of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
had no sooner done but the Wolves presently devoured the Sheep Even so when once not only the Persons of Ministers are disgraced and their Maintenance taken away but when the very Calling and Office of the Ministry is denied and libertie given to every man that will to preach then will the Wolves devour the Sheep of Christ then will Errors Heresies Blasphemie Atheism and Poperie come in like a mighty floud then will ruine and desolation come like an armed man upon that Nation where this is practized without remedie And thâ—refore to testifie our Love unto the Truth that the Sun of Righteousness may not go down in our daies that the Truth of the Gospel may live when we are dead and the Word of Christ may run and be glorified And to prevent the growth of Atheism which every where abounds and threatneth the overthrow and ruine of the way that God hath called holy and to reduce poor misled souls which ignorantly conceive they sinne not in traducing the Ministers of the Gospel as if they were men onely seeking their own things and not t he things of the Lord Iesus and contemning the Ministry as if it were not Gods Institution but an humane in vention introduced to uphold some carnal interest We the Members of the Provincial Assembly convened by Authority of Parliament conceive it our Duty to clear unto our respective Congregations the Ministry and Ministers such as serve the Lord in uprightness from these unkinde and ungrounded aspersions Beseeching the Lord the Father of Spirits to convince and settle the Iudgments of them that through misguidance may doubt and to give Repentance unto such as carnally oppose themselves that they may come to the acknowledgement of the Truth and so recover themselves out of the snare of Satan wherein they suffer themselves to be taken captive at his pleasure The Summe of all we shall say about the Gospel-Ministry we shall comprehend in this following Scheme The Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry containing 1. The Justification of the Ministry wherein are handled these particulars 1. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church of God by Divine Institution 2. That this Office is perpetually necessary in the Church of God 3. That no man ought to take upon him the Office or do the work of the Ministry except he be lawfully called and ordained thereunto 4. The several waies of calling men to the Ministry where is spoken of 1. An immediate call and therein laid down 1. The characters of an immediate call 2. A resolution whether we are now to expect an immediate call 3. Whether the call of the first Reformers of Religion from Popery was an immediate call 2. A mediate call consisting in Election concerning which are handled two things 1. That the Election of a Minister doth not by Divine Right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every Congregation 2. That the whole Essence of the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election without Ordination Ordination concering which are made good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with praier fasting and Imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery 2. The Justification c. B B. 2. The Justification of our Ministry which is comprised under two Propositions 1. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful valid which is proved 1. By Arguments drawn from the principles of our Adversaries wherein by the way is proved 1. That the Chuâ—ches of England are true Churches 2. And the two great Objections against them taken from their Parochiall and Nationall constitution are sufficiently answered 2. By Arguments taken from our own Principles and the nature of the thing And here our Ministry is largely vindicated from the foul aspersion of Antichristianism which is cast upon it because conveyed unto us as is said by Popish and Antichristian Bishops 2. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers do receive since the abolition of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid in which is shewed 1. That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture 2. That the instances of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels do not prove the contrary And because Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is highly accused of Novelty as having not the least shadow of Antiquity and thereby many Candidates of the Ministry are discouraged from this way of entring into the Ministry and Ordination so received is accounted null We have therefore added an Appendix wherein is briefly held forth the Judgement and Practise of Antiquity both in reference to Ordination and the whole matter of Episcopacy Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry The First Part. CONTAINING A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in generall The necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of Hands The Unlawfulnesse of private mens assuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawful Call and Ordination LONDON Printed by Abraham Miller 1654. Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry CHAPTER I. Containing the first Proposition PROP. I. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church by Divine Institution FOr the understanding of this Proposition we shall briefly shew 1. What is meant by Ministry 2. What by Office 1. What is meant by Ministry The word Ministry is a term of large comprehension Sometimes it is taken for a Civil Service in the Common-wealth Sometimes for a spirituall worship of Jesus Christ Sometimes for the Office of a Deacon But in this Proposition it is taken for an Ecclesiasticall Function appointed by Christ in his Church for the Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments This is called a Ministry in opposition to Lordly Domination and Principality For Ministers are not appointed to be Lords over Gods Heritage but to be examples to the flock The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your Servant The Office of the Ministry is not a Dominion but a Service and a labourious Service and therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that labour at the oar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that do in pulvere desudare But yet it is a most glorious and honourable Service because a Service to God his Church and the Souls of People and therefore called The Ministry of Christ The Stewardship of the Mysteries
