Minister preacheth in his own Congregation to Members of another Congregation he doth not preach to them nor they hear him preach as a Minister but as a gifted Brother And that at the same time he preacheth as a Minister by vertue of his Office to those of his own Congregation and to others of another Congregation then present onely as a gifted Brother ex officio charitatis generali out of the general office of charity which to us is very irrational 2. Hence it will follow That when a Minister preacheth out of his own Congregation he preacheth only as a private Christian and not as an Ambassadour of Christ and when he acts in a Synod his actings are the actings of a private Christian and when he preacheth a Lecture out of his own Congregation though it be in a constant way yet he preacheth only as a gifted Brother Now what a wide door this will open to private men to preach publickly and constantly in our Congregations we leave it to any indifferent man to judge 3. Hence it will follow That when a Minister baptizeth a childe he baptizeth him only into his own Congregation For if he be not an Officer of the catholick-Catholick-Church he cannot baptize into the catholick-Catholick-Church which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12.13 4. Hence it will follow That a Christian who by reason of the unfixednesse of his civil habitation is not admitted into a particular Congregation hath no way left him to have his children baptized but they must all be left without the Church in Satans visible Kingdom because they are no particular Members and according to our Brethrens opinion there is no extension of the Ministerial office beyond the particular Congregation 5. We adde That according to this Assertion there is no way left us by Christ for the baptizing of Heathens when it shall please God to convert them to the Christian faith We will suppose an hundred Heathens converted We demand by whom shall these be baptized Not by a private Christian. This our Brethren abhorre as well as we To baptize is an act oâ— Office and can be done only by Officers Not by a Minister For a Minister say they cannot perform any Pastoral act such as this is out of his own Congregation Neither can these hundred converts choose a Minister and thereby give him power to baptize them for they must first be a Church before they have power to choose Officers and a Church they cannot be till baptized Neither can they joyn as Members to any other Church and thereby be made capable of Baptism by that Minister into whose Church they are admitted For in the way of Christ a man must first be baptized before he be capable of being outwardly and solemnly admitted as a Member of a particular Church The three thousand were not first added to the Church and then baptized but first baptized and thereby added to the Church We cannot conceive how such Heathen converts should regularly be baptized unlesse it be granted that every Minister is a Minister of the Church-Catholick and that every Minister hath an habitual indefinite power to act as a Minister in any place of the world where he shall be lawfully called That the desire of these hundred converts to be baptized is a sufficient call to draw forth this habitual power into act and that he may being thus desired according to the rules of the Gospel regularly and warrantably baptize them 6. Hence it will follow That a Minister preaching out of his own Congregation cannot lawfully and warrantably pronounce the blessing after his Sermon which yet is practised by our Brethren For to blesse the people from God is an act of Office and to be done only by an Officer Numb 6.23 24 25 26. compared with Revel 14.5 where the same blessings and persons from whom they come are expresly mentioned And so also Isa. 66.21 where under the name of Priests and Levites to be continued under the Gospel are meant Evangelical Pastors who therefore are by Office to blesse the people and they onely Deut. 10.8 2 Cor. 13.14 Ephes. 1.2 7. Hence it will also follow That when a Minister of a particular Congregation is sick or necessitated to be a long while absent upon just occasion that all this while though it should be for many years the Congregation must be without the Sacrament of the Lords Supper without having their children baptized and without any Preacher that shall preach amongst them as a Minister of Christ but only in the capacity of a private Christian. Neither can it be answered by our Brethren as some of them do that a Neighbour Minister in such cases may come in at the desire of the Congregation and administer the Sacraments amongst them by vertue of Communion of Churches unlesse they will also hold Communion of Offices which they do not For these acts being acts of Office cannot be done unlesse there be an habitual indefinite power of the Ministerial Office which by the desire of the Congregation is drawn out into act There are divers other absurdities that flow from this Assertion That a Minister cannot act as a Minister out of his own Congregation brought by Mr Hudson to whom we refer the Reader Onely we shall craâ—e leave to cite a passage out of Mr Ball alledged by the fore-named Author That to suppose a Minister to be a Minister to his own Congregation only and to none other Society whatsoever or to what respect soever is contrary to the judgment and practice of the Vniversal Church and tendeth to destroy the Vnity of the Church and that Communion which the Church of God may and ought to have one with another For if he be not a Minister in other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the flock which they feed one nor the Ministry one nor the Communion one which they had each with others Again pag. 90. he saith If a Minister may pray preach and blesse another Congregation in the name of the Lord and receive the Sacrament with them we doubt not but being thereunto requested by consent of the Pastor and Congregation he may lawfully dispense the Seals among them as need and occasion require That distiâ—ction of preaching by Office and exercising his gifts onely when it is done by a Minister and desired of none but Ministers and that in solemn set constant Church-Assemblies we cannot finde warranted in the Word of Truth and therefore we dare not receive it Before we part with this Argument we must necessarily answer two Objections Obj. If a Minister be a Minister of the Church Universal Visible and can act as a Minister out of his particular Congregation wherein doth he differ from an Apostle Was it not the peculiar priviledge of the Apostles Evangelists c. to have their Commission extended to all Churches This Objection is made by Mr Hooker Answ. Though we believe that every Minister is a Minister of
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
ISA. 66.21 I will also take of them for Priests and for Levites saith the Lord. EPHES. 4.8 11 12 13. When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. HEB. 5.4 5. And no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee 1 TIM 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery LUTH Tom. 4. Lat. Ien. fol. 19. Non fortunat Deus labores eorum qui non sunt vocati quanquam salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry Divided into two Parts The first Part containing A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in general The Necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of hands The Vnlawfulnesse of private mens â—ssuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawfull Call and Ordination The second Part containing A Justification of the present Ministers of England both such as were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy frâ—m the â—oul aspeâ—sion of Antichristianism And those who have been Ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty Proving that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture-Patern Together with an Appendix wherein the Iudgement and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed Published by the Provincial Assembly of London LONDON Printed by Iohn Legat and Abraham Miller 1654. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER IT is reported of Bucer that he was so eager of Peace with Luthâ—r that he was like to a man Qui prae nimia aviditate etiam foeces haurireâ— who by an overmuch greediness after Unity was ready to swallow down many of Luthers errours For our parts Though we should be loath to buy Peace with the loss of Truth yet such have been the unexpressible mischiefs that the divisions of Brethren have brought upon this Nation and such is our earnest desire after an happy Accommodation that we hope we can truly close â—hough not with the former yet with another saying of Bucers That we would willingly purchase with the losse of our lives the removing of the infinite scandals that have been given to the Churches of Christ by the divisions of Christians Eusebius reports of Constantine though a great Emperour That he was more troubled with the dissentions of the Church then with all the warres in his Dominions That he took them so to heart that he could not sleep quietly for them yea although he had a spiritfull of heroick valâ—ur yet the dissentions of the Church were such evils to him as to cause him to shed many a tear c. Our prayer to God is that the same affection towards the Churches of Christ in these three Nations may be kindled in all our brests And We doubt not but through the grace of God We are able in Sincerity to profess with Luther That we are as desirous to imbrace Peace and Concord as We are desirous to have the Lord Iesus to be propitious to us And therefore fore-seeing that this ensuing Treatise will meet with many Adversaries of different Perswasions and with much opposition We thought fit to give the Reader notice of our intentions here lest We should be thought to be enemies to Peace and hinderers of that long desired and often praied for Union between dissenting Brethren There are six sorts and ranks of men whom We have occasion to deal with in this Book 1. Such as are against the very Office of the Ministery and that affirm That there is no such Office instituted by Christ to be perpetual in his Church We look upon this Assertion as destructive unto Christian Religion and to the souls of Christians 2. Such as say That it is lawfull for any men that suppose themselves gifted though neither Ordained nor approved by able men to assume unto themselves a power to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments This Opinion We judge to be the high-way to all Disorder and Confusion an inlet to Errours and Heresies and a Door opened for Priests and Jesuites to broach their Popish and Antichristian Doctrine 3. Such as hold That the Ministry of England is Antichristian That our Churches are no true Churches but Synagogues of Satan and that there is no Communion to be held with us This Opinion We conceive to be not only false and uncharitable but contradictory to Peace and Unity 4. Such as say That Episcopacy is an higher Order of Ministry above Presbytery by Divine Right That Christ hath given the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction unto Bishops And that Ordination of Ministers is so appropriated to them by the Gospel that all Ordinations by single Presbyters are null and void and that Sacraments by them administred are no Sacraments These Assertions We look upon not only â—s groundlesse and unscriptural but as cruel and utterly overthrowing all the Protestant Reformed Churches and Ministers Now though We hope We can truly say that We have with all Meekness and Christian Moderation managed the Debate with these four sorts of Adversaries and shall be ready to exercise all Offices of Christian Love and Affection towards them and by requiting good for evil labour to heap coals of fire upon their heads yet notwithstanding such is the great Distance between Them and Us in Judgement and Practice and such is the bitternesse of their Spirits in their Opposition against Us that We have little hope for the present till the Lord be pleased to work a happy change of Judgment in them of any real and hearty Accord and Agreement with them 5. A fifth sort are our Reverend Brethren of New and Old-England of the Congregational way who hold Our Churches to be true Churches and Our Ministers true Ministers though they differ from Us in some lesser things We have been necessitated to fall upon some things wherein they and We disagree and have represented the Reasons of Our Dissent But yet We here profess That this Disagreement shall not hinder Us from any Christian Accord with them in Affection That We can willingly write upon Our Study-doors that Motto which Mr Ieremiah Burroughes who a little before his Death did ambitiously indeavour after Union amongst Brethren as some of
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
is evident because these Titles are applied not onely to extraordinary but to ordinary Ministers The Ministers of the seven Churches of Asia are called Angels the Ministers ordained by Titus Stewards the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Overseers or Bishops now a Ruler is a name of Office and implieth a Commission to constitute him in that capacity Fourthly We argue From the constant distinction that is made in Scripture between gifts and calling We reade Ioh. 20.21 22. First Christ gives his Apostles their Commission As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Then he gives them their gifts Receive the Holy Ghost Thus also Isa. 6.6 7 9. God touched his lips with a coal from the Altar and gifted him Afterwards he gives him his Commission Thus also it was with the Prophet Ieremy 1.5 9. God sends him and then puts forth his hand toucheth his mouth and fiâ—s him Even as it is in all civill Governments Gifts make not any man a Judge or a Lord-Maior Sheriff or Common-Counsell man though he be never so richly qualified for these Offices unlesse he be lawfully appointed thereunto So is it in Church-affairs it is not gifts but calling that constitutes a Minister therefore that distinction of a Minister by gifts and a Minister by calling hath no footing in the Word of Truth If gifts were sufficient to make a Minister then women might preach as well as men for they may have as eminent gifts Indeed gifts are a necessary qualification of the person to be called but make him not a lawfull Minister till called and ordained And if he take the Office upon him unsent he is an Usurper and may fear to perish in the gain-saying of Corah notwithstanding his gifts Fifthly We argue from the Rules laid down in Scripture for the calling of men to the Office of the Ministry The Word of God doth exactly tell us the qualifications of the person that is to be called 1 Tim. 3.2 3. c. The Scripture also directs for the manner of his calling to the work who are to Ordain How he is to be Ordained 1 Tim. 4.14 c. Now either these directions are superfluous and unnecessary or else it is a truth that no man ought to take this Office upon him without such a call Nor were these directions given for that age only but for all the ages of the Church to the end of the world as appears evidently from 1 Tim. 6.18 compared with 1 Tim. 5.7.21 In the first place he is charged to keep those commands without spot to the appearance of Iesus Christ And in the second place there is as solemn a charge particularly applied to quicken his diligence and faithfulnesse about matters of the Church and especially the ordination honour and maintenance of the Ministry in ordinary as appeareth by the context before and after from ver 17. to ver 23. The same charge is laid down also by way of direction Chap. 3. and particularly committed to Timethy's care ver 14. And one main ground why Paul chargeth Timothy to be so carefull about these particulars especially at Ephesus was That thereby false doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1.3 4. for which there is scarce a more effectuall means in the world then a publike and regular care of calling persons duely qualified to the Ministry And we cannot but look with sad hearts upon the spreading of errours in these daies of generall Apostasie as the righteous judgement of God upon the supine negligence of men in this particular among others The same charge upon the same ground is laid upon Titus Cha. 1.5 9 10. where also the Apostle gives singular directions for the qualification of the person to be ordained both in point of gifts and grace which are all vain and unusefull if any may enter upon the Ministry without Ordination Sixthly We argue from that confusion which would come into the Church if every man that presumes himself gifted should intrude himself into the Office of the Ministry without a regular call Saint Ierome held it an infallible sign of a Church falling into ruine Vbi nulla Ministrorum est electio manifestum cognosce collabâ—nt is Christianismi judicium where there is no choice of Ministers acknowledge this a manifest evidence of Christianity decaying The reason is apparent The prostituting of this sacred and weighty Office to the wils of men opens a door to all disorders and the introducing of all heresies and errors How much did the Church of Antioch suffer from such as came from the Apostles and had no Commission Act. 15. Gal. 2.5 besides that contempt and scorn which it exposeth the Ministry unto Admit the same in the Common-wealth or in an Army Might he that would make himself a Maior Judge Constable a Colonell Captain c. what an Iliad of miseries would thence â—nsue is easier to be imagined then expressed CHAP. V. Containing part of the Third Proposition PROVING That none may do the Work of the