and to depresse the Imperial power under the Papal Shall Dominicus or Franciscus those two great Founders of the Orders of the Friars Dominican and Franciscan the great upholders of Papacy shall they be lesse suspected because some of their disciples admired them and confidently averred them to be that Angel ascending from the East having the Seal of the living God Rev. 7.2 Men have no power to make Christian Unchristian or Antichristian either persons or things according to their pleasure The Word of God is established in the heavens and his Truths do not vary after the variety of mens mistaking fancies Therefore we have great need to be sober and humble and to beg of the Lord the spirit of love and of a sound minde that we may neither justifie the wicked nor condemn the Righteous 2. Consider concerning Antichrist Though we grant it that Antichrist is not an individual person as Bellarmine and the Papists generally affirm But the state and succession of men which with one and the self same spirit oppose Christ. 2. That the seat of this great Whore is not as some intimate Constantinople nor Ierusalem as others affirm but Rome that great City that then reigned over the Kings of the earth spiritually called Sodom and Egypt And 3. that the Antichrist is not the Turk and Mahumetanism in the East But the Pope and Papism in the West yet there is no ground to condemn every thing in that Antichristian Synagogue for Antichristian for without all question the Books of the Old and New Testament were wonderfully preserved even in mystical Babylon As formerly when the Oracles of God were committed to Israel the Lord continued the holy Scripture in the Jewish Church notwithstanding their spiritual Apostacy and Babylonish Captivity The good Word of the Lord is no lesse the Word of Truth because the false Antichristian Synagogue do acknowledge it no more then the Scripture ceaseth to be the Scripture because Satan the father of lies did alledge it Gold is gold wherever you finde it Truth is truth however men either accept it or contradict it It 's a vast comprehensive Errour to reject all Tenents though never so true for errours because an erroneous Society doth confesse them For all is not false which the false Church asserteth Every errour is founded upon the mistake of some truth as every evil doth usually arise from the abuse of some good In this mixture of good and evil light and darknesse where there are many precious truths yet many abominable falshoods it 's our duty to sever between the righteous and the vile that we neither swallow down all for truth because there is a mixture of truth nor reject all for false because there is superadded a redundancy of falshood Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of God and his coming is
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
an instance be given of any Text either in the Old or New Testament in which the word Prophet doth not signifie one in Office peculiarly called and sent Now if this be an irrefragable truth as indeed it is then the Apostles permitting all Prophets i. men in Office to prophesie is no warrant for gifted brethren if out of Office to do that work Thirdly Though what hath been already said be sufficient to infringe the Argument drawn from this place to warrant the preaching of men out of Office yet we adde for the more full Vindication of this Scripture that the Prophets here mentioned yea and throughout the New Testament seem not to be only Officers in the Church but extraordinary Officers immediatly inspired and sent by the holy Ghost which appears in that First They are not only mentioned and preferred before Pastors and Teachers the ordinary Officers of the Church Act. 13.1 1 Cor. 12.28 but also before the Evangelists themselves Eph. 4.11 12. who are acknowledged by all to have been Officers extraordinarily sent Secondly The gift of prophecy is reckoned amongst the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and put in the midst of them 1 Cor. 12.9 10 11. and contra-distinguished from ordinary gifts vers 7 8. the word of wisedom the word of knowledge The word of wisedom denotes the Pastors work the word of knowledge the Teachers work but prophesying is different from both these câ—â—sisting partly in the fore-telling of future events as Act. 11.27 28. In those daies came Prophets frâ—m Ierusalem unto Antiâ—â—h and there stood up one of them named Agabus and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout the wâ—rld 2. Partly in an infallible explication and application of the mâ—st difficult places of Scripture not by industry and labour but by the immediate illumination and teaching of the holy Ghost by whom the Scriptures were inspired Thirdly It is evident by the series of this Chapter that the Prophets herein spoken of and their prophesying was extraordinary ver 26. When you are come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a Tongue hath a Revelation hath an Interpretation Tongues Interpretation Revelation are joyned together ver 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace by which it appears that the Prophets here spoken of were inspired by the holy Ghost and that this gift of prophecy was an extraordinary dispensation of God given to the Primitive Church but now ceased and therefore this Text cannot justifie our Lay-Preachers who cannot without impudency pretend to such extraordinary Revelations as these had We might fill many Pages with Quotations of Authours that consent with us in this last Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 3. sec. 10. c. Pet. Mart. loc com clas 4. c. 1. p. 558. Aret. prob lo. 61. de Prophetia Gerh. com loc tom 6. de Minist Ecc. Diodat in 1 Cor. 14. 1 6 23. Gomarus on Rom. 12.6 Synops. purioris Theolog. disp 42. thes 22. Our English Annotat. in 1 Cor. 14. Against this third Position asserting the Prophesying in this Chapter mentioned to be extraordinary there be many things objected which we shall answer for the further manifestation of the truth Object 1. The Apostle exhorteth the faithfull to desire this gift vers 1. and to seek to excell therein and therefore it is not likely that it was a miraculous and extraordinary gift Answ. It doth not follow that because it was to be desired therefore it was not extraordinary Other spiritual gifts were extraordinary yet saith the Apostle Desire spirituall gifts as much as he saith of prophesying Elysaeus desires a double measure of Elias spirit 2 King 2.9 was not that extraordinary The faithfull might in those daies in which such extraordinary gifts were usually given in the Church lawfully seek after them especially by praying to God for them which is the way prescribed vers 13. Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret And it is apparent that in the Schools of the Prophets many did study and prepare that they might be fitted for this extraordinary gift of Prophecy 1 Sam. 19.20 2 Kin. 2.3 4. and 2 Kin. 3.15 and out of them God usually made choice of such as he emploied as his speciall Embassadors to his Church Object 2. The Apostle speaketh of such prophesying as is to the edification exhortation and comfort of the Church therefore of ordinary prophesying Answ. It follows not because extraordinary prophesying as well as ordinary was given for the edification of the Church 1 Cor. 12.7 The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one to profit withall Eph. 4.11 12 13. All the extraordinary as well as ordinary Officers were given by Christ for the gathering and edification of the Church And all gifts are to be emploied to this end 1 Cor. 14.26 Whether you have a Psalm or Doctrine or Tongue or Revelation or Interpretation Let all things be done to edifying Object 3. The Apostle in this Chapter speaks not of any thing extraordinary but laies down a generall liberty for all the members of the Church of Corinth to prophesie And this appears because he presâ—ribes Rules 1. For men how they should order their liberty for edification and then 2. for Women forbidding them altogether the liberty of prophesying Let your women keep silence in the Churches Women say they are here named in opposition to men and they only being prohibited all men may and ought to be allowed to prophesie in publique Answ. 1. It is absolutely false to say that the Apostle speaks of nothing extraordinary in this Chapter for he speaks of the gift of tongues vers 6 14 2â— 26. and of extraordinary Psalms and Revelations Answ. 2. It is also as false to say that the Apostle gives a generall liberty of prophesying to all to all the members of the Church of Corinth It hath been already proved that the liberty was given to such only as were Prophets v. 29 30 31. and these Prophets were persons in Office as hath been demonstrated and that they were exâ—raordinary Officers Superiour to Evangelists Pastors and Teachers Now all the members of the Church of Corinth were not Pâ—ophets 1 Cor. 12.29 nor had the gift of Propheâ—y as appears by the Apostles prayer for them 1 Cor. 14.6 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied c. Answ. 3. Women are not mentioned in opposition to the men in Corinth simply But in opposition to such as had extraordinary gifts whether of Tongues or of Prophecy or any such like And the scope of the Apostle is not to give liberty to all but to lay down rules to those that were Prophets and men in Office how they should regulate their prophesying for the edification exhortation and consolation of the people and then he wholly excludes the women from this work Answ. 4. We may further answer that by women here
consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election c. For our parts we crave leave to dissent from these worthy men and that upon these grounds Arg. 1. Because our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their assertion as we can finde nor do we think that any can be brought Arg. 2. Because that those very Texts fore-mentioned which are the chief if not the only Texts that are brought for popular Election do seem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this assertion When Matthias was made an Apostle it was not the Election of the people that did constitute him an Apostle The people chose two if they chose at all but that which did constitute him an Apostle was the determination by lot As in a Corporation when the community chooseth two and the Aldermen one of these two in propriety of speech it is the Aldermen that choose the Mayor not the community All that the 120. did if they did that was to set two before the Lord but it was God that did constitute and appoint Matthias to be the Apostle In the choise of Deacons the people nominated seven Persons to be Deacons but it was the Apostles Ordination not the peoples Election that did constitute and make them Deacons So saith the Text expresly Look ye out among you seven men whom we may appoint or constitute over this businesse The essence and substance of the Deacons Call is placed not in the peoples nomination but in the Apostles Ordination As for Act. 14.23 we have already shewed that they that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Apostles and not the Churches And that if they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by suffrages it was per suffragia propria non aliena by their own suffrage not the Peoples though we think as we have formerly said that the word is to be taken for a bare decerning and appointing without the ceremony of lifting up of hands as it is taken Act. 10.41 There is nothing at all in this Text that proves That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call is in the peoples Election but it rather proves the quite contrary That the Apostolicall Ordination was that which did constitute Elders in every Church Arg. 3. All those Texts that we shall hereafter bring for the asserting of the divine right of Ordination do prove that the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth consist in Ordination and not in Election There are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for Election and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct but an essentiall constituent of the Ministeriall Call as we shall hereafter God willing prove at large Arg. 4. We argue from the nature of popular Election Election by the people properly is nothing else but their designation of a person that is to be made their Minister or that is already a Minister to his particular charge It is not simply a making of a Minister but the making of him a Minister of such a place As it is one thing saith Mr Rutherford to make a gold Ring another thing to appropriate it to such or such a finger Election is nothing else but the appropriation of a Minister for the exercise of his Ministry in such a place It doth not give him the Office but the opportunity of exercising his officiall authority over those that choose him This appears in the Election of Deacons all that the people did by Election was only to design the persons and to set them before the Apostles but it was the Apostles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons This likewise appears from Deut. 1.13 which place though it speaks of the choice of civil Officers yet it doth very clearly describe unto us the nature of Election Take ye wise men and understanding and known among your tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The peoples taking of men did not give them the essentials of their office They nominated the persons but it was Moses that made them Rulers Our brethren of New-England in their Platform of Church-discipline tell us That all Office-power is proper to the Eldership and that the brotherhood have only a power of priviledge Now then we demand If the people have no Office-power belonging to them how can they by Election make an Officer Indeed they may and do design persons unto office by choosing of them but that they that have not the power of Office neither formally nor virtually committed unto them and that cannot act or exercise an Office-power that they by a bare Election should communicate Office-power and give the essentials of a Ministeriall Call is to us a riddle we understand not Nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter The lesser is blessed of the greater not the greater of the lesser Adde further If Election be as our Brethren say the constituting of a Minister and the giving him the essentials of his Office why then did the Apostles take so much pains to return to Lystra Iconium and Antioch to ordain them Elders in every Church and why did Paul leave Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Why did they not spare their journey and send to the people to make their own Ministers by Election Can we imagine that they took such pains only to adde an adjunct to the Ministeriall Call an adjunct which doth not give essence but follows the essence supposing the Subject compleat in its essence before For our parts we are far from so thinking but rather conceive it much more sutable to Scripture to say That Titâ—â— was left to make Ministers in Crete and that the Apostles went about from Church to Church to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call and that all that the people did was to nominate the person to be ordained or rather to approve and accept of the Ministers made them by the Apostles Arg. 5. If Election gives the essentials to a Minister then may a Minister elected administer the Sacraments without Ordination For as Mr Hooker well saith in another case He that hath compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without exception he cannot justly be hindred from doing all acts of that Office For to be an Officer compleat without an Office or being compleat in his Office yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his Office implies a contradiction for it 's all one to say a man is bound to a rule and yet by a rule he should not do it But a person Elected cannot administer the Sacraments without Ordination he cannot do it lawfully it being cross to Scripture-Presidents nor can he do it in the opinion of those Reverend men with whom we now dispute Mr Hooker cals it an Anabaptisticall phrensie to say That an un-ordained person may baptize And
besides This is contrary to their own practice in New-England where it is frequent to have a man Elected and preach half a year a whole year nay as Mr Gi. Firmin once a Preacher there saith he knew one elected and preached two years to his people and they maintained him all that while and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament but he and they when they would partake the Lords Supper went ten miles to the Church out of which they issued to receive the Sacrament which practice without doubt was very unnecessary if Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call and Ordination be only an adjunct We say in Logick Forma dat operari Effects depend upon the Form not upon extrinsecall circumstances This is Argumentum ad hominem Arg. 6. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election then it will follow That a Minister is only a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place This consequence is confessed by Reverend Mr Hooker who saith That a Minister preaching to another Congregation though he ceaseth not to be a Pastor yet he doth not preach as a Pastor nor can he do any Pastorall acts but in that place and to that people to whom he is a Pastor Thus also it is said in the answer of the Elders of severall Churches in New-England unto nine Positions Pos. 8. If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can perform any Ministeriall act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no further then his Call This is also confessed in the New-England Platform of Church-Discipline And therefore we need not say more for the proof of the consequence But as for the minor That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation is an assertion 1. Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years 2. Contrary to the practice of the Brethren themselves with whom we dispute It is acknowledged by all of them that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministeriall act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and yet it is ordinary both in Old England and in New England for members of one Congregation to receive in another Congregation M. Firmin tels us That M. Phillips Pastor of the Church in Water-town while M. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England went to Boston and administred the Lords Supper to that Church This surely was a Pastorall act and M. Phillips acted herein as a Pastor to those that were out of his own Congregation And if we may argue from our Brethrens practice we may safely conclude That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation Thirdly Contrary to Scripture For the Scripture tels us 1. That there is a Church generall visible as well as a particular Church visible Act. 8.1 Gal. 1.13 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 3 15. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church generall visible and but secondarily in this or that particular Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Teachers are set by God in the same Church with the Apostles Eph. 4.11 12. Pastors and Teachers are given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints and for the building of the body of Christ in general 3. That every Minister hath a double relation one to his particular Church another to the Church general visible And though he be actually to exercise his Ministry especially over that charge where he is fixed yet he hath a virtual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture under a general notion to shew the indefinitenesse of their Office They are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4.1 Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the Gospel 1 Thess. 3.2 and Ministers in the Lord Ephes. 6.21 Embassadours for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 But never Ministers of the people Indeed they are for the people but not of the people That a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible appears thus He that can ministerially admit or eject a Member into or out of the Church-Catholick visible is a Minister and Officer of the Church-Catholick visible But every Minister by Baptism or Excommunication admitteth or ejecteth Members into or out of the Church-Catholick visible Therefore c. This Argument is urged by Apolloâ—iâ—s and also by that godly learned Minister Mr Hudson who hath largely handled this point and to whom we must necessarily referre the Reader that would be further satisfied about it We shall onely relate a passage out of Mr Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way p. 33. collected by Mr Hudson A Minister chosen and set over one Society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. But he is a Minister in the Church universal For as the Church is one so is the Ministry one of which every Minister sound orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the later is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In Ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely though they be set over a certain people And as the faithfull in respect of their community between them must and ought to perform the offices of love one to another though of different Societies so the Ministers in respect of their communion must and ought upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices toward the faithfull of distinct societies And one more passage out of Mr Rutherford in his peaceable plea pag. 263. Ordination saith he maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Fourthly This Assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation as it is contrary to the universal Church to the practice of our Brethren themselves to the holy Scriptures so also it is contrary to sound reason For hence it will follow 1. That when a