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
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
That there is no such Office as the Office of the Ministry or That this Office is quite lost or That every man that thinks himself gifted may intrude into the Ministerial Office These opinions we judge destructive to Christian Religion and an in-let to Popery and all errour to all disorder and confusion and at last to all profaneness and Atheism There are four things that justly deserve to be abhorred by all good Christians 1. An Vniversal Toleration of all Religions 2. An Vniversal Admittance of all men to the Lords Supper 3. Vniversal Grace that is that Christ died equally for all and that all men have free-will to be saved 4. Vniversal Allowance of all that suppose themselves gifted to preach without Ordination This last is that which we have abundantly confuted and which we conceive to be unsufferable in a well-ordered Christian Commonwealth And our prayer to God is That our respective Congregations may be established in the truth against this and all other errours And that they may take heed least being led away with the errour of the wicked they should fall from their own stedfastness And for the preventing of this mischief That they may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ to him be glory both now and for ever Amen The End of the first Part. The Second Part CONTAINING A Iustification of the present Ministers of England Both such who were ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy from the foul aspersion of Antichristianisme and those who have been ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture pattern TOGETHER With an Appendix wherein the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Thess. 5.12 13. And we beseech you Brethren to know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you 13. And to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Cor 9.2 If I be not an Apostle unto others yet doubtlesse I am to you for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. Revel 11.3 And I will give power unto my two Witnesses and they shall prophesie a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes clothed in sackcloth Acts 20.28 Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops LONDON Printed by I. L. 1654. The Justification of our Ministry is comprised undertwo Propositions 1. That The Call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawfull and valid which is proved 1. By Arguments drawn from the principles of our Adversaries wherein by the way Is proved 1. That the Churches of England are true Churches 2. The two great Objections against them taken from their Parochial and National constitution are sufficiently answered 2. By Arguments taken from our own Principles and the nature of the thing And here our Ministry is largely vindicated from that foul aspersion of Antichristianisme which is cast upon it because conveyed unto us as is said by Popish and Antichristian Bishops 2. That The Call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers do receive since the abolition of Episcopacy is lawful and valid In which is shewed 1. That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture 2. That the instances of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels do not prove the contrary And because Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is highly accused of Novelty as having not the least shadow of Antiquity and thereby many Candidates of the Ministry are discouraged from this way of entring into the Ministry and Ordination so received is accounted null We have therefore added an Appendix wherein is briefly held forth the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity both in reference to Ordination and the whole matter of Episcopacy The Preface HAving sufficiently proved That there is such an Office as the Office of a Minister and that this Office is perpetual And that no man ought to assume this Office unless he be lawfully called thereunto And that this Call is by Ordination with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery It remains now that we should speak something concerning the Justification of our own Ministry For what are we the better that there is a Ministery by Divine institution if our Ministry be of man and not of God What are we the better that there is a Ministry from Christ if our Ministry be from Antichrist It will be said to us as it was to Christ Physitian cure thy self Trouble not the world with a general assertion of the necessity of a Ministry unlesse you will bring it down to particulars and make out unto us the divine right of your Ministry This then is the work that is now before us which we shall the rather undertake First for our peoples sake that they may with all chearfulnesse and conscienciousnesse submit unto our Ministry when it shall appear