Ministry without Ordination NO man may perform the work of the Ministry but he that is solemnly set apart and ordained to be a Minister Having in the precedent Chapter asserted the necessity of Ordination to the work of the Ministry against the presumptuous usurpation of such as run and are not sent We shall by the grace of God in this Chapter vindicate the work of the Ministry unto those whom God hath set as Officers in his Church That there is a work belonging to the Ministry is out of question and what that work is is confessed by all It belongs to them to dispense the mysteries of God the keys of the Kingdom of God are in their hands It is their work to watch for souls as they that must give an account of them at that great day To preach the Word and by sound doctrine to convince gain-sayers to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper to pray for and blesse the people in the Name of God to rule and govern the Church having a care of discipline and all these as in the place and person of Christ. Of how great necessity these works are unto the Church is evident unto understanding Christians and hath been demonstrated already It now remains to be enquired whether all or any of these works may be performed by men uncalled though gifted or whether they be peculiar unto Ministers Those with whom we have to do yeelding all the rest to the Ministry challenge in their writings a liberty to preach the Word and in their practises some of them a power of praying for and blessing the people how justly we shall shew when we have first stated the Question which we shall do briefly and plainly that we may not seem to disallow what we ought to countenance commend nay to command in the Name of the Lord and that we may prevent and anticipate the cavils of some gain-sayers For the right stating of the Question we shall
Question is What may be done in an ordinary way in Churches where Ordained Ministers either are or may be had Though we will not prescribe against necessity yet we would not have necessity pretended where none is For we reade that the Indians were converted to the Christian Faith by the means of Aedesius and Frumentius two private men but we reade not that either of them took upon them the Office or work of the Ministry Frumentius was ordained Bishop of the Indians by Athanasius Theod. Eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 22. And it is observable how great a journey he undertook rather then to run or officiate without a Call The Iberians were converted as the same Authour relates by the means of a Captive Maid but they sent to Constantine for ordained Ministers by whom they might be further instructed and guided in the waies of God which probably our gifted men would never have done These things thus premised we come now to prove our Proposition That None may undertake the work of the Ministry but he that is solemnly set apart thereunto not respecting so much the number as weight of Arguments First We argue thus That work for the doing of which God hath designed speciall Officers of his own neither ought nor may be performed by any that are not designed unto that Office But God hath designed speciall Officers of his own for the preaching of the Word Therefore None ought or may preach the Word but such as are designed unto this Office The major of this Argument is confirmed by these Reasons First Because God hath severely punished such as have done the work appointed by him to speciall Officers though they had no intent to invade the Office unto which that work was by God designed This appears manifestly first in the case of Saul 1 Sam. 13.8 9. c. He lost his kingdom for offering sacrifice though but once and that in a great straight The Philistims were ready to assault him he had not made his peace with God Samuel delaied his coming the people began to scatter from him whereupon he constrained himself and offered a Sacrifice yet for this one presumptuous though as it might seem necessitated act he hears from Samuel that he had done foolishly i. wickedly and from God that his Kingdom was irrevocably rent from him Secondly In the case of Vzzah 1 Chro. 13.9 10. who put his hand to the Ark and that out of a good intention to keep it from falling when the Oxen shook it and yet the anger of the Lord was kindled against him and he smote him that he died Better it had been for Vzzah to have kept his hands farther off then to have touched the Ark without warrant and better for the people of God that he had so done for for his rashnesse God made a breach upon them and smote him and this act of his did not help but hinder the bringing of the Ark up into the place prepared for it Thirdly In the case of Vzziah 2 Chro. 16.16 17 18. c. who when he was strong had his heart lifted up to his destruction for he transgressed against the Lord his God and went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar of Incense but the Priests of God withstood him and said It appertaineth not to thee Uzziah to burn Incense to the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn Incense Go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast transgressed neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God and though he was a King yet the Lord smote him immediatly with the plague of Leprosie of which he was not healed till his death This famous History holds forth these great Truths 1. That it is a transgression against God in any to enter upon the work designed by God to another calling 2. That the Original of this transgression is pride of heart 3. That it is the Ministers duty to testifie and bear witnesse against such transgressions 4. That it is dishonourable in the sight of God whatever foolish people may imagine thus to transgresse 5. That God will not be alwaies silent to suffer such transgression unpunished in the greatest when his Ministers warnings are rejected Vzziah would enter into the Sanctuary and is separated from the Congregation Now though God be not so immediate in the severe punishing of such presumption in our daies yet these things are written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come that we should not be presumptuous as some of them were lest we also perish as these did Secondly Because this practice doth make void or at least unnecessary or insufficient those Officers which God hath appointed This is in it self a truth of clearest evidence What needs a peculiar Officer to be set apart to a common work As in the naturall body there is no peculiar member set apart as the Organ of feeling because this sense is common to every member so in the body of Christ there need not any speciall Officer be designed for such a work as is common to and may be performed by every Christian. Thirdly Because this practice doth confound and disturb that order which God hath set in his Church therefore it must needs be sinfull God is the God of order and not of confusion 1 Cor. 14. and hath commanded that every one should do his own work 1 Thess. 4. Rom. 12. And abide in his own calling 1 Cor. 7. He hath condemned those that walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3. and are busie bodies he hath placed in his Church different orders some Shepherds some Sheep some Teachers of the Word some to be taught as their places so their works are distinct as the different members of the body have different offices but now as in the body there would be confusion if any member should do the work of another member so is it in the Church if any member shall invade the duty of another This takes away distinction between Shepherds and Flock Pastor and People Rulers and Ruled and with the new Astronomers casts down Stars towards the Centre and advances and wheels the dull earth to and in an heavenly orb No marvel such Phaetons burn up the spiritual world by presuming to govern the chariot of the Sun Thus the major being cleared we come to the minor or Assumption That God hath set peculiar Officers apart for the Preaching of the Word For the proof of this these two things are to be done First We must prove that Ministers are Officers the Ministry an Office set up by God in his Church For this we referre to the foregoing Propositions in which this Point hath been largely discussed And indeed who can in reason deny that those that are set by God in his Church as Stewards Heraulds Watchmen c. are set by God as Officers in his Church The Apostle himself reckonâ— them up as special members in the body
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
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