the Universal Church yet we are far from thinking that he is actually an Universal Minister The Apostles had the actual care of the Church Universal committed unto them and wheresoever they came had actual power to perform all Ministerial Offices without the consent or call of particular Churches And besides they were not fixed to any particular charge but were Ministers alike of all the Churches of Christ. But it is far otherwise with ordinary Ministers They are fixed to their particular Congregations where they are bound by divine right to reside and to be diligent in preaching to them in season and out of season All that we say concerning their being Ministers of the Church universall is That they have power by their Ordination in actu primo as M. Hudson saith to administer the Ordinances of Christ in all the Churches of the Saints yet not in actu secundo without a speciall Call which is farre differing from the Apostolicall power Object If a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation why do you your selves ordain none but such as have a title to some particular charge Answ. It is true We say in our Government That it is agreeable to the Word of God and very convenient That they that are to be ordained be designed to some particular Church or Ministerial employment not hereby limiting their Office but the ordinary exercise of their Office We distinguish between a Minister of Christ and a Minister of Christ in such a place between the Office it self and the ordinary â—xercise of it to such or such a people And yet notwithstanding we ordain none without a Title thereby to prevent 1. A vagrant and ambulatory Ministry For we conceive it far more edifying for the people of God to live under a fixt Ministry 2. A lazy and idle Ministry For when men shall have an office and no place actually to exercise it this might in a little space fill the Church with unpreaching Ministers 3. A begging and so a contemptible Ministry For when Ministers want places they are oftentimes wholly destitute of means and thereby come to great poverty even to the very contempt of the office it self So much for the sixth Argument Arg. 7. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election without Ordination then it will necessarily follow that when a Minister leaves or is put from that particular charge to which he is called that then he ceaseth to be a Minister and becomes a private person and that when he is elected to another place he needs a new Ordination and so toties quoties as often as he is elected so often he is to be ordained which to us seems a very great absurdity That this consequence doth necessarily follow is confessed by the Reverend Ministers of New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline where they say He that is clearly loosed from his Office-relation unto that Church whereof he was a Minister cannot be looked upon as an Officer nor perform any act of Office in any other Church unlesse he be again orderly called unto Office which when it shall be we know nothing to hinder but Imposicion of hands also in his Ordination ought to be used towards him again For so Paul the Apostle received Imposition of hands twice at least from Ananias Act. 9.17 and Act. 13.3 4. But this seems to us to be a very great absurdity and contrary to sound doctrine which we prove 1. Because every Minister hath a double relation one to the Church-Catholique indefinitely another to that particular Congregation over which he is set And when he removes from his particular Congregation he ceaseth indeed to be a Minister of that place but not from being a Minister of the Gospel And when called to another he needs no new Ordination no more as M. Hudson well saith then a Physician or Lawyer need a new License or Call to the Barre though they remove to other places and have other Patients and Clients For Ordination is to the essence of the Ministeriall Office and not only in reference to a particular place or charge The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Church-government say That there is one generall Church visible held forth in the New Testament and that the Ministry was given by Iesus Christ to the génerall Church-visible for the gathering and perfecting of it in this life until his second coming which they prove from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.4 5. compared with ver 10 11 12 13 15 16. of the same Chapter Now if Ministers be seated by Christ in the Church-Catholique as well as in their particular Churches then it followeth That they have a relation as Ministers to the Church-Catholique and though their relation to their particular Church ceaseth yet their Ministeriall relation ceaseth not because they were Officers of the Church-Catholique and there doth still remain in them a power in actu primo to dispense all the Ordinances of Christ though their Call ad actum secundum sive exercitum pro hic nunc as M. Hudson phraseth it ceaseth Even as every private Christian hath also a double relation one to the Church generall another to the particular place whereof he is a member And when he removes from his Congregation he doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church for then his Baptism should cease for every baptized person is a member of the Church but only of that particular Church And when he joyns with any other Congregation he needs not to be baptized again but is received by vertue of his former Baptism So it is with a Minister of the Gospel When he leaves his particular Congregation he continueth still to be a Minister though not their Minister and needs no more to be ordained anew then a private Christian to be baptized anew because neither Ordination nor Baptism do stand in relation to the particular Congregation but to the Church-Catholique Secondly If a Minister when he removes or is removed from his particular Congregation ceaseth to be a Minister then it will follow 1. That if the Church that called him prove hereticall and wickedly separate from him that then the sin of the people should nullifie the Office of the Minister Or. 2. If the Church refuse to give him competent maintenance and starve him out from them or if the major part unjustly combine together to vote him out for such power our brethren give to particular Churches that then the covetousnesse and injustice of the people should make void the Function of their Minister Nay 3. By this doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or Nation to un-minister all their Ministers which things are very great absurdities and contrary to sound doctrine Thirdly Because there is no Scripture to warrant the iteration of Ordination in case of removall The Apostles went about Ordaining Elders in every Church And Titus was
left in Crete to Ordain Elders c. But there is no mention made of any command for reiterated Ordination neither indeed can it be For Ordination being a setting a man apart to the Office of the Ministry as we shall hereafter prove and not only to the exercise of it in such a place though the local exercise should cease yet his Office still remains and therefore needs not be reiterated To this truth we have the consent of the Universall Church who do not only not allow but condemn a second Ordination Neither do we know any of the Reformed Churches that teach or practise after this manner but many that teach and practise the contrary Object What then will you answer to the example of Paul who had hands twice laid upon him once by Ananias Act. 9. and afterward at Antioch Act 13 Answ. 1. It will not easily be proved Thaâ— the Imposition of hands by Ananias upon Paul was for the consecration of him to the Office of an Apostle and not rather for the recovering of his sight and for that only The Text seems to hold out the last Sure we are that Paul was baptized after this Imposition of hands and it is not probable that he was outwardly and visibly ordained to his Apostolical Office before his Baptism As for Act. 13. M. Hooker in his Survey par 2. pag. 83. saith expresly That here is no Ordination to Office at all for the Apostles had their Office before and if so then it makes nothing for our New-England Brethren to prove an iterated Ordination unto the same Office Of the like minde with M. Hooker is Learned Chamier who saith That before this Ordination Paul and Barnabas had preached and exercised the Offiâ—e of their Apostleship And therefore we doe not think saith he that this Imposition of hands was an Ordination properly unto any New Ecclesiasticall Function but onely a confirmation of their sending to the Gentiles to whom they were not yet professedly sent For in that excursion of theirs unto Antioch there is no mention made of the Gentiles and that was a kinde of Prologue to that great work which now they were to put in full execution The Text it self seems to give countenance to this Interpretation because it saith Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work c. not for the office but for the work whereunto I have called them Called they were before and designed by God to be Preachers to the Gentiles and now they were publiquely inaugurated to that great and eminent service Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius as they are cited by Chamier say That this Imposition of hands was unto the Office of an Apostle Thus Deodate They laid their hands on them that is for a sign of Consecration unto the Office of an Apostle But how can this be when the Apostle Paul himself tels us that he was an Apostle not of men neither by men but by Iesus Christ immediatly and also when he was an Apostle as Calvin saith long before this time And therefore we rather think that this separation was not unto the Apostolicall Office but unto that great and as Calvin cals it now unusual work of preaching unto the Gentiles But howsoever whether this Imposition of hands were unto the Apostolicall Office or only unto a peculiar work it makes nothing for the proof of that for which it is brought to wit That an Officer loosed from his Office-relation may be ordained again unto the same Office For Paul was never loosed from his Office after he was once called unto it If the Imposition of hands by Ananias were unto the Office of an Apostle as we beleeve it was not yet if it were we then demand Either this Ordination was afterward null and void or remained firm and valid If it alwaies remained firm what need a new Ordination If null and void we desire a proof of it which we are sure they