plainly unto them that we are Ministers sent by God Thaâ— we are over them in the Lord That we are the Lords Stewards and the Lords Ambassadors And that they may with confidence expect a blessing from God upon our Ministry as not doubting but that God will make use of his own Instruments and that a Minister sent by God will be blessed by God whâ—reas they that hear men not lawfully called have no promise of a blessing but rather a threatning that they shall not profit by such Preachers as we have formerly proved Hence it is that such hearers run from one errour to 〈…〉 as a just punishment of God upon them 〈◊〉 to the saying of the Apostle 2 Tim. 4.3 〈…〉 will come when they will not endure sound 〈…〉 after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves 〈…〉 having itching ears They shall make 〈◊〉 upon Teacher they shall heap up teachers And these teachers shall be sent by themselves and not by God and after their own lusts not after the Divine rule For so saith the Text They shall after their own lusts heap to themselves c. And the reason why they do this is not because they have more judicious eares then other people or because they are more holy but because they have â—â—ching eares But mark the curse that attends all such vers 4. They shall turn away their eares from the truth and shall be turned unto fables Secondly for our Brethren's sake in the Ministery For there is nothing that will more inable a Minister to dischargâ— his Office with courage faithfulnesse and chearfulnesse maugre all opposition of unreasonable men
to the mind of God a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one The Scripture owns no Bishop over Presbyters but onely a presbyter-Presbyter-Bishop That the Lawes of the Realme acknowledge nothing by divine right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Sir Edward Cook makes it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to Bishops that Ecclesiastical power they now exercise over us speaking of his times and also to take it from them at pleasure c. In Henry the 8 thâ— dayes there was a Book Printed for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by both Houses of Parliament wherein is said Of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands By which it is evident That the Lawes of the Realme do not acknowledge the divine right of Prelacy That most of our Bishops in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes did freely confess That Episcopacy as it differed from Presbytery was onely of humane right and not from divine institution This Bishop Iewel confesseth in his answer to Harding and brings divers of the Ancient Fathers of the same judgement whose sayings we shall hereafter mention The same is affirmed by Archbishop Whitgift against Carewright and by Bishop Downam in the Preface to his defence of his Sermon Preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells That the best learned even amongst the Papists themselves do confesse That a Bishop is not a superiour order of Ministry above a Presbyter but onely a superiour dignity That Sacerdotium that is as they call it The Priesthood is the highest order in the Church That a Bishop is onely 〈◊〉 Presbyter The first Presbyter or as Bellarmine calls him major 〈◊〉 Episcopacy is not another Order distinct from the Priesthood saith Caeprâ—â—lus No Prelate hath more concerning Sacramental power or of Order then simple Priests So Armachanus As concerning Sacerdotal order and things that pertain to Order they are equal Thus Bellarmine himself Although a Bishop and Presbyter are distinguished yet as concerning Sacrifice they exercise the same Ministry and therefore they make one Order and not two Cusanus goeth further All Bishops and haply also Presbyters are of equal power in respect of jurisdiction although not of execution which executive power is shut up and restrained by certain positive Lawes The Master of the Sentences saith That the Canons acknowledge onely two sorts of holy orders Diaconatum sc. Presbyteratum quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli â—abamus That is The Deacon and the Presbyter Because the Primitive Church had no other and the Apostolique precept speaks of no other Estins tells us That Aquinas Waldensis Bonaventure and most of the other Schoolmen are of this opinion And Doctor Field in his 5th Book of the Church hath this remarkeable passage Touching the preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the School Divines For the best Learned amongst them are of opinion that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order but only in the exercise of it and in the power of jurisdiction seeing Presbyters may Preach and Minister the greatest of all Sacraments by vertue of their Consecration and order as well as Bishops Touching the power of consecration or order saith Durandus it is much doubted of amongst Divines whether any be greater then an ordinary Presbyter For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of consecration or order iâ— the power of a Priest or Elder so that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may Minister all Sacraments confirm the Baptized give all orders all blessings and consecrations but that for the avoiding of the peril of Schisme it was Ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a Bishop whom the rest should obey and to whom it was reserved to give orders and to do some other things which none but Bishops do And afterwards he saith That Hierome is clearly of this opinion and much more to this purpose Now hence it followeth necessarily That the power of Ordination of Ministers exercised for these many hundred years by Bishops did belong