though they deny the necessity of Ordination yet they acknowledge that for order and decency it is fit to retain it in the Church For our parts we think the Scripture to be so clear for the proof of this Assertion that we wonder there should be any found to stand up in opposition against it For First In the Old Testament not onely the high-Priest but all the other Priests and Levites were by divine appointment inaugurated to their Ministerial Offices and when any men unconsecrated intruded themselves into the Priestly or Levitical Office they were remarkably punished by God himself Witnesse Corah and his company of whom we have formerly made mention Now surely this was written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come to teach us that it is the will of Christ that no man should enter into the Ministerial Office unordained or unconsecrate To hint this the Prophet Isaiah tels us That in the times of the New Testament the Lord would take from among Christians some to be Priests and some to be Levites where the New Testament Ministers are cloathed with Old Testament titles and are called Priests and Levites not in reference to any real unbloudy and propitiatory Sacrifice by them to be offered as the Papists falsly imagine but as we conceive to signifie unto us 1. That there should be an Office of the Ministry distinct from all other Offices undeâ— the New Testament as well as under the Old and therefore it is said that God would take of them for Priests not take all them for Priests And 2. That these Ministers were to be consecrated to their respective offices as the Priests and Levites were Secondly In the New Testament we read 1. That in the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferiour Office and serving only for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not onely be elected by the people but also ordained to this office Much more ought this to be done in the choise of persons who are called to the work of preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. That even the very Apostle Paul though chosen immediately by Christ unto the great Office of preaching unto the Gentiles and that in a miraculous way yet notwithstanding it was the pleasure of the holy Ghost that he must be separated and set apart by men for this great work And if this was thought necessary for an extraordinary Officer If Paul that was separated from his mothers womb to preach Christ to the Heathen and was separated by an immediate voice from Heaven to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles must also have an outward solemn separation by the Prophets at Antioch unto this work how much more is this necessary in ordinary Officers 3. That Paul and Barnabas who were themselves separated to the work of the Ministry Act. 13.1 went about Act. 14.23 ordaining Elders in every Church The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as we have shewed not a choosing by the suffrages of the people but a special designing and appointing of Ministers by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas 4. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every Church which surely had been very vain and superfluous if Ordination be not an Institution of Christ and necessary in his Church 5. That Timothy was ordained not only by the laying on of Pauls hands but also by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery By laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche is meant the whole work of Ordination and hence we see that it is the will of the holy Ghost that not only Paul an Apostle as formerly but Timothy an Evangelist must be set apart unto his Office by Ordination 6. That Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on no man neither to be partakers of other mens sin but to keep himself pure This negative command implies an affirmative that it was his Office to lay on hands that is to ordain Elders but his care must be not to do it rashly and unadvisedly upon men insufficient lest he should thereby be made partakers of other mens sins This Text doth necessarily imply a precept for Ordination 7. That Timothy is commanded to commit those things which he had heard from Paul among many witnesses to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Where we have 1. A Separation of some men to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The Qualification of these teachers they must be faithfull men and such as are able to teach others 3. We have an injunction laid upon Timothy that he should commit what he had heard of Paul unto these faithfull men Now this committing was not only to be by way of instruction but also by way of Ordination Pauls charge committed to Timothy was not so much to make men fit to teach others as by Ordination to set men apart for the teaching of others that there might be a perpetual Succession of teachers For the further making out of this truth let the Reader consider what is said by Mr Gillespy in his Miscellany Questions and what we have before said pag. 84. 8. That laying on of hands is reckoned not only as an institution of Christ but as one of the principles of the Doctrines of Christ but of this Text we shall speak more in the third Assertion By all these places it is evident That it is the will of Christ that those that enter into the Ministerial Calling should be consecrated set apart and ordained thereunto Most of the Objections brought against this Assertion have been answered at large in the handling of the third Proposition If any shall further object and say Obj. 1. That these are but examples and examples do not amount up to a Rule Answ. 1. That Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a Rule Of this nature is Ordination 2. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary Elders we should be left at uncertainties and every man might do what seemeth good in his own eyes which would tend to confusion and the dissolution of the Church 3. The Apostles taught the Churches to do nothing but what they had a commandment from Christ to teach them Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 11.28 and in all their Disciplinary Institutions which were not meerly occasional and had only a temporary reason of their Institution of which kinde Ordination we are sure is not are to be imitated as though they were the immediate Institutionâ— of Christ. 4. For Ordination of Ministers we have not only Apostolical example but Apostolical preâ—â—pt as we have already proved out of 1 Tim. 5.22 Object 2. If it be further objected That the Ordination mentioned
gives ground for stating this to be the reason of its practise 2. This was not only practised at Ierusalem but at Antioch and not only among and by the Jews but elsewhere and by others It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they ordained Elders in every Church Object 4. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles in a miraculous way and it did conferre the holy Ghost and gift of Tongues c. and therefore as the miracle is ceased so ought the ceremony to cease As in extream Unction c. Answ. 1. The giving of the holy Ghost and conferring of extraordinary gifts was one but not the only use which the Apostles made of Imposition of hands And as praier is still to be continued in the Church though it did sometimes conveigh extraordinary blessings Act. 8.15 16 17. Act. 9.40 Iam. 5.14 15. because it had other ordinary ends and uses So is Imposition of hands to be continued upon the same account Answ. 2. We never read of the holy Ghost given by Imposition of hands in Ordination That gift which Timothy received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no other then the gift of Office Neglect not the gift i. e. Neglect not the office If Timothy had had power by laying on of hands to have conferred due qualifications for the Ministry why doth Paul require him to lay hands suddenly on no man and why must he be so carefull to see them first fit in case his laying on of hands would fit them There needed not such triall of their gifts in case a touch of his hands could have gifted them This proves clearly That there was no extraordinary gift conferred in Ordination 3. There is a double Imposition of hands The one miraculous and extraordinary which consisted in healing the sick and conveighing the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit And this was temporary and is now ceased as extream Unction is The other is ordinary Such is the Imposition of hands in Ordination and therefore to be perpetually continued in the Church We reade not only that Paul who was an extraordinary Officer but that Presbyters who were ordinary Officers imposed hands upon Timothy And the example of the Primitive Churches were intentionally left upon record for this end that they might be binding patterns in like cases in after ages And this seems to be one singular ground and reason of the Writing of the Acts of the Apostles That the Apostles acts in the Primitive Churches might be our Rules in succeeding ages Obj. 5. To what purpose then is Imposition of hands used if