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
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
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
and build up those that belong to the election of grace to perfect the Saints and to edifie the body of Christ. Which Ordinance of Preaching though it be vilified and prove the savour of death unto death to them that perish who stumble at the Word being disobedient whereunto also they were appointed Yet to them which believe it is the power of God unto salvation As Christ and his Ordinances are a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to the unbelievers So to them which believe Christ in his Ordinances is very precious and the dispensers of his Ordinances very acceptable For unto them How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace Thus Christ in his Ordinances and messengers when he is disallowed of men is made the head-stone of the corner and when the world by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the Ordinance of preaching which a carnal world cals foolishness to save them which do believe Some object against this Argument That though the Ministry was needfull in former times yet there is no need in times of the Gospel The Saints shall be taught of God And God promises in the new Covenant saying I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying Know the Lood for they shall all know me from the lest of them unto the greatest Now if all the Saints shall be so taught of God that they shall not need to teach one another Then teaching by way of Office is not perpetually needfull in times of the Gospel And another parallel place there is 1 Iohn 2.27 The anointing which ye have received abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie and even as it hath taught you ye shall abide in him To which we answer 1. Though the light in times of the Gospel be farre clearer then under the Law yet it remains a perpetual truth even in Gospel-times That without all controversie great is the mystery of Godliness And this mystery is so great that flesh and bloud do not reveal it to us That there is a vail upon our eyes in reading the Scriptures which vail is only done away by Câ—rist â— Though Christ alone doth away this Vail and all the Saâ—nts be taught of God yet is neither the Vail removed nor the Saints instructed ordinarily without the Ministry of the Word when God undertakes to teach his Elect effectually and to take them one of a City and two of a Family and to bring them to Sion then God promises saying I 'le give you Pastors after mine own heart which shall feed you with understanding and knowledge So the Saints are truly taught of God in the Ministry of the Word because it is God alone that giveth Ministers and alone also teacheth his People to profit under this Ministry for it is God that giveth to every seed his own Body Paul may plant and Apollo water but it is God alone that giveth the encrease Paul's planting and Apollo's watering did not cease to be the Ordinances of God though in reference to the success of their Ministry neither was he that planted any thing nor he that watered but God alone that gives the encrease 3. When God saith They shall not teach every man his Neighbour and every man his brother This word not a note of negation is not absolute but comparative as where Christ saith My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me The world cannot hate you but me it hateth because I testifie that the works thereof are evil When God saith I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice When Paul saith God sent me not to Baptize And when to the Churches he saith As touching Brotherly Love ye need not that I write unto you for ye your selves are taught of God to love one another Yet in the very next verse he exhorts them unto brotherly Love beseeching them that they would encrease more and more And as touching the ministring of the Saints he saith It is superfluous for me to write to you yet in that very Chapter he useth many arguments and professeth that he thought it necessary to prepare their bounty and to stir up their pure mindes to a liberall contribution to the Saints and unto all men All which speeches are comparative expressions whereby not the thing it self but such a measure and degree is denied and so it must be here 1. Because when these promises That they should not teach every man his brother were fullfilled and all the Saints were taught of God yet even then were they taught by an outward Ministry Christ himself taught daily in the Temple He even taught in the Synagogues He sent also out his Disâ—ples to teach And the Apostles themselves gave themselves continually to the Ministry of the Word So that in those primitive times the inward spirituall teaching of God did not take away that teaching which he himself hath ordained to be externall and ministeriall 2. This negation in this promise must be only comparative and not universall and absolute because then it would not only destroy the Ministry as unnecessary in publike but also evacuate and disannull all brotherly admonitions in private and then all godly conference and fraternall reproofs should be prohibited as sins which none can deny to be commanded as duties and such duties as are perpetuall in Gospel-times for all Saints at all times are commanded to consider one another to provoke unto holinesse and good works And they should be teaching and admonishing one another to warn them that are unruly to comfort the feeble-minded support the weak To restore a brother that is fallen with the spirit of meeknesse and to bear one anothers burthen and so fullfill the Law of Christ. 3. The Internall teaching of the Spirit doth not take away the need of an externall teaching by the Ministry because by the same Argument there should be no need of Scripture because the Scripture it self also is externall And this is not a malicious supposition but de facto there are many men in our times that do so far rely upon this inward teaching as to lay aside the Scriptures And if so there is no rule left to try the spirits which is ever needfull because many false Prophets are gone out into the world Then there is no way left to recover them that are fallen or preserve them that stand for every one then will wander after his own heart without conviction and the delusions of Satan may prevail undiscovered as if they were the Oracles of God Then a blinde world and a blinde heart will leade one another till they both fall into the ditch To prevent these dangers at all times God