to them as Presbyters and not as Bishops and that the act and exercise of it was restrained to them potius ad honorem Sacerdotii in remedium schismatis quam ad Legis â—â—cessitatem rather for the honour of the Priesthood and as was then their opinion for the remedy of Schisme then for any necessity of Law For the Scripture warrants no such practise as we shall shew hereafter Now this floweth from the former conclusion For if Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministers with Presbytery and the Ecclesiastical power equal in both and a Bishop be nothing else in the opinion of Antiquity but a chief Presbyter or the President of the Presbytery and of the same rank with them then all the acts he doth he must do by vertue of his Presbyterial consecration This is demonstrable even our adversaries being Judges from this Argument Because a Bishop made per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor Ordain a Presbyter himself being none nor do any act peculiarly appertaining to Presbyters Ordination therefore saith Mr. Ball is reserved to the Bishop not in respect of superiority in degree of Ministry above his brethren for if he be no Presbyter he cannot make Presbyters but for order sake and to prevent Schisme and division being for substance of the same Order and consecration with them Dr. Field manageth the same argument these or words A Presbyter saith he ordained per saltum that never was consecrated or ordained a Deacon may notwithstanding do all those Actâ— that pertaine to the Deacons Order because the higher Order doth alwayes imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But â— Bishop Ordained per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither Consecrate and Administer the Sacrament of the Lords body nor Ordaine a Presbyter himself being nonâ— nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most Evident saith Dr. Field That that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct Power of Order but an Eminency and Dignitie onely specially yeelded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for Order sake and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church What peace and Order was preserved hereby in the Church we shall shew afterwards For the present it is most clear even from the testimony of Episcopal men themselves That a Bishop is of the same Order and Rank with a Presbyter and that his acts of Ordination were exercised by him as a Presbyter
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a Pastor-Bishop and a Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem
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
Ordinationem quae per solos Presbyteroâ— peragitur non esse de jurâ— divino invalidam neque Ordinationâ—m esse de jure Divino ita propriam Episcoporum ut non possit validè peragi per solos Presbyteros That is That Ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by Divine right invalid neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop that it may not be done even in the opinion of Papists themselves by Presbyters alone For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters For Bellâ—rmine saith expresly In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right And Aureolus saith Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quod in potestâ—te nullius imò nec Papae est illâ— auferre qua sunt autem jurisdictionis potest ea Pâ—pa suspendere Now then from hence we may argue That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops that neither Bishops nor Councels nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare But according to the Judgment and practise of Antiquity The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordaining to Presbâ—ters that are not Bishops And Bishops also may do the like Therefore the liberty and power of Ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely but may be lawfully done by others the Papists themselves being Judges And so much for our fourth Proposition Proposition 5. THat when Hierome saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ— Ordinatione This passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought That Ordination was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops and not to Presbyters as Bishop Bilson saith For in the very same Epistle he tells us That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one And that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop But he must bâ— understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes and his meaning iâ— Quid facit Episcopus secundum Canoâ—â—s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyteâ— excepta Ordinatione Proposition 6. THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter because madâ— by Colluâ—hus that was but a Presbyter himself and not a Bishop This was done not because the act of Colluâ—â—us was against the Canon of thâ— Scriptures but onely because it was against the Canons of some Councelâ— Thuâ— Dr. Fiâ—ld answereth Whereas saith he The Fathers make all such Ordinations void 〈◊〉 are made by Presbyters it is to be understood according to the strictnesse of the Canon in use in their time and not absolutely in the nâ—ture of the thing which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void All Ordinationâ— of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane All Ordinations of Presbyterâ— by Bishops out of their own Churches without leave Whereas I am well assured The Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Thus far Dr. Field But now whether the Church in thâ—se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free we leave it to all sober Christians to judge