the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost be not conveighed thereby Answ. 1. We use it because the Apostles did use it in an ordinary way without giving the holy Ghost as well as in an extraordinary way because there is the same standing reason and because the Apostle bids us 1 Tim. 5.22 Sufficit pro universis rationibus Deus vult 2. We use it not as an operative Ceremony but as a Moral sign so declare publickly who the party is that is solemnly set apart to the work of the Ministry 3. We use it as it is a Rite and Ceremony by which the Office is conveyed 1 Tim. 4.14 4. We use it as it is a consecrating dedicating and offering up of the party unto the Lord and his service as in the Old Testament hands were laid on for this end 5. We use it as it is an Authoritative and Ministerial Benediction of the party ordained as it was used by Iacob in his fatherly blessing of Ephraim and Manasses and by Christ in his blessing and praying over the little children Mat. 19.15 Mark 10.16 And thus we have made out the Divine Right of Imposition of hands and our Exhortation to our people is That they would not stumble at that way of Ordination which hath so much of God in it nor be easily led aside into by-pathes by the seducers of this Age. And that they would not rest contented with Ministerial Examination though that ought to be and that in all exactnesse nor with Ministerial approbation nor yet with Authoritative Mission without this Apostolicall Ordinance of Imposition of hands CHAP. XIII Wherein the fourth Assertion about Ordination is proved viz. That ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie OUr last Assertion is concerning the persons who are by Divine Authority appointed to ordain and it is this That Ordinâ—tion â—f Ministers ought to be by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery For this we have an expresse Text 1 Tim. 4.14 which that we may the better understand we will give a brief Answer to some few Questions Quâ—st 1. What is meant by the word Presbytery Answ. By Presbytery is not meant the Office of a Presbyter but Collegium fâ—oâ— confessâ—â— Presbyterâ—rum a Colledge or company of Presbyters For as Mr Rutherford well observes The Office hath no hands And the word is used but in two other places Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 In both which it must necessarily be taken for the Officers and not for the Office For the Office of Elders could not meet together as in that placâ— of Luke nor could the Oâ—â—â—ce of Elders beaâ— witnesse to Paul as in that place of the Acts. Besides as Mr Hooker well saith Not onely reason doth reject but the very ear would not relish such an unsutable sense Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Office How harsh and unpleasant is such an expression Here Calvin is brought in by some who are in other things his utter enemies to countenance this interpretation And Mr Gillespy reckoneth it as one of Calvins few for they were but very few mistakes But looking upon his Commentary upon the place we finde these words Presbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sentiunt meo judicio They who think Presbytery in this place to be a Noun collective put for a Colledge of Presbyters do think rightly in my judgement And therefore though he thinks the other interpretation non male quadrare which was his errour yet he is not to be reckoned amongst those that deny that by Presbytery is meant an Assembly of Presbyters Quest. 2. Whether this Presbytery was a Presbytery of Bishops or of single Presbyters Answ. To this we shall give this short reply That in Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one as we shall have occasion hereafter to prove And therfore we answer That it was an Assembly of Bishops that is of Presbyters Quest. 3. Whether this Presbytery were Congregational or Classical Answ. Mr Hooker of New-England confesseth That he never yet heard any Argument that did evince either by dint of undeniable evidence And for our parts we do not conceive it necessary as to our purpose to disquiet the Reader with
we can do our selves Frastra â—it per plura c. If this Doctrine were true the Apostles needed only to have preached and to have converted the people to the faith and when they had done to have said We have now done our work you may now elect and ordain your Officers your selves the power to do these things belongs to you But the Apostles did quite contrary and therefore certainly Ordination is not the peoples but the Ministers Office Adde thirdly that which to us seems to be of weight That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the ordained c. is all written in the Epistles unto Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers In the other Epistles which were written unto the Churches there is no mention made of these things which doth abundantly prove unto us That the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the people Lastly We might argue from the nature of Ordination It is a potestative and authoritative mission It is an eminent act of Jurisdiction not onely confirming a Minister in that Office which he had before by Election but conveying the very Office-power of preaching and administring the Sacraments It is that as we have said which gives the essentials of the Ministerial Call And therefore by the rule of the Gospel it belongs to Officers and not to private persons The Scripture doth accurately distinguish between Church-Rulers and private believers Heb. 13.17 24. 1 Thess. 5.12 Private persons can with no more lawfulnesse convey power to another to administer the Sacraments then they can themselves lawfully administer the Sacraments Church-power is first seated in Christ the head and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to Church-Officers And they alone who have received it from the Apostles can derive and transmit it to other Ministers And though we freely confesse That all Church-power is in the people finaliter objective that is for their use and benefit according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.22 All things are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas all are yours i.e. for your service and salvation yet we are farre from thinking that all things are theirs formally and originally that is of their making and authorizing Or that they that are not Ministers themselves can derive the Ministerial Office to others This we beleeve to be both against Scripture and reason The serious consideration of these things is of marvellous concernment for the people of our age upon this one account especially because there are a generation of men risen up amongst us that renounce and disclaim all Ordination from Ministers as unwarrantable and Antichristian and take it up from the people as the only way of the Gospel herein committing amongst many other these three evils 1. In renouncing the Ordinance of Christ and calling that which is truly Christian Antichristian 2. In setting up a new way of Ordination which hath not the least footing in the New Testament or in all Antiquity 3. In plunging themselves into this inextricable difficulty for he that renounceth Ordination by Ministers as Antichristian must of necessity renounce not only our present Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches in the Christian world he must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-communion as some in our unhappy dayes do For all Ordination by the people is null and void as being not only not grounded upon Scripture but against Scripture And to intrude into the Ministerial Office without Ordination is as the sinne of Corah and his company as we have formerly shewed Our desire is that these particulars may be duly weighed by all sober Christians It will not be amiss here to consider what is said against this Thesis by the Elders of New-England In four things they agree with us 1. They say Church-officers are to be ordained 2. And to be ordained by Imposition of hands 3. That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be performed by those Elders 4. That where there are no Elders if the Church so desire Imposition of hands may be performed by the Elders of other Churches But they differ from what we have asserted when they say In such Churches where there are no Elders Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the Brethren chosen by the Church thereunto For the proof of this they bring a Reason and a Scripture The Reason is If the people may elect Officers which is the greater and wherein the substance of the Office consists they may much more occasion and need so requiring impose hands in Ordination which is the lesse and but the accomplishment of the other Answ. 1. If this Argument were valid it would follow that people might ordain their own Ministers not only when they want Elders but when they have Elders For if Election give the essence to a Minister and Ordination only an adjunct we see no reason why they that give the essence should not also give the adjunct And why an adjunct should belong to the Officers in that Church to whom the essence doth not belong But 2. We say That Scripture-light being Judge Election is not the greater and Ordination the lesse It is possible that it is upon this ground that some men have made so slight of Ordination that so they might entitle the people thereunto But we have abundantly shewed 1. That Election doth not give the essence of the Ministerial Call That Election is only the designation of the person that is to be made a Minister not the making of him a Minister 2. That Ordination is that which gives the essence That it is an Authoritative appointing of a person to the Ministry and an actual investing him into the office That it is held forth in the Scripture as the greater and therefore not given to one and the same persons but this later referred to the more honourable persons as appears from Acts 6.3 5. Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 The Text they quote in the Margine for the proof of this is not out of the New Testament but the Old out of Numb 8.10 11. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. Ans. 1. This Text doth not prove that for which it is brought but makes rather against our Brethren For they say That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be by the Elders and not by the people but in case of want of Elders But here Aaron and his sons were present And if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders which our Brethren will in no case consent unto 2. That the children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites But
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
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
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
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
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
is Christ onely that institutes the office and that furnisheth and fitteth men with graces and abilities for the discharge of so great an employment with willing and ready mindes to give up themselves to so holy services It is Christ onely that sets the Laws and Rules according to which they must act All that man doth in Ordination is in a subordinate way as an Instrument under Christ to give the being of an outward Call and to constitute him an Officer according to the method prescribed by Christ in his Word All that we say that we may be rightly understood may be reduced to these three heads 1. That it is the will of Christ who is King of his Church that men should be outwardly called to the Ministry as well as inwardly fitted And that without this Call none can warrantably do any act that belongs to an Officer as not having the specificall form of an Officer and as Mr Hooker saith Whatsoever is done without this is void and of none effect 2. That this outward Call consisteth in Election and Ordination 3. That Ordination is that which gives the Being of this outward Call that makes a man a Minister That in this sense gives him his Ministeriall Office Election doth only design the person but it is Ordination that bestoweth the Office upon him Arg. 5. We might argue in the fifth place from the persons appointed by Christ to ordain and from the great solemnity used in Ordination and from the blame that is laid upon those that ordain unworthy persons unto the Ministerial Office 1. The persons that are said in Scripture to ordain are as we shall prove hereafter either Apostles Prophets Evangelists or Presbyters And this is a sufficient Argument to us to prove that it is Ordination that constitutes the Minister and not Election For it is not likely that Christ would appoint his Apostles and his Apostles appoint extraordinary and ordinary Elders to convey onely an adjunct of the Ministerial Call and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power unto the common people 2. The solemnity used in Ordination is Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands We do not reade the like solemnity expressed in Scripture in Election and therefore it is against reason to think That Election should constitute the Minister and give him all his Essentials and Ordination only give him a ceremonial complement 3. The blame laid upon Timothy if he should lay hands suddenly upon any Minister is very great For hereby he makes himself impure and becomes accessory to the sins of those whom he makes Ministers Now we may thus reason Where the greatest blame lies for unworthy men coming into the Ministry surely there must lie the greatest power of admitting men into the Ministry else the blame is not just But the greatest blame is laid upon the Ministers Ergo. If the constituting cause of the Ministerial Call did lie in Election The Minisâ—ers may well excuse themselves and say We do but ordain we do but give an adjunct the people did the main act they gave the Essence and therefore the blame belongs to them and not to us See more of this in Separation examined by Mr Firmin pag. 58. Much more might be added for the proof of this Assertion but we shall purposely wave what else might be said least we should be overtedious CHAP. XII Wherein the third Assertion is proved viz. That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands THE third Assertion is That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by prayer fasting and Imposition of hands Here are two things to be made out 1. That Ordination ought to be with prayer and fasting Prayer and fasting though they be not necessary to the very being and essence of Ordination yet they are very necessary to the better being of it as divine conduits to convey the blessing of God upon it First For Prayer It is observable in the old Testament that Aaron and his sons did not enter upon their Ministry till they had been sanctified by the holy oyl and sprinkling of bloud and had been seven whole dayes before the Lord abiding at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Levit. 8.33 In the New Testament our blessed Saviour when he chose his Apostles is said to have spent all the night before in prayer Luk. 6.12 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to our remembrance we do not reade that our Saviour spent a whole night in prayer but upon this occasion which sheweth of how great consequence it is that those who preach the Gospel should be sent out with solemn and earnest prayer And this is the more observable if we compare the 9th of Matth. 36 37 38. with Luke 6.12 13 14. When Christ saw the misery of the people in the want of faithful Ministers that they were as Sheep not having a Shepherd he directs them to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into his harvest and then as seemeth by Luke's relation he put that in practice which he commended to do for themselves he spent the whole night in prayer and then Mat. 10.1 2. he chose and sent out his twelve Apostles to preach the Gospel Secondly For joyning of Fasting with prayer we may consider That it was not ordinary and common prayer or some few and occasional Petitions that were put up but as in câ—ses of greatest concernment when some great evil was to be averted or some singular mercy to be obtained fasting was joyned with prayer In the Acts where you have the records of the Primitive Churches practice as the best president for succeeding ages it is recorded that persons designed to the work of the Ministry were set apart and commended to God for his assistance support and successe by fasting and prayer Acts 13.1 2 3. It is said of the Prophets and Teachers of Antioch As they ministred to the Lord and fasted the holy Ghost said Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them And then when by a new fast as it may seem purposely called upon that occasion they had sought God on that behalf they fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them and sent them away to preach And as it was thus done to Paul and Barnabas so when they had travelled farre in preaching the Gospel and had found that happy successe on their Ministry that many among the Gentiles were converted because themselves could not make their constant abode in anyone place the greater service of the Church calling them forth to other places that there might be a foundation of a fixed Ministry for the building up of those that were already converted and for the bringing in of others yet uncalled They ordained them Elders in every Church which should stay with them and watch over them in the Lord Act. 14.23 And these they sent out with the like solemnity in seeking God by fasting and prayer and