cannot produce and till that be done this instance makes nothing for the proof of their assertion Besides all this we adde That this separation and imposition of hands was by the immediate appointment of the holy Ghost The holy Ghost said Separate me c. and ver 4. They were sent forth by the holy Ghost This was an extraordinary thing and therefore not sufficient to ground an ordinary practice upon Thirdly and lastly If the whole essence of the Ministerial Call consisteth in popular Election then will two other great absurdities follow 1. That Ordination can in no case precede such Election 2. That there must be Churches before there be Ministers First that Ordination can in no wise precede Election Now though ordinarily no man is ordained in the Presbyterian way without a title to some châ—rge yet we conceive many cases may be put in which Ordination may lawfully go before Election We shall only give two Instances 1. When an ordained Minister removes upon warrantable grounds from one charge to another the people to whom he removes â—hoose him not as oâ—e that is to be made a Minister but as one already made and now to be made their Minister for his removing from his former place doth not nullifie his Ministerial office as we have sufficiently proved 2. When there is a necessity of sending men as there is now in New-England for the conversion of Heathen people we thâ—â—k it very agreeable unto Scripturâ—-rules that these men shoâ—ld be first ordained before they be elected by the Heathen to whom they are sent And the reason is because that the conversion of souls is the proper work of the Ministry When Christ went up into heaven he left not only Apostles Prophets and Evangâ—lists but also Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph. 4.11 12. And the office of oâ—dinary Ministers is to be Embassadors for Christ and in Christs Name or in Christs stead to beseech people to be reconciled unto God not only to build them up in grace when reconciled but to be instrumental to reconcile them to open their eyes and to turn them from darknesse to light and from the power of Satan unto God c. We finde no place in Scripture to warrant a Church to send out gifted brethren without Ordination for the work of conversion What may be done in extraordinary cases where Ordination cannot be had we dispute not but where it may be had there we conceive it most agreeable to the Word that men should be first Ordained before sent Hereby they shall have a divine stamp upon them they shall go with more authority and shall have power to baptize those whom they do convert which otherwise they cannot lawfully do It is an unscriptural opinion and of pernicious consequence that some amongst us have taken up That a Minister should preach only for the building up of Saints and not for the conversion of sinners That when a Minister converts
any out of his own Congregation he doth it not as a Minister but as a gifted brother That the great work of conversion which is the chief work of a Minister doth properly belong to gifted Brethren All this ariseth from that groundlesse conceit That a Minister is no Minister out of his own Congregation which we have abundantly disproved Secondly It will also follow That there must be Churches before there be Ministers which is against Scripture and sound reason We do not deny but that there must be a Church before their Minister but not before a Minister The Church-Entitative is before the Church Ministerial but yet a Minister must needs be before a Church For every Church must consist of persons baptized Unbaptized persons cannot make a Church And therefore there must be a Minister to baptize them before they can be made capable to enter into Church-fellowship Our Saviour Christ chose his Apostles for the gathering of Churches There were first Apostles before Churches and afterward◠the Apostles ordained Elders in these gathered Churches And one great work of these Elders was to convert the neighbouring Heathen and when converted to baptize them and gather them into Churches And therefore Elders as well as Apostles were before Churches And whosoever with us holds as our Brethren do that none but a Minister in Office can baptize must needs hold that there must be ordinary Ministers before Churches and that therefore the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in the Election of the Church So much for the proof of the second Proposition It will be expected that we should answer to the Arguments that are brought by these Reverend men that hold the contrary to this Proposition As for Texts of Scripture there are none brought nor as we said before can be brought The great argument used by D. Ames and improved by M. Hooker is this Arg. 1. One Relate gives being and the essentiall constituting causes to the other But Pastor and People Shepherd and Flock are relates Ergo. He addes further That they are simul natura and that the one cannot be without th◠other There cannot be a Pastor before there be a people which choose him c. Answ. We shall answer to this Argument according to the grounds formerly laid That every Minister hath a double relation one to the particular Church of which he is a Minister the other to the Church universall As to his relation to his particular Church it is very true That Pastor and People are relates and simul naturâ He cannot be their Pastor but by their submission to his Ministry and when he leaves them he ceaseth to be their Minister But now besides this particular relation he hath a relation also to the Church universall and by his Ordination is invested as we have said with habituall power to act as a Minister beyond his particular Church when he is lawfully called thereunto and as long as this correlative the Church universall lasteth so long his ministeriall office lasteth though his particular relation should cease In a word The people give being to a Minister as to be their Minister but not as to be a Minister Another Argument brought by M. Hooker is Arg. 2. It is lawfull for a people to reject a Pastor upon just cause if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his life or hereticall in his doctrine and put him out of his Office Ergo It is in their power also to call him outwardly and put him into his Office The consequence is proved from the staple rule Ejusdem est instituere destituere He that hath power to invest hath power to devest The Antecedent is as certain by warrant from the Word Mat. 7.15 Mat. 7.15 Beware of Wolves Phil. 3.2 Beware of false Prophets Answ. If by putting him out of his office be meant only a putting him from being their Officer then the argument must be thus framed They that have power to put out a Minister from being their Minister have power to choose him to be their Minister and this we deny not But if by putting him out of office be meant a putting him absolutely from being an Officer we deny that the people in this sense have power destituere to put him out of office or instituere to put him into office And we retort the Argument They that have not power instituere have not power destituere They that have not power to put a Minister into office have not power to put him out of office But people not being Officers have not power to make an Officer as hath been shewed Ergo. But it seems that Mr Hooker by the peoples rejecting their Pastor and putting him out of office doth mean their excommunicating of him for he saith afterwards That this rejection cuts him off from being a member in that Congregation where he was c. For answer to this we refer the Reader to what is said by a Minister that is come out of New-England who saith That if Reverend Mr Hooker had been alive and had seen what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches it would have caused him to bethink himself again of the Peoples power Something we hear of saith he is done in a Church not farre from the place where he lived it cannot be kept close the light of that fire shines into England Afterwards he brings Mr Cotton to confute Mr Hooker Mr Cotton saith That Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers Then he cites Mr Burroughs If the Church be without Officers they cannot do that which belongs to Officers to do they have no Sacraments amongst them neither can they have any spiritual Iurisdiction exercised amongst them only brotherly admonition and withdrawing from such as walk disorderly for their own preservation Much more to this purpose is brought by this Author to whom we refer the Reader As for those two Texts of Scripture Matth. 7.15 Phil. 3.2 by which Mr Hooker proves his Antecedent they do not at all come up to the point in hand Though people are to beware of wolves and of false prophets it doth not therefore follow that a people may excommunicate their Minister Indeed this will follow That people are to be careful to preserve themselves from heretical Ministers and to withdraw from them and this withdrawing if it be upon just grounds makes him cease to be their Minister but not from being a Minister as we have often said We will not trouble the Reader with answering any more Arguments because they seem to us to have no weight in them these two already answered being the chief that are brought Only we shal speak a little to a similitude that is often brought by our Brethren of the contrary judgment For it is ordinarily said That there is the same relation between a Minister and his particularCongregation as