and determine Proposition 7. THat Aâ—rius was never condemned by any Councel oâ— heresie for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter But on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1â— an 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge We confesse That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austinâ— but this was especially if not onely because he was an Arrian Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austine saith That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi But as for his opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Austine indeed calls it proprium dogma And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum stolidum But neither of them both call it an Heresie But suppose they did for so it is commonly thought yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors and not much to be regarded appears 1. Because as Smectymâ—uus hath well observed the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead Epiphanius accused him because he said that superstitum preces did not opitulari â—is qui ex hâ—c vita discesserunt And Austine accused Aerius because he said Non licet orare vel offerrâ— pro mortuis oblationem He is further condemned for reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks 2. Because not onely Saint Hierome but Austine himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom origin and yet none of these do deserve the name of fooles and mad men much lesse to be branded for hereticks Adde to this That Alphonsus de Castro advers haeres Titul Episcopus saith That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp ad Campian rat 10. hath these words Aâ—rium Epiphanius Augustinus in haereticis nume ant praeter eos antiqui pauci Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum nihil Catholicum esse potest Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit This is sufficient to answer the objection about Aerius Proposition 8. THat even many if not most of those that hold Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris yet as we in charity believe they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary â—n the Church of Christ But they say That those Churchâ—â— are true Churches that want Bishops and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr Sermon professeth pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof And afterwards in his defence Though ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishopâ— in the Judgment of the ancient Church yet it was not to be understood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in case of
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
as Apostles but only as Beleevers and so ordained it for all Beleevers who did not onely Eat the Bread but Drink the Cup of the Lord. The Precepts and Promises which are of a middle nature betwixt the two former not so general as to concern all believers nor yet so strait and peculiar as to be limited to the Apostles as Go Teach and Baptize c. These Precepts and Promises thereunto annexed were given to Apostles not as Apostles nor to them as believers but given to them as Ministers and Stewards of the mysteries of God For the Apostles did not administer the Sacraments as Apostles for to baptize was no peculiar work of the Apostles as such Now Christs promise in Matth. 28.20 is to Apostles teaching and baptizing But these are acts ministerial which therefore appertain to all Ministers called of God in his Name to perform these duties If any shall object and say This promise was not to their persons but to their doctrine which shall continue to the end of the world Answ. It is true the doctrine of the Apostles shall continue to the end of the world it is such a light as all the breath of men or rage of hell can never blow out and one jot or tittle of this word shall not fail But this promise is not onely to their doctrine but to their persons invested in such an Office not onely to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely to their doctrine taught but to their teaching and baptizing This promise cannot be confined to the persons of Apostles for where are the Prophets and Evangelists And do the Apostles live for ever But this promise reacheth all ages I am with you alwayes to the end of the world which strongly argueth That the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ and though many have endeavoured to suppresse both Ministry and Magistracy yet they shall continue till Christ deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father Then and not till then will he put down all Rule and all Authority and Power Then there shall be no Temple there shall be no need of the Sunne neither of the Moon to shine therein for the glory of the Lord shall lighten it and the Lamb is the light thereof When Christ sendeth forth his Apostles about a ministerial imploiment he promiseth to be with them unto the worlds end which doth not cannot intimate either that the Apostles themselves should live so long or that this his promise should be made good no longer then they lived But that as the imploiment it self then given them in charge for the main substance and subject matter of it so that promise of his gracious presence and efficacious assistance should be continued as to them in particular for their times so to others that should in those administrations succeed them from time to time in the severall ages ensuing to the worlds end Obj. But may not these words I will be alwaies with you unto the worlds end be limited to the particular age or dispensation during the lives of the Apostles Sol. To prevent this Objection the holy Ghost