then commended them to the Lord in whom they believed The Reasons why Ministers should be set a part with prayer and fasting are weighty and still the same 1. The inidoneousnesse and insufficiency of any meer man though of the greatest abilities and indowments whether for nature art or grace for such a work wherein we have to do withthe highest mysteries of God and heaven and with the most precious things on earth the truths of God and souls of men 2. The discouragements which every where attend this work when most faithfully performed from Satan and wicked men 3. The successe of every ones Ministry depends wholly on Gods blessing For neither is he that planteth any thing neither he that watereth but God that giveth the increase Nor doth the faith of believers depend at all on the wisdome or or power of the Minister but on the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 And therefore it is necessary in the most solemn manner that is by prayer and fasting to implore aid from God whensoever we ordain Ministers But this will be granted by all sides and therefore we will adde no more about it The second thing we are to make out is That Ordination of Ministers ought to be with imposition of hands That we may more orderly handle this Assertion which is so much controverted in our unhappy dayes and be rightly understood we shall crave leave to premise three things 1. That Imposition of hands is not a proper Gospel-duty never used but in the New Testament but it is a Rite and Ceremony borrowed from the Old Testament and by Christ made a Gospel-institution That which Grotius saith in his Annotations That the whole Government of the Churches of Christ was conformed to the patern of the Synagogues is true in many things and especially in this of Imposition of hands We finde it was used in four cases under the Old Testament 1. In benediction and blessing Gen. 48.14 20. 2. In offering of Sacrifices unto God Lev. 1.4.3 In bearing witness Lev. 24.14.4 In ordaining or appointing unto an Office Thus Moses when he ordained Ioshua to succeed him he was commanded by God to lay his hands upon him and to give him a charge in the sight of the people Num. 27.18 23. Under the New Testament it is used 1. In benediction Mark 10.16.2 In curing of bodily diseases Luke 13.13 Mark 16.18 Acts 9.17 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost Act. 8.17 18. Act. 19.6 4. In Ordination of Church-officers and of this last way of Imposition of hands are we now to speak Secondly That it is not our purpose accurately to enquire whether Imposition of hands be an Essential part of Ordination without which it is null and void or an integral part without which it is deficient and imperfect or onely an inseparable adjunct It is enough for us to assert That it is lawfull and warrantable and not onely so but that it is the duty of all that are to ordain Ministers to lay hands upon them and that it is a sin in any that is to be ordained to refuse it Thirdly That though we assert the Divine Right of Imposition of hands yet we plead for it onely in a Scripture-sense but not in a Popish-sense The Papists make it to be an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace They make Ordination a Sacrament and Imposition of hands an operative instrument of conveying not only grace in general but even justifying grace Hence it is that some few of our Divines speak a little too slightly of it at which those that are enemies to it take much advantage but yet there are no Reformed Churches that we know of but do retain it and plead for it some as a Rite and Circumstance and moral sign others as an integral part and others as an essential part of Ordination These things premised we come now to prove That it is the will of Christ that all that are ordained Ministers should â—lave Imposition of hands This appears 1. From the examples of this Ceremony used by the Apostles in Ordination 1. We finde that the Deacons though inferiour Officers must have hands laid on them 2. We finde that the Apostles Paul and Barnabas though extraordinary Officers had hands layed on them 3. We reade that Paul layed hands upon Timothy and also the Presbytery Hence it is that Calvin saith Though there be no certain precept extant concerning Imposition of hands yet because we see it was in perpetual use by the Apostles that their so accurate observation ought to be in stead of a precept to us And it is a wonder to us that they that are so exact in urging every other circumstance in Church-Government and have suffered much prejudice in their outward estate rather then they would forbear sitting at the Sacrament which yet is but an outward gesture should take such strange liberty to themselves in dispensing with a duty that hath so many examples for the enforcing of it 2. From that command of Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man This is a divine precept for imposition of hands For when Timothy is forbidden to lay hands suddenly it is implied that it was his duty to lay on hands Hence it is that the New-England Ministers do assert That Church-officers ought to be ordained by imposition of hands And from this Text Walaeus hath a memorable passage which though it be long yet we will not think much to transcribe I see this saith he speaking of Imposition of hands to be required in almost all confessions And truly since that the Apostles have alwayes used it yea the Apostle gives a precept to Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man we judge it ought not to be omitted because in that negative commandment an affirmative is included that he should lay on hands upon men that are worthy where because it is taken by a Synecdoche for the whole calling of a Pastor certainly it is to be esteemed either for a rite or an essential part otherwise it could not be taken for the whole or at least for a proper adjunct and common to this with all other callings So far Walaeus Thirdly Because the whole work of Ordination is comprehended under this Ceremony of Imposition of hands 1 Tim 4.14 1 Tim. 5.12 Ordination is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imposition of hands and the gift or office of the Ministry is said to be given by this as by the sign 1 Tim. 4.15 Now then if Imposition of hands as a part be put for the whole work of Ordination it seems very strange to us that there should be any amongst us that expresse a willingnesse to be ordained and yet an unwillingness to have Imposition of hands We rather judge That they that refuse Imposition of hands which is put for the whole will in a little time make no conscience of refusing the whole it self We reade in Scripture That prayer and
Ignatius requires of Hero to whom he saith Keep that depositum which I and Christ have committed unto you Christ in his Word hath concredited this holy depositum And whatsoever is agreeable in Ignatius to this holy word we imbrace Other things which neither agree with Christ nor with the true Ignatius we reject as adulterinâ— and not to be born So much in answer to this objection Proposition 4. THat when it is said by Irâ—naeus lib. 3. cap. 3. That the holy Apostles made Bishops in Churches and particularly That Polycaâ—pe was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and that the Apostles made Linus Bishop of Rome after whom succeeded Anacletus and that Clemens was made the third Bishop by the Apostles And when it is said by Tertullian lib. de praescription That Polycarpe was made Bishop of Smyrna by S. Iohn and Clement Bishop of Rome by S. Peter This will nothing at all advance the Episcopal cause unlesse it can be proved that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters a Bishop as Gerrhard saith pâ—rasi Ponâ—ificiâ not a Bishop phrasi Apostolica a Bishop in a Popish not in an Apostolical sense which is all one with a Presbyter For it is not denyed by any that ever wrote of Episcopacy That the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles dayes and many years after And therefore Irenâ—us in his Epistle to Victor cited by Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 23 calls Aâ—iâ—etus Pius Higinus Telesphorâ—s Xistâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Rome and afterwards Presbyter◠〈◊〉 qui te pracesserunt The Presbyters that went before thee And so also Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuâ—tudinem servandam 〈◊〉 dicebaâ— Tâ—rtullian also in his Apolog. cap. 39. callâ— the Presidents of the Churches Seniorâ— or Presbyteâ—â— when he saith Praesident probati quique Senioreâ— c. It is not therefore sufficient for our Episcopal Brethren to say That Bishops over Presbyters are of Apostolical institution because the Apostles made Bishops in Churches unlesse they do also prove that those holy men who are called â—ishopâ— were more then Presbyters Otherwise we must justly charge them of which they unjustly charge us to be guilty of endeavouring from the name Bishop which was