and Barnabas to the Lord. Answ. 1. This interpretation cannot consist with the Antecedents and Consequents as we have already shewed 2. If this Interpretation were true it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is illis not sibiipsis 3. Tremellius that translates the Syriack of the New Testament renders it Et constituerunt eis in omni coetu Seniores And they appointed that is Paul and Barnabas to them that is to the people The Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illis Object There is another that confesseth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can agree with no other but Paul and Barnabas and therefore he labours to finde the Election of the people in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith he doth not signifie in every Church as it is translated but according to the Church instancing in the Orators phrase faciam secundum te I will do it according to thy minde So they that is Paul and Barnabas ordained them Elders according to the Church that is according to the will and minde of the Church Answ. If this were granted it would not prove the matter in hand That the major part of a Congregation by divine right have the whole and the sole power of Election it would only conclude an acquiescency in the people and that they had satisfaction in the Ordination carried on by Paul and Barnabas A phrase to the same purpose is used Tit. 1.5 where Titus is left in Crete to appoint Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we may as well say that the whole City had their vote in Election in Crete and that every thing was done according to the minde of the City as to say here that every thing was done according to the minde of the Church See more of this in M. Blake his Treatise of the Covenant So much for the first Argument The Second Argument by which we prove That the power of Election of Ministers doth not by divine right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every particular Congregation is drawn from the mischiefs that will inevitably flow from this assertion For 1. It is certain that every one that is to be made a Minister is first of all to be tried and proved whether he be fit for so great an Office 1 Tim 3.10 Let these also be proved c. These also that is the Deacons as well as the Bishops The Bishop therefore is to be tried and examined whether he be apt to teach whether he be able to convince gainsayers whether he be a workman that needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth Now there are many Congregations wherein the major part are very unfit to judge of ministeriall abilities and if the whole and sole power were in them they would set up Idol-Shepherds instead of able Shepherds 2. There are some Congregations wherein the major part are wicked and if left to themselves wholly would choose none but such as are like themselves 3. There are some wherein possibly the major part may be hereticall and will never consent to the Election of an Orthodox and sound Minister 4. Sometimes there have been great dissentions and tumults in popular Elections even to the effusion of bloud as we reade in Ecclesiasticall Story Sometimes Congregations are destitute of Ministers for many years by reason of the divisions and disagreements thereof as we see by wofull experience in our daies Now in all these or such like cases if the whole and sole power of Election were in the major part of every Congregation how sad and lamentable would the condition be of many hundred Congregations in this Nation And therefore it is that in all well-governed Churches great care is had for the avoiding of these Church-undoing inconveniences In the Church of Scotland the power of voting in Elections is given to the Presbytery of the Congregation with the consent of the major or better part thereof And therefore M. Gillespie though a great friend to the due right of particular Congregations yet when he comes to state the question about Election of Ministers he puts it thus Whether the Election of Pastors ought not to be by the votes of the Eldership and with the consent tacit or expressed of the major or better part of the Congregation c. he durst not state it precisely upon the major part and afterwards he tels us That the Election of a Minister is not wholly and solely to be permitted to the multitude or body of the Church and that an hereticall and schismaticall Church hath not just right to the liberty and priviledge of a sound Church And that when a Congregation is rent asunder and cannot agree among themselves the highest Consistories Presbyteries and Assemblies of the Church are to end the controversie and determine the case after hearing of both parties Bucanus tels us That the Election of a Minister for the avoiding of confusion ought not to be by every member of a Congregation but by the Presbytery or by the Pastors and Teachers of neighbouring Congregations directing and guiding the people as being most fit to judge of Ministerial abilities The Lutheran Churches put the power of calling of Ministers into the Presbytery Magistracy and People To the Christian Magistrate they give nomination presentation and confirmation To the Presbytery examination ordination and inauguration To the People consent and approbation He that would be further satisfied in this point may reade the Discourse of our Reverend Brother Dr Seaman about Ordination where he shall finde the custome and practice of most of the Reformed Churches in calling of Ministers for the avoiding of the forementioned mischief So much for the first Proposition CHAP. IX Wherein a second assertion about Election is largely proved namely That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination THat the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in Election without Ordination There are many Learned and Godly men whom we much reverence though we dissent from them in this particular that say That Ordination is only Adjunctum consequens consummans an adjunct following and consummating the Ministeriall Call but not at all entring into the constitution of it That Ordination is nothing else but the approbation of the Officer and a setling and confirming him in his Office and that Election is that which gives him the essentials of his Office Dr Ames saith That the vocation of a Minister doth properly and essentially consist in Election Mr Hooker saith That the Election of the People rightly ordered by the rule of Christ gives the essentials to an Officer or leaves the impression of a true outward Call and so an Office-power upon a Pastor Our Brethren in New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline say That the essence and substance of the outward Calling of an ordinary Officer in the Church doth not
themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could lose their Apostleship Had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more parted with their power of Governing then they did in setting up Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the office of teaching c. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commitâ— the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in ordinary in his own hands who took his last farewell of them as never to see them more As the reserving of that part of the power of Governme nt called Legislative in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties judgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops at Ephesus and Creet to whom the Apostle gives rules for ordering and governing the Church So likewise there is no reason why the Apostle reserving of that part of the power of Government called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought m eet should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at first then that they never did There is a third answer given which is quite contrary to the second and that is that these Bishops of Philippi were Bishops in a proper sence and that at that time when the Apostle wrote his Epistle there were no single Presbyters at Philippi 1. This answer is quite contrary to the sence that Hierom Theodoret and Theophylacts and others give of this text 2. This answer supposeth that there were more Bishops then one planted in one City by the Apostles which is quite contrary to the judgment of Episcopall divines and quite destructive of the Episcopal Hierarchy Theodoret sayth that the Apostles by Bishops understands single Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Otherwise it had been impossible for many Bishops to go vern one City And so also Theophylact The Apostle calls Presbyters Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there were not many Bishops in one City And the truth is To affirm That there were many Bishops in one City in the Apostles dayes is in plain English to grant the cause and to say That the Apostolicall Bishops were mere Presbyters 3. Another text brought by us to prove the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter was 1. Tim. 3. where the Apostle reckoning up the qualifications of a Bishop passeth from Bishops unto Deaconâ— leaving out the qualifications of Presbyters there by giving us to understand that Presbyters and Bishops are all one To this it is answered That because Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus who were Bishops therefore there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of officers then such as belonged to their Ordination and inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons onely and no Bishops 1. This answer would have some weight in it if it could be proved That Timothy and Titus were Bishops in a forâ—all sence or if there could be found any rule for the Ordination of an Hierarchicall Bishop or for the qualification of him in some other place of Scripture but we are sure that neither the one nor the other can be made out 2. It is reasonable to think as our Divines at the Isle of Wight say the Apostle when he passeth immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon in the place forementioned would have distinctly exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whether the Bishop over Presbyters or the Presbyter Bishop to have avoided the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the Eschocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house 3. According to the judgement of Episcopal men as our divines do well observe Bishops might then have ordained Bishops like themselves for there was then no Canonâ— forbidding one single Bishop to Ordain another of his own rank and there being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this answer fights against the principle of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops 4. This answer is opposite to all those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been made by the Apostle Arch-Bishops of Ephâ—sus and Crâ—â—tâ— If they were Arch-Bishops then their Office was to constitute Bishops in a proper sence There is one of no little note among our Prelatical Brethren that stoutly maintains this and till our Brethren be reconciled among themselves we need make no other reply to this answer 5. Whereas out of 1 Pet. 5. we proved That the Elderâ— are not onely called Bishops but have the whole Episcopal power committed unto them being commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feed and take the Episcopal charge of the flock of God To this it is said That by Elders are meant Bishops in our Brthrens sense Because These Elders are required to feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as being Lords over Gods heritage So it is translated But say some it must be translated Not as being Lords â—ver the Clergy committed to your care which hints unto us say they That these Elders were Bishops over Presbyters and not meer Presbyters This Interpretation is Novel and not to be found for ought we can discern in all Antiquity and we believe our more Moderate Brethren are ashamed of it and therefore we will be very brief in answer to it All that we shall say is 1. That though after the Apostles dayes there came in this Nominal distinction between the people and their Ministers insomuch as the people were called Laici and their Ministrs Clerici yet it is evident that in the Apostles dayes there was no such distinction The people of God are in this very Epistle called an holy Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 and a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 And Deut. 32.9 The Lords portion and the lot of his inheriâ—ance And if the Reader wil be pleased to view al the translations that have been of this text he will never find it translated As being Lords of the Clergy but as being Lords of Gods heritage 2. We answer That the Apostle as if on purpose he had intended to have fore-armed us against this misunderstanding of the words in the latter clause of the verse he sheweth what he maeneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as Lords over Gods heritage but as being ensamples to the flock The latter is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the sense of the whole verse can be no other but this That the Elders be careful not to