useth three expressions to declare the perpetuity of this promise 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this promise shall continue so long as the world continues 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this promise shall have no end till the worlds end 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all dayes and successions of times not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only with you during your dayes but all the dayes of the Gospel till time shall be no more All which words clearly hold out a continuance of the power and function of the Ministry and Christs special spiritual presence with the persons assigned to this Office in the exercise thereof not for some particular age as the lives of the Apostles but in all successive times to the end of the world which is evident from the terms in this promise used being duely considered with collation of other places of Scripture in the New Testament especially wherein elswhere they are found And first the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken sometime in the notion of an adjunct and sometime of a subject Sometime in the notion of an adjunct of time or continuance and here most properly and in its native sense according to its original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grammarians generally agree it is used for Eternity either for the continuance of eternity before time which is commonly called aeternitas à parte ante and so it may well be taken Acts 15.18 where it is said That Gods works were known to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from eternity or for the continuance of eternity when time shall be no more commonly called aeternitas à parte post as it is manifestly taken where the Messias is said to abide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto eternity or for ever whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for never as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for life eternal that shall never have an end this is correspondent to that Psal. 60.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from eternity unto eternity thou art God that is without either beginning or ending But from hence with some restriction it is used for some long continuance of time as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in Hebrew is And more peculiarly applied to the world it importeth the perpetual continuance of the thing spoken of untill the world have a period of its present being Thus it seems to be taken where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both joyned together for as one of the Jewish Doctors well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rock of flint Deut. 8.15 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The flint of Rock Deut. 32.13 are in effect the same So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perpetual continuance of this world Ephes. 2.2 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of this present perpetual continuance are in effect and substance one and the same Yea where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not expressed as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.70 Acts 3.21 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 9.32 is from the worlds beginning So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.33 compared with 1 Cor. 15.24 25. and Luke 1.55 is unto the worlds end Hence also that distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this world Mark 4.19 Luke 16.8 20.34 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world that now is 2 Tim. 4.10 Tit. 2.12 and as some copies also have it Matth. 12.32 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The present world Gal. 1.4 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world that shall be Matth. 12.32 Heb. 6.5 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is coming or that is to come Mark 10.30
to preach without a lawfull call The Apostles in the Synod of Ierusalem speak of certain men that went out from them and troubled the Gentiles with words subverting their souls They went out They were not sent out but they went out of theiâ— own accord this is spoken of them by way of reproof And then it followes they troubled you with words subverting your souls He that preacheth unsent is not a comforter but a troubler of the people of God not a builder but a subverter of souls There be many in our daies like Ahimaaz they will be running without either call or message and haply they may out-run Gods Cushi's we wish they meet with no worse successe then he in a spirituall sense to prove uselesse Messengers We argue from the practice of the Ministers of Christ If they have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine then is mission required in him thâ—t will Preach the Word But they have been thus carefull Therefore If any gifted man may preach without a Call why doth the Apostle so often make mention of his Call Rom. 1.1 Gal. 1.15 16. 1 Cor. 1.1 when the Disciples of Iohn murmured against Christ for baptizing Ioh. 3.27 28. Iohn answers A man can receive nothing unlesse it be given him from heaven ye your selves bear witnesse of me that I said I am not the Christ but that I am sent before him Here Christs undertaking to baptize is justified by his Mission When the chief Priests and the Scribes with the Elders asked Christ Luk. 20.2 Tell us by what authority doest thou these things or who gave thee this authority Christ makes answer by demanding another question The Baptisme of Iohn was it from heaven or of men Which teacheth us these two truths First That none ought to preach without being authorized and sent Secondly That this Call and Sending is not only from men but from heaven True it is such as is the Ministry such ought the Call to be if the Ministry extraordinary the Call extraordinary if the Ministry ordinary the Call must be ordinary but we reade of no Ministry allowed in Scripture without a Divine Call There is a threefold Call to the Ministry mentioned Gal. 1.1 The first is of or from man only when any is designed to this work errante clave that hath no inward qualification or Call from God This though it authorizeth to outward administrations in the Church yet will not satisfie the conscience of him that so administers The second is by man as the instrument when any is designed to the Ministry by those whom God hath intrusted with the work of Ordination according to the rule of the Word these God cals by man Act. 20. This is the Call of ordinary Pastors The third by Jesus Christ immediatly and by this it is that Paul proves himself an Apostle an extraordinary Minister Lastly we argue thus That work may not be performed by any which cannot by him be performed in faith But preaching by a Brother Gifted but not Called nor Ordained cannot be done in faith Therefore A Gifted unordained brother may not Preach Concerning the major we shall say little the Apostles general Canon Rom. 14. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin doth evidently demonstrate it The truth of the minor appears in that there is no warrant in Scripture which is the ground of faith for such a practice For first there is no 1. Precept that such should preach if there were a precept it was then a necessary duty that every gifted person ought to perform it was a sin if any gifted person should not preach though he could preach but one Sermon only in all his life Where is the necessity laid upon them as the Apostle speaks of himself that they preach the Gospel 2. There is no Precept that any should hear them or obey them in the Lord or maintain them these duties of the people areappropriated to those that are Preachers by Office Mal. 2. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and the people should enquire the Law at their lips Luk. 10.16 The hearing of them is the hearing of Christ and the refusing of them is the refusing of Christ It is not so said of any that preach without mission but contrarily there is a strict charge not to hearken to such Ier. 17.14 and a complaint of them that heap to themselves teachers 2 Tim. 4. Thus the Apostle Heb. 13 7 17. Remember them obey them submit your selves to them that have the rule over you and have spoken to you the Word of God So 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour c. Nothing of this is spoken of gifted Brethren yet if they may lawfully preach all this may they challenge and all that hear and plead for them are bound in conscience to yield because all this is due for the works sake 1 Thess. 5.12 Secondly There is no promise in Scripture made unto any that Preach and are not thereunto lawfully Ordained We say no promise either of 1. Assistance A Minister must depend upon God for his inabling unto the great work which he undertakes for all our sufficiency is of God and we have no sufficiency of our selves so much as to think any thing 2 Cor. 3.5 and God hath promised this assistance only to those whom himself sends Thus Exo. 4.10 Go saith the Lord to Moses and I will be with thy mouth Isa. 6.7 8 God touches the mouth of Isaiah and sends him Ioh. 20.21 22. Christ sends and gives the holy Ghost to the Apostles and to them is the promise Ioh. 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth Doth God do thus to those that run and are not sent O let the great errours broached of old by Origen and others that presumed the the undertaking of this work without a Call and in our daies by Anabaptists Socinians and others that despise a regular lawfull Call bear witness Surely we may say that if any amongst us Preach without a Call and yet Preach the truth they have not their assistance by vertue of any promise from the hand of God 2. Protection Thus God hath promised to those whom he sends on his message Thus the Lord encourageth Ieremiah ch 1.18 19. I have made thee this day a defenced City and an iron pillar and a brazen wall against this whole Land and they shall fight against thee but shall not prevail against thee for I am with thee saith the Lord to deliver thee Thus also Act. 18.9 the Lord incourageth Paul Be not afraid but speak and hold not thy peace for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee So also Act. 23.11 Be of good chear Paul c. And as we finde that God hath promised protection to those he sends so also the Ministers of God have incouraged themselves to a faithfull discharge of their duty against
keeping the Sabbath are sometimes put for the whole worship of God Ier. 10.25 Isa. 56.4 And as it is a good Argument keeping of the Sabbath and prayer are put for the whole worship of God and therefore they are parts of it if not chief parts So it is a good Argument Imposition of hands is put for the whole work of Ordination and therefore it is a part of it if not a chief part And we desire our people further to consider that there is but one Text for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lifting up of hands in the election of a Minister and this also but a shadow without a substance as we have proved and yet how zealous are many amongst us for popular Election And why should not they be much more zealous for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Imposition of hands which hath so many substantial Texts for the justification of it and which is so often put for the