common to Presbyters with Bishops to prove a superiority of Bishops over Presbyters Adde to this That when our Brethren do frequently urge those places of Irenaeus where he â—aith That he was able to number those that were madeBishops by the Apostles their successors unto his time and often urgeth the successions of Bishops unto whom the Apostles committed the charge of the Church in every place This will nothing at all as we conceive advantage the Episcopal Hierâ—rchy unlesse they do also prove That those Bishops were Hierarchical Bishops and not the very same with Presbyters For the same Authoâ— doth speak the very same things of Presbyters calling them also Bishops For he saith lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter â—is 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia sunt Presbyterâ—s obaudirâ— oporâ—et his qui successionâ—â— hâ—beâ—â— ab Apostolâ—s sicu◠〈◊〉 qui cum Episcopaâ—us successiâ—â—â— charisâ—a veritatis certâ—m secundum placitum Patris accâ—perunt Reâ—iquos vero qui absistuâ—â— Ã principâ—lâ— successione quâ—cunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi hâ—reticâ—s mala 〈◊〉 vel quasi sciâ—dâ—ntes â—latos sibi placeâ—â—â—s 〈…〉 â—t hypocritas 〈◊〉 grati◠〈◊〉 gloriae hoc 〈◊〉 So also 〈◊〉 4 cap. 44 Ab omnibus â—aâ—ibus absistâ—re oportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut praediximus doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyâ—â—rii ordine sâ—rmonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad informationem corrâ—ctionem aliorum Observe here 1. That Presbyters are called the Successors of the Apostles 2. That they are also called Bishops 3. That the Apostolical doctrine is derived from the Apostles by their succession 4. That there is nothing said in the former places of Bishops which is not here said of Presbyters And that therefore those placeâ— do not prove That the Apostles constituted Bishops in the Church distinct from and superiour over Presbyters As for that which is said about the succession of Bishops from the Apostles unto Irenaeus his time we shall hâ—ve â—ccasion to speak to afterwards Adde also That when in Antiquity Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have been made Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles and Peter to be ordained Bishop of Antioch or Rome c. This doth not contribute to the proof of what it is brought for to wit That there were Bishops properly so called in the Apostles dayes For as Dr. Reynolds againsâ— Hart cap. 2. saith When the Fathers termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that room in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And Dr. Whitakers lib. de Pontif. qu. 2. cap. 15. saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum voâ—ant auâ— etiam Pâ—trum non propriè sumâ—nt Episcopi nâ—men sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquandiu commorati sunt Et si propriâ— de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos fuisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus â—st is Apostolus non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae Aâ— Apostoli plâ—â—ium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant Et postea Hâ—â— eniâ— non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum aut reliquos Apostolos That the Fathers when they call Iames or Peter Bishops do not take the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those places where they abode for any long time And in the same place If we speak properly of Bishops it is absurd to say That the Apostles were Bishops For he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle For a Bishop is onely of one Church But the Apostles were the Founders and Overseers of many Churches And again he saith It doth not much differ from a phrenzy and madnesse to say That Peter or any of the Apostles were properly Bishops For the truth is This were to degrade the Apostles and to bring them into the Rank and Order of common and ordinâ—ry Officers of the Church which is no little Sacriledge And therefore such kind of quotations out of Antiquity do little avail our Brethren So much for the fourth Proposition Proposiâ—ion 5. THat when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not
grounded upon a Ius Divinum but upon prudential reasons and arguments And the chief of them was as Hierom and divers after him say in remedâ—â—m Schismatis ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out of the Church Now that this prudential way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appeares as Smectymnuus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles daies there were divisions Rom. 16.17 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiâ—â—t inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestâ— fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are manifest amongst you may be removed 2. Because the Holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into the saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth history and our own experience Hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 Titus 1.5 1 Pet. 5.1 that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he addes But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elderâ— of the Church as Hierome saith Schismes arose and aâ— I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one among the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in a higher degree and called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth That if Hierome and others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schismes as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast and destroy the former Ministry that fed the flock Thus far Musculus Sadeel also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a gate they opened to the ambition of Bishopâ— Hence also Dr. Whiâ—akers asking How came in the inequality between Bishops and Presbyters answereth out of Hierome That the Schisme and faction of some occasioned the ancient Government to be changed which saith he how ever devised at first for a remedy against Schisme yet many holy and wise men have judged it more pernicious then the disease it self and although it did not by and by appear yet miserable experience afterward shewed it First ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his chair and brought the yoak of bondage upon the neck of the Church The sense of these mischiefs made Nazianzâ—n wish not onely that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place but also that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no principal dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking But now saith he Contentions about the right hand and the left about the higher and the lower place c. have bred many inconveniencies even among Ministers that should be Teachers in Israel Proposition 6. THat there is a widâ— and vast difference between the Bishops of the Primitive times and the Bishops of later times as much as between ancient Rome and Rome at this day A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter or Episcopus Praeses as a Moderator in a Church-Assembly or a Speaker in a Parliament that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum and had neither power of Ordination nor of Jurisdiction but in common with his Presbyters Ambrose upon the 1 Tim. 3. saith That there is one and the same Ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Dr. Reynolds saith That when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Gost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serve Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospel is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop So the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual language of of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders From which quotation it appeares that in the judgment of learned Dr. Reynold A Bishop at his first appearing was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President or Moderator of the Presbytery D. Blondel a man of vast Reading indeavours strenuously to make it out That when Episcopacy first came up in the Church the custome was to choose the Eldest of the company of the Presbyters whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the first of those that were ordained to be their Bishop or Moderator And after his decease the next in age succeeded him not advanced in degree of Ministry or power above his Brethren but onely in order and dignity as being the first Presbyter This opinion is agreeable to that passage out of St. Ambrose if that Book be his where he saith Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recâ—dente uno sequenâ— ei succederet Sed quia ceperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad Primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio ut