a debate about it For we deny not but that a Congregation sufficiently Presbyterated that is wherein there are many Ministers may ordain though we believe that there are but very few such if any and therefore are of the opinion of the Reverend Assembly in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Ordination That it is very requisite that no single Congregation that can conveniently associate do assume to it self all and sole power in Ordination Quest. 4. What part hath the Ruling Elder in Ordination Answ. Supposing that there is such an Officer in the Church for the proof of which we referre the Reader to our Vindication We answer That the power of ordering of the whole work of Ordination belongs to the whole Presbytery that is to the Teaching and Ruling Elders But Imposition of hands is to be alwayes by Preaching Presbyters and the rather because it is accompanied with Prayer and Exhortation both before in and after which is the proper work of the Teaching Elder Quest. 5. Whether may one Preaching Presbyter lay on hands without the assistance of other Ministers Answ. Imposition of hands ought to be performed not by one single Presbyter but by a combination of preaching Presbyters In the Ordination of Deacons not one Apostle alone but a company of them laid on hands Act. 6.6 When Paul and Barnabas were separated unto the work whereunto they were called by God the Prophets and Teachers joyned together in laying on of hands It is observable that in all the Texts where mention is made of Imposition of hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular or Dual Number and so there must of necessity be more then one Imposer of hands Timothy was ordained by the Imposition not onely of Pauls hands but also of the Presbytery And therefore when we reade that Timothy is enjoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man and Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders we must not imagine that they were indued thereby with the sole power of Ordination For surely the Apostle would not require Timothy or Titus to do that which he himself would not do If Paul with the Presbytery laid hands upon Timothy then no doubt Timothy was also together with other Presbyters to lay hands upon those whom he should ordain The naming of one doth not exclude others especially if we consider that Titus was left to ordain Elders as Paul had appointed him Now it is without all peradventure that Paul did appoint him to do according as he himself practised Quest. 6. Whether a company of Believers associated together may ordain without Ministers Answ. The Answer to this Question is that which we especially aim at in this our fourth Assertion and wherein we desire most of all to satisfie the expectation of the Reader For this end we shall offer this Proposition in Answer to the Question That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church-Officers and not to a Church without Officers And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a perverting of the Ordinance and of no more force then Baptism by a Midwife or consecration of the Lords Supper by a person out of Office For the proof of this we might argue from what is recorded by Jewish Writers concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin When Moses by Gods appointment assumed the seventy Elders to assist him in Government and part of his spirit was by God put upon them this was done saith Maimonides Sanhedr cap. 4. by Moses laying hands upon them And at length before his departure out of this life when a successour was to be provided for him God commands him to take Ioshua and lay his hand upon him c. and accordingly it was done Numb 27.18 And so for those seventy Elders it is certain from the Jewish Writers that the succession of these was continued through all Ages by their creating others in the place of those that died by this Ceremony of Imposition of hands To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by Imposition of hands and the divine Majesty rested on them and those Elders imposed hands on others and others on others And they were found created untill the house of judgement of Ioshua and unto the house of judgement of Moses that is from time to time ascending to the Sanhedrin in Ioshua's and Moses's time Petrus Cunaeus de Rep. Hebraeâ—rum cap. 12. saith This Senatorian dignity because it was most honourable was granted to none without a legitimate act namely Imposition of hands So Moses laid his hand upon Ioshua and the seventy Elders which solemnity being performed presently a divine Spirit from above fell down upon them and filled their brests And these being thus initiated themselves admitted others after the same way The same Authour tels us also out of Maimonides of a constitution made That no man should after such a time use Imposition of hands but by grant from Rabbi Hillel that divine old man who was Prince of the great Council and how afterwards it came to cease And what care was taken by Juda the son of Baba to support and uphold it But because these things are not recorded in Scripture we shall wave all such way of arguing and rather dispute First From the constant practice of the Church of Christ as it is set down in the Apostolical Writings We challenge any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament for the justification of popular Ordination We reade of Ordination by Apostles Act. 6. Act. 14. And by Prophets and Teachers Act. 13. And by Evangelists Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5.22 And by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 But for Ordination by the people we meet not at all with it And without all peradventure If Ordination be an Ordinance of Christ it is to be managed according to the will of Christ and that is by Ministers and not by the community of believers May we not say to such Churches that usurp upon this work as it is said Matth. 21.23 By what Authority do you these things And who gave you this Authority Shew us your warrant out of the Word We reade indeed of Ordination in Churches Act. 18.23 and in Cities Tit. 1.5 but no where of Ordination by Churches or by Cities taking them for believers without Officers We adde Secondly That Ordination by the people is not onely not written in Scripture but it is against the Scripture For to what end and purpose should Jesus Christ appoint Officers extraordinary and ordinary for the doing of that work which the people themselves may do To what purpose did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain Elders Why was Titus left in Crete to appoint Elders in every City Might not the people say What need Paul leave Titus to do that which
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
these very gro unds and Principles Now then if the denying of our Ministry during the raign of Episcopacy to be a lawfulâ— Ministry be the parental cause of such horrid and desperate consequences we doubt not but it will be abhorred and abominated by all sober and godly Christians And that our people that read these lines will be rooted and established in this great Truth That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects CHAP. III. Wherein the great Objection against our Ministry as being derived from Rome is answered But the great objection of which we even now spake against this proposition is IF we justifie the lawfulnesse of Episcopal Ordination then it will also follow that we must justifie the Ordination that is in the Church of Rome For if Ordination by our Bishops be lawful then these Bishops themselves must be be lawful Ministers and then their Ordination must also be lawful and so by consequence it will follow That those in the Church of Rome from whom the Protestant Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation had their Ordination were true Ministers of Christ. For if they were not then were not our Ministers made by them the Ministers of Christ. And if they were then may a Minister of Antichrist be a Minister of Christ and Ordination received from the Pope of Rome be a Scripture Ordination Before we answer to this great Objection we shall premise this one distinction It is one thing to receive a Ministry from the Apostate Church of Rome as the author of it another thing to receive a Ministry from Jesus Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome Our Antiministerial adversaries if they would argue aright their objection must be thus framed The Ministry which hath the Pope of Rome or which is all one That hath Antichrist for the author of it is Popish and Antichristian But such is the Ministry of the Church of England Ergo. We deny the Minor For we say That our ministry is derived to us from Jesus Christ. We are his Ministers and his Ambassadors It is he that gave Pastors and Teachers to his Church as well as Apostles and Evangelists We say That Ordination of Ministers by Ministers is no Romish institution but instituted by the Lord Jesus himself long before Antichrist was That our Ministry is descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome And that this great objection which some say is unanswerable must of necessity be summed up into this argument Those Ministers which stand by an institution of Christ descending to them from the Apostles through the antichristian Church of Rome are ministers of Antichrist and not of Christ. But such are our Ministers Ergo. But here we deny the Major as utterly false we say That the Ministry which is an institution ofChrist passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel-Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church Now that this great Truth so necessary to be known in these dayes may be fully made out to our respective Congregations we shall crave leave a litle to enlarge our selves in the proof of it and shall for this end offer these ensuing considerations to be seriously weighed by all that fear God amongst us That the Lord Jesus hath given the Ministery to the Church to continue till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ which will never be till the day of judgement And he hath promised to be with the Apostles teaching and baptizing alway even unto the end of the World which must needs be understood of them and their successors He hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church which Mr. Hooker Mr. Cotton and others expound of the universall visible Church existing in its particulars The Apostle Paul also saith That the Sacrament of the Lords supper is to be observed and to continue till the comming of Christ. And that glory is to be given to God by Christ Jesus in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout all generations and ages It is also prophesied concerning the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ both invisible and visible that it shall abide to the end of the world Luc. 1.33 Isaiah 9.6.7 By all these teâ—ts it is evident That there was iâ— and shall be a true Church and a true Ministery preserved by Jesus Christ even unto the end of the World How can glory be given to God in the Church throughout all ages if there should be an age in which the Church should be utterly lost How can the Sacrament be continued in the Church till Christ come if there were so many hundred years in which there was no true Ministery How can it be said That Christ is with his Ministers alway even unto the end of the World and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and that there is no end of Christs Government if during all the raign of Antichrist there was no true Church-state in the world no true Ordinance as some say no true Ministery And therefore though we should not be able to tell how the Church and Ministry was preserved in the midst of that great and general Apostasie that hath been in the Christian World yet notwithstanding we ought to believe that it is so because Christ hath said it shall be so and heaven and earth shall â—asse away but not one title of Gods word shall passe away Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way spends the most part of a Chapter to prove That the essentials of a Church-state together with the Officers Ordinances and administrations thereunto appertaining hath and shall abide for ever in the World This he proveth both by Prophesies promises and precepts of Scripture and also by divers reasons The same task is also undertaken by Mr. Philips of Watertown in New-England but for brevity we forebear transcribing them We read Revel 12. of a great wonder in heaven a woman cloathed with the Sun c. This woman represents the Christian Church she is persecuted by the heathen Emperours and overthrows them by the blood of the Lambe and by the word of her testimonie and by not loving her life unto the death Afterward she is persecuted by Antichrist and then she flies into the wildernesse where she hath a place prepared her of God that they should feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes Vers. 6. and she iâ— said to be