whole work of Ordination Fourthly Because it is placed by the Apostle Heb. 6.1 2. amongst the principles of the doctrine of Christ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of the doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands and of resurrection of the dead and of eternall judgement The great Question is What is here meant by laying on of hands The Papists understand it of the Sacrament of Confirmation But it never hath nor ever will be sufficiently proved that either there is such a Sacrament appointed by Christ or that it was a custome in the Apostles daies to lay on hands or as was formerly phrased to Bishop baptized Christians who were grown up to years of discretion others by laying on of hands understand the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which in these daies were given by laying on of hands But this cannot be the meaning 1. Because it cannot be proved that the gift of the holy Ghost was given with every laying on of hands in those times For the laying on of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 was not for giving the holy Ghost but for Ordination 2. Because the giving of the holy Ghost by laying on of hands was proper to the Primitive age and doth not concern after ages But the Catechetical heads enumerated by the Apostle concern all ages 3. Because it would be hard to think that the knowledge or profession of the doctrine concerning the giving of the holy Ghost by such laying on of hands was such a principle as that none ignorant thereof though instructed in all the other Articles of Christian faith could be received as a Church-member and as one grounded in Catechisticall doctrine And therefore by laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche we suppose is meant the whole Ministry Thus D. Ames in his Confutation of Bellarmine By laying on of hands saith he is here meant Totum Ministerium the whole Ministry Bullinger on the place By laying on of hands understandeth also the Ministry and their Vocation Mission and Authority given them Mr. Hooker in his Survey of Church-Discipline par 1. pag. 1. By laying on of hands as by a Metonymy of the adjunct understandeth Ordination and Ordination as one particular is put saith he for the whole of Church-Discipline And from this very Text he undertakes to prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamentall point of Religion But we may more safely and more rationally assert the same of the Church-Ministry For whosoever denieth a Ministry overthroweth all Gospel-Ordinances and Gospel-Churches And here we will make bold to put our people in minde of a passage in M. Cartwrights Confutation of the Rhemists who was a man sufficiently opposite to the Bishops and their Ceremonies yet he is pleased to use these words upon this Text. By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much lesse Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope and borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever beleeveth that there ought not to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved So Cartwright Now then If Imposition of hands be taken in Scripture not only for the whole work of Ordination but also for the whole Ministry We may we hope safely and convincingly conclude That it is the will of Jesus Christ that they that enter into the Ministry should have hands laid upon them And that they that oppose Imposition of hands may as well oppose the whole Gospel-Ministry and therein overthrow Christianity it self We will not trouble the Reader with answering all the Objections that are brought against this Thesis but only such as seem to carry most weight in them Object 1. We do not reade that the Apostles were made Ministers with Imposition of hands Answ. 1. No more do we reade that they were made Ministers by the Election of the people This objection fights as much against Election as against Imposition of hands 2. A negative argument from Scripture doth not hold in matters of this nature It doth not follow because it is not recorded therefore it was not done Many things were done by Christ which are not written It is said That Christ ordained twelve but after what manner is not set down 3. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers and had an extraordinary Call Our Thesis is of ordinary Officers They that oppose this Assertion must prove that ordinary Officers were made without Imposition of hands or else they prove nothing to the purpose Object 2. When the Apostle left Titus to ordain Elders in Crete he saies not a word of Imposition of hands Answ. 1. Nor a word of Election by the people 2. The Apostle left him to ordain Elders as he had appointed him Now it is irrationall to think that he would appoint Titus to do otherwise then according to what he himself practised He ordained Deacons Elders and Timothy by laying on of hands And therefore it is without dispute to us That he appointed Titus to do so also 3. If we compare Tit. 1.5 with Act. 6.3 5. it will appear That by appointing or ordaining Elders in Crete is meant ordaining by Imposition of hands For there is the same word in both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. was by laying on of hands and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tit. 1.5 Object 3. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles only for the present occasion as other things were observed as bloud was forbidden as Paul used circumcision and shaving viz. for the Jews sake who had their publique Officers thus set apart Answ. 1. No circumstance of any one Text where Imposition of hands is mentioned to be used
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word