in this Temple The man of sin is no part of this Temple of God but as a Plague of Leprosie infecting defiling and polluting it But yet the Temple of God which is his visible Church as appears from 1 Cor. 3.16 17. Revel 3.12 Revel 11.1 2. 2 Cor. 6.19 doth remain where the man of sin sits even as the Church of Pergamus did where the seat of Satan was And though we renounce the Antichristianisme which pollutes the Temple of God yet we do not renounce the Temple in self This is that which some of our Divines say That we differ no more from Rome then Rome differs from it self and from what it was in the Apostles dayes neither do we refuse any Doctrine that they hold simply because they hold it unlesse it can appear to us that that doctrine is part of the Antichristianisme of that Church The Religion of the Church of Rome is like a peece of bread mingled with a great deal of poison They hold many truthes but then they poison them by their Heretial additions They hold most that we hold and their Apostasie consisteth rather in adding to the truth then in detracting from it They hold the Scriptures we hold but they add Apocryphal to the Canonical Scriptures They hold Christ the Head of the Church but the Pope also They hold Justification by Faith as we do but they add Justification by works also They hold praying to God but add praying to Saints They hold two Sacraments but add five more c. Thus their Religion is bread and poison mingled together and whosoever living amongst them can separate the bread from the poison shall find bread enough to nourish him unto eternal life And the reason why we separated from them was because they would not suffer us to eat the bread unlesse we would eate the poison also Even as a man that is drinking a cup of Wine and another comes and puts a Toade in it and will not suffer him to drink the Wine unlesse he will drink the Toade also This was our condition Unlesse we would swallow down all their Antichristian additions to Gods Word they would not suffer us to live amongst them and hereupon we separated and may justly be said to be non fugitivi sed fugati Not withdrawing but driven away And which is very observable When the Protestant Churches did separate they did not erect a New Church but reformed a corrupt Church And therefore ours is called The Protestant Reformed Religion Not A New Religion We take away their hereticall superstructions but still keep the Truths which they hold We put away the poyson but keep the bread We take out the toad but yet do not fling away the Wine We remove the rubbish of Antichristianisme but yet we do not renounce any thing of God or of the Scriptures that is yet remaining sincere in that Church All this we the rather observe that thereby we might heed our people of that great cheat that is now put upon the Saints of God in this Nation in crying down all the truths of Jesus Christ as Antichristian and scaring people from the doctrine of Christ by perswading them to avoid Antichrist There is hardly any Truth of Christ but it is charged by some or other in our unhappie dayes to be Antichristian Thus. 1. The Doctrine of the souls Immortality was excogitata ab Antichristo ad stabiliendam suam culinam per fictum Purgatorium et invocationem Sanctorum Invented by Antichrist to uphold his Kitchin c. as is said by the Cracovian-Socinians And in the Book called Mans Mortality it is said That the most grand and blasphemous heresies that are in the World the mystery of iniquity and Kingdom of Antichrist doth depend upon this doctrine of the Souls immortality 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a doctrine that hath Antichrist for the author of it Zanchius in responsione ad Arianos 3. That Christ is God coaequal and coaeternal with the Father this also is called antichristian doctrine Sic clamat Antichristus So cryeth Antichrist say the Arrians Zanch. in responsione ad Arianos 4. The doctrine of the Magistrates power in punishing Anti istian heresies and blasphemies which the Scripture saith will be the way by which God will at last destroy Antichrist is said to be Antichristian Thus Blackwood in his storming of Antichrist 5. The Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme is also called Antichristian 6. The Doctrine of humiliation Repentance Sanctification and of good works done out of obedience to Gods command is antichristian as say the Antinomians And who knoweth not That the very places where we meet to worship God and the worship which we perform in those places and that our Government of the Church by lesser and greater Synodâ— is called Antichristian And therefore it is no wonder if our Ministry be also so called For we are now come to that height That there are some that renounce all Churches as Antichristian even those Churches themselves that renounce us as Antichristian And thus by the great subtlety of Satan under the notion of avoiding Antichristianisme there are many people tumbling down apace to direct Athiesme and are brought to renounce Christ himself lest therein they should comply with Antichrist And therefore we earnestly beseech and intreat our respective Congregations not to be affrighted at the bugbear word Antichristian or Popish But to examin Whether the Charge be true and to renounce whatsoever is truly Antichristian But to take heed that they be not frighted from Christ and from his Ordinances and Government Worship Ministery under the notion of renouncing Antichristianisme So much for the third consideration these three first considerations are more general We shall now apply our selves more punctually to the answer of the great Objection and desire it may be considered Consid. 4. In the fourth place That it hath pleased God out of his infinite Wisdom and providence to continue the two great Ordinances of Baptisme and Ordination found for the substantials of them in the Church of Rome even in their greatest apostacy We deny not but they have been exceedingly bemudded and corrupted Baptismâ— with very many superstitious ceremonies as of Oyl Spettle Crossings c. Ordination with giving power to the party Ordained to make the body of Christ c. But yet the Substantials have been preserved Children were Baptized with water in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost And the parties ordained had power given them to Preach the Word of God Now the Protestant Religion doth not teach us to renounce Baptisme received in the Church of Rome neither is a Papist when converted Protestant rebaptized Nor doth it teach us simply and absolutely to renounce Ordination but it deals with it as the Jewes were to do with a captive maid when they had a mind to marrie her They must shave her head and pare her nailes and put the raiment of â—er
captivity from off her â—nd then take her to wife So doth the Protestant Reformed Religion It distinguisheth between the Ordinances of God and the corruptions cleaving unto the Ordinances It washeth away all the defilements and pollutionâ— contracted in the Church of Rome both from Baptisme and Ordination but it doth not renounce either the one or the other 1. Because they are none of Antichrist's posts or Antichrist's inventions but are the institutions of Jesus Christ and were in the Church of Rome long before Antichrist sat there 2. Because they have been preserved sound for the substantials and essentials of them And the truth is he that renounceth the one must needs renounce the other which were well if some of our dissenting Brethren would seriously consider Now that this Position may not seem strange we will a a little compare the Apostacy of the 10. Tribes with the Apostacy of the church of Rome The 10. Tribes did not onely worship God after a false manner by setting up their golden Calves in Dan and Bethel but afterwards in the raign of Ahab they directly worshipped false Gods and set up Baal and Ashtaroth and fell away wholy from the true God and yet notwithstanding all this when the Prophet came to â—noint Jehu he saith unto him Thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord â—veâ—over Israel Here note That they are called the people of God notwithstanding their Apostacy And the Ordinance of Circumcision which was retained amongst them in this their Apostacy was Gods Ordinance and they that were circumcised under that Apostacy not onely did not renounce their circumcision but had sinned against God if they had done it and were accordingly admitted to the passeover by Hâ—â—â—kiah as truly circumcised For Gods Ordinanceâ— are not to be renounced for mans Corruptions cleaving to them but the corruptions are to be removed and the Ordinances embraced And afterwards in Christâ— time it is evident that the Office of the Priest and the High-Priest was excâ—edingly corrupted They came ordinarily into thâ—ir office by bribery faction And as many learned men think there were Two high Priestâ— together Anâ—as and Caiaphas when Christ was crucified The Priests and High-Priests had their chief stroak in the Crucifying of Christ. And yet we read Iohn 11.15 Caiaphas is owned by the Holy Ghost as high Priest c. Act. 23. when Paul said to the High-Priest God will sâ—itâ— thee thou whited wall c. and they that stood by said Râ—vilest thou the High-Priest Paul answered I wist not Brethren that he was the High-Priest For it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Rulâ—r of thy People Here also Paul as many think acknowledged him as an High-Priest though the Priesthood at that time was tyrannical heretical and they came by most unjust wayes into their places and offices From all this it appears That corruptionâ— cleaving to Gods Ordinances do not null Gods Ordinances That we are not to renounce divine Ordinances because of circumstantial defilements annexed to them That Baptisme and Ordination were found for the substance in the Church of Rome and therefore to be reformed but not renounced 5. The fift thing we desire may be considered is That it is no disparagement to the present Ministry of the Church of England to say That we receive our Ministry from Christ and his Apostles and from the Prâ—mitive Churches through the impure and corrupt Channel of the Church of Rome For 1. It was no disparagement to Jesus Christ that he received his humane nature from Adam through many unclean channels as Thamar Rahab Bethshebah c. 2. It is no disparagement to the holy Scriptures of the old Testament that the Christians received them from the Church of the Iewes even after they had crucified that Christ who was the center of the whole Old Testament Nor is it any disparagement to the Old and New Testament that we receive them as delivered to us by sucession from the Apostles through the Church of Rome although that Church by their corrupt Glosses and Interpretations had much depraved and corrupted them 3. It was no disparagement to circumcision that it came from God through the hands of Idolaters unto Christ and his Apostles Nor to Baptisme that it comes to us from Christ through the Antichristian Church of Rome insomuch as many of those that renounce Ordination do yet retain their Baptisme though it may be easily made to appear that it was as much corrupted as Ordination 4. It is no disparagement to the Ordinance of Marriage that many have been married in the Church of Rome and married with all the Popish Ceremonies yet we never heard of any that have renounced their marriage as unlawful because solemnized in the Church of Rome which yet notwithstanding doth hold Marriage to be a Sacrament in a proper sense and have many corruptions in their way of marriage and yet it is by the Law of God and man valid for the sustance of it 5. It was no disparagement to the Vessels of the Temple that they had been 70. years in Babylon and abused and prophaned by Belshazzar who in contempt of the God of Heaven drank Wine in those holy and consecrated Vessels for afterwards the Israelites made no scruple of receiving them and restoring them to the Temple This is the fift consideration 6. The sixt consideration is That the receiving of our Ordination from Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Churches and so all along through the Apostate Church of Rome is so far from nullifying our Ministry or disparaging of it that it is a great strengthening of it when it shall appear to all the World That our Ministry is derived to us from Christ and his Apostles by succession of a Ministry continued in the Church for 1600. years And that we have 1. a lineal succession from Christ and his Apostles 2. Not onely a lineal succession but that which is more and without which the lineal is of no benefit we have a Doctrinal succession also We succeed them in Preaching the same Doctrine that they did deliver to the Churches The Papists boast much of a lineal succession but they want the Doctrinal They succeed the Apostles as darknesse succeeds light and as Manasseh succeded Hezekiah But this is the happinesse of the present Ministry That we have both a lineal and doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles But doth not this discourse of ours when we say That the essentials of a 〈…〉 true Ministry and that Baptisme and Ordination for the Substantials of them were preserved in the Church of Rome during the prevalency of Antichrist make Rome to be a true Church of Christ. There are indeed some learned Orthodox Divines That say That the Church of Rome is Vâ—rè Ecclesia though not Vera Ecclesia is Truly a Church though far from being a true Orthodox Church There
are others that say That till the last Councel of Trent the Church of Rome remained a true Church for the essentials and substantials of it and then it ceased to be a true Church The Scripture saith That Antichrist sits in the Temple of God though he be no part of it as we have formerly said no more then Satan who had his seat in Pergamus was part of the Church of Pergamus But for our parts we conceive we are not at all forced by any thing that we have said to entermeddle with this Controversie For it doth not follow That because Ordination which is an Ordinance of Christ for the substance of it was preserved in the Church of Rome that therefore the Church of Rome is a true Church no more then it followeth That a Theefe having the goods of an honest man in his house which he hath stolen should thereupon be accounted a True man Surely The Theefe is still a theefe And so is Rome still the Mother of Harlots notwithstanding her possessing the Essentials of Ordination and Baptisme Even as Babylon of old A type of Rome was Babylon still and far from being the Church of God although it had the Vessels of the Temple with her So is the Church of Rome still an Antichristian Church The Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth although it hath had the Essentials of a true Ministry by Gods overruling providence continued in her 7. The Seventh and last consideration doth more immediately concern the Ministry of England and it consisteth of three branches 1. That the first conversion of the English Nation from Heathenisme unto Christiaâ—ity did not proceed from Româ— but from Hierusalem Mr. Fox and Dr. Iohn White have learnedly demonstrated out of Gildas and sundry other Authors who affirm that Britaine received the Gospel in the time of Tiberius the Emperour under whom Christ was crucified from some of the Apostles or some Apostolical men It is mostly received that Ioseph of Arimathea was sent by Philip from France to Britaine about the year 63. and laid the first foundation of the Christian faith amongst us To this Tertullian attesteth in his Book against the Iewes And therefore it is a falsity for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English Nation and no lesse absurdity for us to derive our succession from them 2. That the Churches of England in their first Plantation were rightly gathered and constituted as being planted by the Apostles or men Apostolical And that true Christianity after it's first settlement in Britaine was never wholy exâ—â—nguished but hath continued from the very first Plantation of it to this very day This Dr. VVhite proveth â—gainst the Papists in his way to the Church § 49. Where he sheweth That the Faith continued here from King Lucius to the coming of Austin the Monk whom Gregory sent hither 600. years after Christ who when he came found divers Britaine Bishops and learned men with a Monastery at Bangor who did oppose Arrianisme and Pâ—lagianisme and the pride of Austin the Popes Ambassador 3. That during the raign of Antichrist here in England God reserved unto himself many Thousands that never bowed their knees to Baal as appears in the Book of Martyrs And amongst otherâ— he raised up Mr. VVickliffe and made him a great and famous instrument of Church-reformation Our London Divines in their Appendix to the jus divinum of Church government prove out of good Authors that in this Church of England the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordinations of Ministers and other Ecclesiastical affairs were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England c. So that if the whole be well considered it will puzzle our Antiministerial adversaries to prove that the Church of England was beholding to the Church of Rome for either the first plantation after reformation or continuation of the Gospel Church and Ministry therein from the begining to this day We will conclude this consideration with the remarkable speeches of two New-England Ministers The first is Mr. Philips of Watertown who having proved That England was not beholden to Rome for its first conversion nor after reformation at last hath these words When it pleased God more fully to clear up the light of his Gospell in this Nation so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian and were made the first fruits unto God and the Lambe The Church-state was not essentially altered all this time nor were these first fruits unto God New constituted Churches but members of some Churches clearing themselves from corruption and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition into a more healthful and sound estate In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places especially after Luthers time yea even in England something by Henry the 8 th more by Edward the 6 th and Queen Elizabeth who did not constitute new Churches but reformed the Churches deeply degenerated from the first constitution and the pure state thereof as they did the like in the state of Iudah often sometimes better and more fully and sometimes not so fully in the dayes of the Judges David Asa Iehoshaphat Hezekiah Iosiah Ezra and Nehemiah The other is Mr. Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 7. Pag. III. where he saith Four things we observe in the State of the Churches in England which make way for Reformation amongst them First the Efficient instruments of their first plantation which were either Apostles or Apostolicall men whether Philip or Ioseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as any of our Countrymen may read in Mr. Foxe's Book of Acts and Monuments in the beginning of it next after the story of the ten persecutions out of Gildas Tertullian Origen Beda Nicephorus which being so we cannot but conceive the Churches in England were rightly gathered and planted according to the Rule of the Gospel and all the corruptions found in them since have sprung from Popish Apostacy in succeeding ages and from want of through and perfect purging out of that leaven in the late times of reformation in the dayes of our Fâ—therâ— So that all the work now iâ— not to make them Churcheâ— which were nonâ— before but to reduce and restore them to thâ—ir primitive institution c. And thus we have â—t lâ—st finished our several considerâ—tions in answer to thiâ— great Objection and shâ—ll here put an â—nd to our first Proposition to wit That the Call to the O ffice of the Ministry which some of our Ministerâ— did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lâ—wfull and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantiall dâ—fects We have proved it by arguments drawn from the principles of our adversaries and also from our owne principlâ—â— We have indeavoured to give full satisfaction to all the Objectionâ— that are brought against it We had thought to have given our people a summary recapitulation
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
done if he had made them at that time distinct orderâ— with distinct Offices or if he had made Titus at that time Bishop or as some would have it Arch-Bishop or Primate and Metropolitan of the hundred Cities that were in Creet So much for the proof that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence 2. The second thing we are to prove is That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and not onely so in a general signification as all Preachers of the Gospel may be called Evangelists but in a special and proper sence This will the better appear if we consider what an Evangelist is and the difference between Evangelists and other Officers of the Church Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a settled residence upon any one charge They were Comites et Vicarii Apostoloâ—um Vice-Apostles who had Curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And they did as Ambrose speakes Evangâ—lizare sine Cathedra Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Act. 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require To this agreeth Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy Evangelists saith he were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in Ecclesiastical affaires wheresoever they found need They were extraordinary and temporary Officers as the Apostles and Prophets were and Officers of a Rank higher then Pastors and Teachers and so they are reckoned Ephesians 4.11 Now that Timothy and Titus were such Officers is made evident Not onely because one of them is in direct terms called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 But also from the perpetual motion of both of them from place to place not onely before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but as much after as before And that they did so move appears from divers Authors who have exactly set down their several peregrinations both before and after We shall not trouble the Reader with their travailes before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but shall onely relate what is said by the Reverend Minsters in their humble answer at the Isle of Wight of their journeyings after their going thither And first of Timothy If Timothy say they was Bishop of Ephesus he must be so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia and he left him there to exercise his Office in regulating ordering that Church and in ordaining but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletum For after Paul had been at Miletum he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with himand those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philâ—mon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus for we find that after all this towards the end of Saint Paulâ— life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand he sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seems that Timothy was not there because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts he saith Tychieus have I sent to Ephesus Now if your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one Totall what is said The severall journeys and stations of Timothy the Order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in several Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like may be said also concerning Titus after he was left at Creet he was sent for by Paul to Nicopolis and after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at Troas and not with Paul in Macedonia whence he is sent againe to Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Creet but unto Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture From all this we gather 3. Conclusions That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense that is were not fixed Stars in Ephesus or Creet And whereas it is answered that the necessities of those times made even the most fixed Stars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services that were of most use for the successe of that great work yet so that after their errands fully done they returned to their own charge and that therefore they might be Bishops notwithstanding their severall journeys We challenge any of them to shew in all the New Testament any one that was appointed Overseer of a particucular Church whose motion was as Planetary as we have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have been or if that fail to shew that after Timothy and Titus went abroad upon the service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment But we are fully assured that they can shew neither the one nor the other and therefore we may safely conclude that they were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and Evangelists in a proper sense and Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers and Officers of an higher Rank and Order That they were not onely Evangelists before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but afterwards also as hath been abundantly proved And the truth is If they were Evangelists at any time we cannot conceive how they can come to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense For we thus argue They that were made Evangelists in a proper sense by the Apostles were never afterwards made Bishops in our Brethrens sense by the Apostles For this had been to degrade them from a superiour Office to an inferiour And if according to the Councell of Chalcedon it be not onely incongruous but sacrilegious to bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter If it be an eternall reproach
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a Pastor-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
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
already proved That Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called a Bishop of Ephesus in their sense It will not follow because Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus in 3. St. Johns dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle for St Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe For our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number Rev. 2.10 And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one So much for the first head of answers 2. But now in the second place Let us suppose it though we will not grant it That these Angels were Personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken Individually yet we conceive That this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause For 1. First Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth That by these words To the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the President as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church likewise But then he addeth But that Episcopal Degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetual President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligâ—rchical Tyranny whose head is the Antichâ—istian Beast now at length with â—he most certain ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest by which quotation it is evident that though Beza hâ—ld the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus presâ—s not Angâ—lus Princeps And that he was Praeses prâ— tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament To this effect do the Reverend Divines speak in their humble answer at the Isle of VVight where they say That these writings to the Angels are directed as Epistolary letters to Collective bodies usually are That is To one but intended to the body which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the Houâ—e of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person or if he were that therefore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least and so your Majestie hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators Secondly Dr Reynolds who hath written a letter in Print against the jâ—s divinum of Episcopacy acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart dial 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith That Presbyters when they met together for the carrying on of the affairs of the Church by common Councel and consent chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth The Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know From which saying we may safely conclude That though we should grant which yet we do not that this Angel is a single person yet it will not at all help the Episcopal Hierarchy For this Angel is but a Moderator of the Presbytery having no superiority of power either in Ordination or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is himself also a Presbytery and for ought appears to the contrary from the judgment of Dr. Reynolds a Moderator onely pro tempore Which kind of government is purely Presbyterial and not at all Episcopal much lesse as some would have it even from this text Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical But it is objected by some learned men That the Seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation unto the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them And that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops To this we answer 1. That it will hardly be proved that these Seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in St. Iohnâ— dayes And the situation of the most of them lying near together by the Sea side makes it very improbable 2. But suppose it would yet we answer 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferr the greatnesse of the Churches For though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 2. We do not believe that ever it can be proved That the Apostles did model the government of the Church according to the government of the Roman State This was the after-policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolical policy And therefore it doth not follow That because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of these seven Cities That therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to these seven Asian Churcheâ— 3. We are fully assured That it can never be made out That any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven starrs are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches If this opinion were true Then Tertullian did noâ— do well in saying That St. Iohn made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said That he made him Arch-Bishop And our Saviour Christ had not given unto these seven Angels their due Titles For he must have written To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other Six Surely this device was found out for the honour of Archiepiscopacy by some that did aspire unto that dignity But we hope that our more moderate Brethren are far from stamping a divinum jus upon Archbishops and Primâ—tes and Patriarchs for fear lest by the same proportion of reason they be forced to put a divine stamp at last upon the Pope himself And therefore we forbear to say any more about it For the conclusion of this discourse about the Asian Angels we shall add 4. That it can never be proved That these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Prelatical sence much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
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
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore as Ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem