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
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
so it was foretold that it should be also in the Christian Church consisting of Jew and Gentile It was Gods great Promise to be fullfilled in Gospel-times that he would take of the Children of them that should be brought into the Church for Priests and Levites alluding to the Officers that then were in being which cannot be understood of spirituall Priests such as all Saints are in some sense stiled for these are said to be singled out from the rest for such a speciall Office And that in the times of the Gospel according to the Promise such an Office was appointed by our Lord Jesus is beyond all question to all who reade and beleeve the New Testament Christ before his death appointed the Apostles to go and preach He ordained twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach And after this the Lord appointed other seventy also and because the Harvest was great and the Labourers were but few therefore they are bid to pray the Lord of the Harvest that hâ— would send firth Labourers into hiâ— Harvâ—st To his Apostles he revealed himself especially after his resurrection and gave them commission and command to preach the Gospel to all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghosâ— And when Iudas being numbred with them had obtained part of this Ministry from which by transgression he fell the rest of the Disciples did not magnifie themselves to be Apostles but sought to the Lord that God himself would shew whom he had chosen to take part of that Ministry and Apostleship and the Loâ— falling upon Mathias he was numbred with the eleven 3. The Ministry in the daies of the Apostles was not only dispensed by the Apostles the seventy Disciples and other Prophets and Evangelists whose Call Gifts and Works were extraordinary but by other ordinary Pastors whose spirits were not insallible and whose commission was not extraordinary The extraordinary Officers were commanded to commit the word to faithfull men who shall be able to reach others also And this Ministry dispensed by ordinary Pastors was by the Apostles themselves and the severall Churches of the New Testament esteemed as a Ministry by Divine Institution Paul stiles Epâ—phras a dear Fellow-Servant who is for you a faithfull Minister of Christ Tychicus he calls a beloved Brother and a faithfull Minister in the Lord. And these ordinary Pastors distinguished from those extraordinary Officers the Scriptures do affirm to be as truly by divine appointment as the former though not so immediatly and eminently 1. The same God that set in the Church first Apostles then Prophets the same God set in the Church some to be Teachers Some by way of distinction from others and not all For the holy Ghost argueth as if it were equally absurd to have all to be Teacherâ— as all to be Apostles and appeals to their naturall conscience about it Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers And if God himself the Father of all mercies hath placed these Teachers in his Church what is man who is but â— worm that he should attempt to displace them 2. The same Redeemer the Lord Jesus who gave some to be Apostles some Prophets and some Evangelists the same Christ gave also some to bâ— Pastorâ— and to be Teachers 3. The sâ—me holy Spirit which said Separatâ— me Barnabas and Saul for the work of the Ministery and who committed to Paul thâ— Gospâ—l of Vncircumcision as he did the Gospel of Circumcision to Peter The same blessed Spirit gave charge to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed to thâ— Flock of Christ And though they were no where recorded to have received a Commission extraordinary and a spirit infallible Nay so far were they from being infallible that the Apostle foretelâ— that some of them would speak perverse things to draw away Disciples after them v. 30. Yet is it said expresly that the holy Ghost hâ—d made them Overseerâ— over the Flock As the Saints converted to the Faith of the Gospel by the Ministry of Tychichus Epaphras and Onesimus and the Saints that in those daies were really added to the Church werâ— no lessâ— truly Saints then those which were converted immediatly by Paul and Peter and the rest of the Apostles So these ordinary Pastors and Teachers aforementioned did no lâ—sse truly receive their Ministry from the Lord for their ordinary employment then the Apostles did though they more eminently for their employment extraordinary As he committed to them the Word and Ministry of Reconcâ—liation and gave to them both Commission and Command to dispense his Ordinances so that to them it was not only lawfull or arbitrary but necessity was laid upon them and a Woe denounced if they preached not the Gospel So was it also to the ordinary Teachers and therefore Archippus no where mentioned to be an Officer extraordinary is commanded to fullfill his Ministry which he also received from the Lord. Now if the Father the God of Truth the Son the Way the Truth and the Life and the holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth hath designed peculiar persons to this Office then the Ministry by way of Office is necessary by Divine Institution The Second Argument is drawn from the peculiar Names or Titles whereby the Persons thus designed and distinguished from other Saints If God hath given peculiar Names and Titles whereby the Persons designed to this Office are distinguished from other Saints then this Office is by Divine Institution For as the judgement of God is so are the denominations which God giveth to things according to truth If Adam gave distinguishing Names to all creatures sutable to their beings Surely our only wise God will not distinguish where he himself hath made no difference But God hath given to the persons designed to this Office peculiar Names and Titles 1. These are called Pastors and the other Saints respectively are called the Flock Now is there not a reall distinction as well as nominall betwixt the Flock and Pastor the Sheep and the Shepherd 2. They are called Teachers and doth not the holy Ghost evidently distinguish betwixt them that do instruct and those that are instructed 3. They are called such as Rule well not in any civil way as State-Officers but such as labour in the Word and Doctrine 4. They are such as are Over the Saints in the Lord and the holy Ghost doth expresly distinguish betwixt the Officers in the Church which have rule and inspection over the Saints and all the rest of the Saints under that Inspection 5. They are called Stewards of the Mysteries of God all the rest of the Saints are of the Houshold of Faith and who may appoint Stewards in the House but the Master of the Houshold And if the Master call them Stewards let all Saints do so who
is evident because these Titles are applied not onely to extraordinary but to ordinary Ministers The Ministers of the seven Churches of Asia are called Angels the Ministers ordained by Titus Stewards the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Overseers or Bishops now a Ruler is a name of Office and implieth a Commission to constitute him in that capacity Fourthly We argue From the constant distinction that is made in Scripture between gifts and calling We reade Ioh. 20.21 22. First Christ gives his Apostles their Commission As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Then he gives them their gifts Receive the Holy Ghost Thus also Isa. 6.6 7 9. God touched his lips with a coal from the Altar and gifted him Afterwards he gives him his Commission Thus also it was with the Prophet Ieremy 1.5 9. God sends him and then puts forth his hand toucheth his mouth and fiâ—s him Even as it is in all civill Governments Gifts make not any man a Judge or a Lord-Maior Sheriff or Common-Counsell man though he be never so richly qualified for these Offices unlesse he be lawfully appointed thereunto So is it in Church-affairs it is not gifts but calling that constitutes a Minister therefore that distinction of a Minister by gifts and a Minister by calling hath no footing in the Word of Truth If gifts were sufficient to make a Minister then women might preach as well as men for they may have as eminent gifts Indeed gifts are a necessary qualification of the person to be called but make him not a lawfull Minister till called and ordained And if he take the Office upon him unsent he is an Usurper and may fear to perish in the gain-saying of Corah notwithstanding his gifts Fifthly We argue from the Rules laid down in Scripture for the calling of men to the Office of the Ministry The Word of God doth exactly tell us the qualifications of the person that is to be called 1 Tim. 3.2 3. c. The Scripture also directs for the manner of his calling to the work who are to Ordain How he is to be Ordained 1 Tim. 4.14 c. Now either these directions are superfluous and unnecessary or else it is a truth that no man ought to take this Office upon him without such a call Nor were these directions given for that age only but for all the ages of the Church to the end of the world as appears evidently from 1 Tim. 6.18 compared with 1 Tim. 5.7.21 In the first place he is charged to keep those commands without spot to the appearance of Iesus Christ And in the second place there is as solemn a charge particularly applied to quicken his diligence and faithfulnesse about matters of the Church and especially the ordination honour and maintenance of the Ministry in ordinary as appeareth by the context before and after from ver 17. to ver 23. The same charge is laid down also by way of direction Chap. 3. and particularly committed to Timethy's care ver 14. And one main ground why Paul chargeth Timothy to be so carefull about these particulars especially at Ephesus was That thereby false doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1.3 4. for which there is scarce a more effectuall means in the world then a publike and regular care of calling persons duely qualified to the Ministry And we cannot but look with sad hearts upon the spreading of errours in these daies of generall Apostasie as the righteous judgement of God upon the supine negligence of men in this particular among others The same charge upon the same ground is laid upon Titus Cha. 1.5 9 10. where also the Apostle gives singular directions for the qualification of the person to be ordained both in point of gifts and grace which are all vain and unusefull if any may enter upon the Ministry without Ordination Sixthly We argue from that confusion which would come into the Church if every man that presumes himself gifted should intrude himself into the Office of the Ministry without a regular call Saint Ierome held it an infallible sign of a Church falling into ruine Vbi nulla Ministrorum est electio manifestum cognosce collabâ—nt is Christianismi judicium where there is no choice of Ministers acknowledge this a manifest evidence of Christianity decaying The reason is apparent The prostituting of this sacred and weighty Office to the wils of men opens a door to all disorders and the introducing of all heresies and errors How much did the Church of Antioch suffer from such as came from the Apostles and had no Commission Act. 15. Gal. 2.5 besides that contempt and scorn which it exposeth the Ministry unto Admit the same in the Common-wealth or in an Army Might he that would make himself a Maior Judge Constable a Colonell Captain c. what an Iliad of miseries would thence â—nsue is easier to be imagined then expressed CHAP. V. Containing part of the Third Proposition PROVING That none may do the Work of the Ministry without Ordination NO man may perform the work of the Ministry but he that is solemnly set apart and ordained to be a Minister Having in the precedent Chapter asserted the necessity of Ordination to the work of the Ministry against the presumptuous usurpation of such as run and are not sent We shall by the grace of God in this Chapter vindicate the work of the Ministry unto those whom God hath set as Officers in his Church That there is a work belonging to the Ministry is out of question and what that work is is confessed by all It belongs to them to dispense the mysteries of God the keys of the Kingdom of God are in their hands It is their work to watch for souls as they that must give an account of them at that great day To preach the Word and by sound doctrine to convince gain-sayers to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper to pray for and blesse the people in the Name of God to rule and govern the Church having a care of discipline and all these as in the place and person of Christ. Of how great necessity these works are unto the Church is evident unto understanding Christians and hath been demonstrated already It now remains to be enquired whether all or any of these works may be performed by men uncalled though gifted or whether they be peculiar unto Ministers Those with whom we have to do yeelding all the rest to the Ministry challenge in their writings a liberty to preach the Word and in their practises some of them a power of praying for and blessing the people how justly we shall shew when we have first stated the Question which we shall do briefly and plainly that we may not seem to disallow what we ought to countenance commend nay to command in the Name of the Lord and that we may prevent and anticipate the cavils of some gain-sayers For the right stating of the Question we shall
declare what we mean by preaching of the Word and from thence premise some few distinctions which well considered of might put an end to this whole controversie By the Preaching of the Word we understand an authoritative explication and application of Scripture for exhortation edification and comfort to a Congregation met together for the solemn worship of God in the stead and place of Christ and we desire that every branch of this description may be well weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary The Subject of Preaching is the Word of God Mat. 28.19 Let him that hath my word speak my word faithfully Jer. 23.28 This is that sound doctrine and form of sound words which the Apostle enjoyns Timothy and Titus to hold fast And themselves and Christ himself taught no other things then were written in Moses and the Prophets c. This work is the explication and application of this word As Ezra read in the Book of the Law and gave the sense and caused all Israel to understand Neh. 8.8 And it is to this which Paul presseth Timothy when he exhorts him to shew himself a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth 2 Tim. 2.15 The end of this work is the exhortation edification and comfort of the Church 1 Cor. 14.2 which is the profitable use of all Scripture 2 Tim. 3.16 The object of this work is a Congregation met together for the Solemn worship of God 1 Cor. 14.23 when you are come together into one place It is true that the word ought to be preach'd to Infidels Mat. 28. Mar. 16. Go into all the world but the principall object of this work is the Church Prophecy is not i. not so much for them that beleeve not but for them that beleeve 1 Cor. 14.22 Hence it is that God hath sâ—t his Officers in the Church 1 Cor. 12.28 For the Church Eph. 4.12 The manner of the doing of this work is 1 Authoritatively not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magisterially as Lords of Faith but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerially as being over the Church in the Lord 1 Thes. 5.12 Thus is Titus enjoyned Tit. 2.15 These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all command Secondly In the stead and place of Christ Thus the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. We beseech you as if God did beseech you we pray you in Christs stead be reconciled to God and hence it is that Christ saith to his Disciples Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me c. From hence First We distinguish between a private brotherly teaching admonition exhortation of one another and an authoritative publique teaching The first grounded on charity is the common duty of all Christians by the royall Law of love and prescribed to all even to women by the Law of God under pain of sin and this especially in evil times This practise we are far from disallowing or discouraging we call God to witnesse it would be the joy of our hearts to see our people full of knowledge and full of goodnesse able and willing to admonish one another with prudence love zeal and a spirit of meeknesse and this we exhort and charge in the name of Christ that they neglect not It is authoritative teaching only which we deny Secondly We distinguish between the teaching of parents and Masters in their Families to which also the teaching of School-masters may be reduced and Ministeriall preaching We call upon Parents Masters School-masters not only to bring their Families and Scholars to publike Ordinances but to make their Houses the Churches of Christ To reade the Scriptures in them to catechize them to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord to teach them in their youth in the trade of their way as they will answer it at that great day And unto this duty we exhort even mothers but we deny unto them Ministeriall Preaching Thirdly We distinguish between the exhortation of a General in the head of an Army and of a Judge in his charge upon the Bench and preaching the Word of God Though we deny not the lawfulness of the one or the other of the two former because we have the approved examples of Ioab 2 Sam. 10. Of Abijah 2 Chro. 13. Of Iehosaphat 2 Chro. 19.20 Ioshua Cha. 23.24 yet we say First That properly thus to do was the Ministers work for thus the Lord prescribes Deut. 20.2 And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battell that the Priâ—st shall approach and speak to the people and shall say unto them Hear O Israel as it follows ver 3. And thus Iehosaphaâ— practiseth 2 Chron. 19. where he joyns Priests and Levites to the Judges whom he sends abroad in all the Cities of Iudah Secondly We say that there is a vast difference between this action and the work of the Ministry for neither is the object of it a Congregation sacred but meerly civill neither is the authority Ecclesiasticall and from Christ but meerly politicall These Officers perform this work as Custodes utriusque â—abâ—lae and their work is rather reducible to a charitative admonition then a ministeriall dispensation Should it not be done by them their sin was rather against charity then justice and ceased not to discharge the duty of a Generall or a Judge though they ceased to do the duty of a Christian Generall or a Christian Judge Fourthly We distinguish between Divinity-exercises in the Schools and University and the Preaching of the Word For though these Lectures are performed either only by such as have received Ordination and arâ— Ministers of the Gospel or such aâ— are Candidates of the Ministry either Prophets or the Sons of the Prophets and so not wholly without Commission yeâ— are they not performed to a Congregation met together for the solemn worship of God They are rather reducible to the work of School-maâ—â—ers instructing their Scholars and Scholars rendring account to their Masters then ministerial preaching Fifthly We distinguish between the act of members in any sacred or civil Assembly debating counselling and admonishing one another out of the Word of God and the preaching of the Word Because this action of theirs towards one another is not authoritative but meerly brotherly is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Christian conference then preaching and no other then private Christians met together by mutual consent may perform neither is their meeting such a one as is the Object of preaching of which we speak Sixthly Before we proceed to argument we desire it may be observed that we dispute not what may be done in extraordinary cases either in regard of times or places where Ordination may not possibly be had whether in such a case private gifted men may not preach we do not dispute Davids necessity made it lawfull for him and his men to eat the shew-bread which it was not lawfull for any but only the Priests to eat but our
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
is in him and for Christians to speak often one to another in evil times to teach admonish exhort one another to pray together and one for another but all this comes short oâ— the Ministers duty there being a vast difference between this private charitative way of exhorting which belongs to all Christians and the office and work of the Ministry as hath been above distinguished Object 6. Private Christians Act. 8.4 11.19 when they were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word Therefore gifted men though not ordained may also preach the Word Answ. This instance which is much insisted upon by many is not of strength to conclude the lawfulnesse of preaching by gifted un-ordained persons For First Some allowing these scattered Christians to have been private persons yet do rationally distinguish between a Church constituted and a Church scattered and dissolved between what may be done in a Church gathered and in an ordinary way and in the gathering of a Church and in the â—ase of necessity It is not recorded that these did preach while they were at Ierusalem in a setled Church but when they were scattered then they went every where preaching what warrant soever this instance may give to persons uncalled to preach amongst Indians and in places where no Churches nor Ministers are yet can it not warrant them in their preaching in our Churches in which Ministers are or may easily be had Secondly It may justly be denied that the Christians here spoken of were private Christians it may be asserted that they were men in Office and had commission to do what they did This appears 1. From the first verse where it is said At that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Ierusalem and they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Iudea and Samaria except the Apostles These All that were scattered must be either All the Teachers and Church-Officers or all the Beleevers not all the beleevers for it is said in the 3. verse That Saul made havock of the Church entring into every house and haling men and women committed them to prison And Act. 11.22 there is expresse mention made of the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding the persecution Had all the Beleevers been scattered what should the Apostles have done at Ierusalem their tarrying would have been dangerous to themselves and useless to the Church And therefore we judge that by all is meant all the Church-Officers of whom there were many at Ierusalem were scattered except the Apostles and when they were scattered they went every where preaching the Word To make the Interpretation clearer observe First That the word All is used here with an exceptive particle which necessitates it to be meant not of beleevers but of men in office for if all relate to beleevers then it will follow that there was not one Beleever left in Ierusalem except the Apostles The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Genitive case in the New Testament being alwaies exceptive to the utmost as appears Ioh. 8.10 Act. 15.28 22.22 Mar. 12.32 but this we are sure is false as hath been already proved Secondly That it is said That they that were scattered went every where preaching the Word It is not said teaching which may be actus charitatis but Preaching which is actus officij How can they preach except they be sent Rom. 10. The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren observe that those that were scattered went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the act of men in office and they desire the Brethren to produce one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used concerning any that are not Preachers by Office they bring many where it is used concerning those that were in Office even by the pen-man of this history and conclude that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their Commission to preach before this persecution though the persecution occasioned their preaching in Iudea and other places Thirdly Act. 8.5 there is but one of this scattered number named and he was a person in office to wit Philip not the Apostle but who is numbered among the Deacons Act. 6. and called an Evangelist Act. 21 8. By the singling out of this one who was in Office we may judge that the rest were persons in office as well as he Fourthly 'T is probable that these that were scattered did baptize as well as preach which we gather from Act. 11.26 It is said there There was a Church setled at Antioch which could not be unlesse they were first baptized but there were none in Antioch to baptize them if they of the dispersion did not for Barnabas Agabus and other Prophets came not to Antioch till the Church was founded Act. 11.25 26 27. and this Church of Antioch is expresly said to be founded by the scattered brethren Act. 21.19 now baptism is to be performed only by men in office Mat. 28.19 Fifthly These scattered brethren are said to be Prophets and Teacherâ— Act. 13.1 where mention is made of Lucius of Cyrene who in all probability was one of the scattered Preachers as appears Act. 11.19 20. where it is said That some of these scattered were men of Cyrene If it be said that there is no where mention made of the Ordination of or any commission given to these scattered brethren It is answered that it doth not follow that therefore they had none because none is mentioned It is sufficient for us that there are Scripture-Reasons to perswade us that they had a Commission They did a work peculiar to Officers of the Church as hath been proved which godly men out of Office durst not have done they had successe and the blessing of God upon their labours which he promiseth not to those that go in an evil way as hath been demonstrated But let thus much suffice for this instance Obj. 7. All the People of God are called Priests Rev. 1.6 why then may they not preach Answ. They are indeed all made Priests unto God and Kings unto God not unto men They are Priests not ministerially but spiritually not as to the ministeriall function but as to the offering up of spirituall Sacrifices unto God Thus it is expounded 1 Pet. 2.5 Praier Thanks-giving and Almes-deeds are called Sacrifices in Scripture and these a Beleever offereth up to God and so he is made a Priest to God Secondly All are made Priests unto God but are all made Prophets Are not all made Kings And may therefore all exercise regall jurisdiction amongst men May all be Magistrates Away with such fanatick Monasterian conceits If we be Priests let us sacrifice our lusts if Kings let us rule over our passions and our pride this would quickly prevent such unwarrantable practices and put a happy issue to these Disputes Object 8. But if a Master of a Family may instruct his own Family why may he not
preach in the publique Congregation Answ. Because he hath a calling to do the one and no calling to do the other You may as well ask Why may not the Lord-Maior of London exercise his jurisdiction at York as well as at London Or why may not a Justice of Peace send Warrants out of his own County Or why might not Vzziah as well offer Incense in the Temple as pray in his own Family The answer to all these Questions is easie for the one they have a lawfull calling but not for the other Obj. 9. But why then do you your selves suffer men whom you call Probationers and Expectants for the Ministry to preach without Ordination May not private men preach as well as they Answ. There is a great difference between a private mans preaching that never intends the Ministry and a Probationers preaching that intends the Ministry and preacheth by way of triall that so the people that are to choose him may have experience of his gifts A probationer and a Minister differ but in degree but a private man and a Minister differ toto genere In the Old Testament there were Prophets and sons of the Prophets that were trained up in the Schools of the Prophets These Sons of the Prophets did prophesie by way of trial and exercise 1 Sam. 19.20 2 King 2.3 1 King 20.35 36. 2. That these Sons of the Prophets or as they are commonly called these Expectants are not allowed in the Presbyteriall government to preach without approbation and license The Directory stablished by both Nations is That such as intend the Ministry may occasionally both reade the Scriptures and exercise gifts in preaching in the Congregation being allowed thereunto by the Presbytery And therefore even Probationers under the Presbyterian Government are not to preach though but occasionally and for a little while without a License and Authority so to do from them to whom Christ hath given this power to authorize men for such an employment So much in answer to Objections and so much for the Third Proposition The Fourth Proposition Concerning the severall waies and means of calling men to the Ministry which is the Subject of all the following Chapters in the First Part. CHAP. VII Wherein are handled three Questions about an immâ—diate Call to the Ministry HAving shewed That no man ought to take upon him the Office or the work of the Ministry but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto We shall now proceed according to our method formerly propounded to speak something concerning the divers waies and means of calling men unto the Ministry That which we have to say we shall comprehend in the ensuing Propositions That the Power and Authority of calling men to the Ministry belongs properly to God only It is he that is the Lord of the Harvest and therefore he only it is that can send forth Labourers into his harvest Ministers are his Embassadours and therefore to be sent by him He only can give the Heavenly Unction and make us able Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 And it is for the great honour and encouragement of the Gospel-Ministry that all the three persons are said to call men to this sacred office Of God the Father it is said 1 Cor. 12.28 And God hath set c. and Mat. 9.38 Pray unto the Lord c. Of God the Son Eph. 4.11 Of God the holy Ghost Act. 20.28 That there are two waies by which God doth call men to the Office of the Ministry the one immediate the other mediate The immediate call is when a man is chosen by God without the intervention of man Thus were the Prophets and Apostles called Paul saith of himself That he was an Apostle not of men nor by men but by Christ c. where the Apostle tels us of three sorts of Ministers 1. Such as are called neither of men nor by men but by Christ and God immediatly such were the Apostles 2 Such as are called by God and also by men appointed by God for this work such were the Apostles successors 3. Such as are neither called by God immediatly or mediatly but only of man that is by the meer authority of men such were the false Apostles Zanchy tels us out of Hierom of a fourth sort and they are such as are neither of man nor by man nor by Christ but by themselves Qui per seipsos Ministerium sibi sumunt non vocati Who take upon themselves the work of the Ministry uncalled And these he saith are omnium pessimi the worst of all Of these the Prophet Ieremy speaks I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran I have not spoken unto them yet they prophesied We purpose not to speak much of this immediate Call Only because there are some who are ordinarily called Anabaptists or Enthusiasts or as Chemnitius cals them fanaticos homines fanatick men that boast much of Heavenly Revelations and of divine impulses and pretend to an immediate Call we will for our peoples sake briefly answer these three Questions Quest. 1. How may we distinguish between an immediate Call from God and the imposture of fanatick men that say they are so called and are not Quest. 2. Whether are we to expect any immediate Call in these daies Quest. 3. Whether the Call of the first Reformers of Religion from the Errours of Popery was an immediate Call or no Quest. 1. How may we distinguish between an immediate Call from God and the imposture of men that say they are so called when they are not Answ. 1. They that are immediatly called to the Ministry are endued by God either with the gift of miracles or with some other testimony of the Spirit by which they are enabled to give proof of their immediate Call When Christ called his twelve Apostles he gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sicknesse and all manner of disease And the Apostle Paul cals this power of working miracles a sign of his Apostleship 2 Cor. 12.12 Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience in signs and wonders and mighty deeds When Christ called his 70 Disciples he adorned them also with power of Miracles Luke 10.9 Thus when God called Moses immediatly he inabled him to work miracles that so the Israelites might beleeve that he was not an Impostor but that the Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob had appeared unto him Exod. 4.1 2 3 4 5. After this manner was the calling of Elias and Elisha confirmed And yet from hence we dare not as some do gather a generall Rule That an immediate Call is alwaies joyned with the gift of miracles for it is said expresly of Iohn Baptist That he did no miracle and yet he was immediatly called Neither do we reade of many of the Prophets of the Old Testament that they wrought any miracles But we say That an immediate
besides This is contrary to their own practice in New-England where it is frequent to have a man Elected and preach half a year a whole year nay as Mr Gi. Firmin once a Preacher there saith he knew one elected and preached two years to his people and they maintained him all that while and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament but he and they when they would partake the Lords Supper went ten miles to the Church out of which they issued to receive the Sacrament which practice without doubt was very unnecessary if Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call and Ordination be only an adjunct We say in Logick Forma dat operari Effects depend upon the Form not upon extrinsecall circumstances This is Argumentum ad hominem Arg. 6. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election then it will follow That a Minister is only a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place This consequence is confessed by Reverend Mr Hooker who saith That a Minister preaching to another Congregation though he ceaseth not to be a Pastor yet he doth not preach as a Pastor nor can he do any Pastorall acts but in that place and to that people to whom he is a Pastor Thus also it is said in the answer of the Elders of severall Churches in New-England unto nine Positions Pos. 8. If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can perform any Ministeriall act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no further then his Call This is also confessed in the New-England Platform of Church-Discipline And therefore we need not say more for the proof of the consequence But as for the minor That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation is an assertion 1. Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years 2. Contrary to the practice of the Brethren themselves with whom we dispute It is acknowledged by all of them that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministeriall act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and yet it is ordinary both in Old England and in New England for members of one Congregation to receive in another Congregation M. Firmin tels us That M. Phillips Pastor of the Church in Water-town while M. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England went to Boston and administred the Lords Supper to that Church This surely was a Pastorall act and M. Phillips acted herein as a Pastor to those that were out of his own Congregation And if we may argue from our Brethrens practice we may safely conclude That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation Thirdly Contrary to Scripture For the Scripture tels us 1. That there is a Church generall visible as well as a particular Church visible Act. 8.1 Gal. 1.13 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 3 15. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church generall visible and but secondarily in this or that particular Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Teachers are set by God in the same Church with the Apostles Eph. 4.11 12. Pastors and Teachers are given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints and for the building of the body of Christ in general 3. That every Minister hath a double relation one to his particular Church another to the Church general visible And though he be actually to exercise his Ministry especially over that charge where he is fixed yet he hath a virtual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture under a general notion to shew the indefinitenesse of their Office They are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4.1 Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the Gospel 1 Thess. 3.2 and Ministers in the Lord Ephes. 6.21 Embassadours for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 But never Ministers of the people Indeed they are for the people but not of the people That a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible appears thus He that can ministerially admit or eject a Member into or out of the Church-Catholick visible is a Minister and Officer of the Church-Catholick visible But every Minister by Baptism or Excommunication admitteth or ejecteth Members into or out of the Church-Catholick visible Therefore c. This Argument is urged by Apolloâ—iâ—s and also by that godly learned Minister Mr Hudson who hath largely handled this point and to whom we must necessarily referre the Reader that would be further satisfied about it We shall onely relate a passage out of Mr Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way p. 33. collected by Mr Hudson A Minister chosen and set over one Society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. But he is a Minister in the Church universal For as the Church is one so is the Ministry one of which every Minister sound orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the later is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In Ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely though they be set over a certain people And as the faithfull in respect of their community between them must and ought to perform the offices of love one to another though of different Societies so the Ministers in respect of their communion must and ought upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices toward the faithfull of distinct societies And one more passage out of Mr Rutherford in his peaceable plea pag. 263. Ordination saith he maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Fourthly This Assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation as it is contrary to the universal Church to the practice of our Brethren themselves to the holy Scriptures so also it is contrary to sound reason For hence it will follow 1. That when a
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
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
in this Temple The man of sin is no part of this Temple of God but as a Plague of Leprosie infecting defiling and polluting it But yet the Temple of God which is his visible Church as appears from 1 Cor. 3.16 17. Revel 3.12 Revel 11.1 2. 2 Cor. 6.19 doth remain where the man of sin sits even as the Church of Pergamus did where the seat of Satan was And though we renounce the Antichristianisme which pollutes the Temple of God yet we do not renounce the Temple in self This is that which some of our Divines say That we differ no more from Rome then Rome differs from it self and from what it was in the Apostles dayes neither do we refuse any Doctrine that they hold simply because they hold it unlesse it can appear to us that that doctrine is part of the Antichristianisme of that Church The Religion of the Church of Rome is like a peece of bread mingled with a great deal of poison They hold many truthes but then they poison them by their Heretial additions They hold most that we hold and their Apostasie consisteth rather in adding to the truth then in detracting from it They hold the Scriptures we hold but they add Apocryphal to the Canonical Scriptures They hold Christ the Head of the Church but the Pope also They hold Justification by Faith as we do but they add Justification by works also They hold praying to God but add praying to Saints They hold two Sacraments but add five more c. Thus their Religion is bread and poison mingled together and whosoever living amongst them can separate the bread from the poison shall find bread enough to nourish him unto eternal life And the reason why we separated from them was because they would not suffer us to eat the bread unlesse we would eate the poison also Even as a man that is drinking a cup of Wine and another comes and puts a Toade in it and will not suffer him to drink the Wine unlesse he will drink the Toade also This was our condition Unlesse we would swallow down all their Antichristian additions to Gods Word they would not suffer us to live amongst them and hereupon we separated and may justly be said to be non fugitivi sed fugati Not withdrawing but driven away And which is very observable When the Protestant Churches did separate they did not erect a New Church but reformed a corrupt Church And therefore ours is called The Protestant Reformed Religion Not A New Religion We take away their hereticall superstructions but still keep the Truths which they hold We put away the poyson but keep the bread We take out the toad but yet do not fling away the Wine We remove the rubbish of Antichristianisme but yet we do not renounce any thing of God or of the Scriptures that is yet remaining sincere in that Church All this we the rather observe that thereby we might heed our people of that great cheat that is now put upon the Saints of God in this Nation in crying down all the truths of Jesus Christ as Antichristian and scaring people from the doctrine of Christ by perswading them to avoid Antichrist There is hardly any Truth of Christ but it is charged by some or other in our unhappie dayes to be Antichristian Thus. 1. The Doctrine of the souls Immortality was excogitata ab Antichristo ad stabiliendam suam culinam per fictum Purgatorium et invocationem Sanctorum Invented by Antichrist to uphold his Kitchin c. as is said by the Cracovian-Socinians And in the Book called Mans Mortality it is said That the most grand and blasphemous heresies that are in the World the mystery of iniquity and Kingdom of Antichrist doth depend upon this doctrine of the Souls immortality 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a doctrine that hath Antichrist for the author of it Zanchius in responsione ad Arianos 3. That Christ is God coaequal and coaeternal with the Father this also is called antichristian doctrine Sic clamat Antichristus So cryeth Antichrist say the Arrians Zanch. in responsione ad Arianos 4. The doctrine of the Magistrates power in punishing Anti istian heresies and blasphemies which the Scripture saith will be the way by which God will at last destroy Antichrist is said to be Antichristian Thus Blackwood in his storming of Antichrist 5. The Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme is also called Antichristian 6. The Doctrine of humiliation Repentance Sanctification and of good works done out of obedience to Gods command is antichristian as say the Antinomians And who knoweth not That the very places where we meet to worship God and the worship which we perform in those places and that our Government of the Church by lesser and greater Synodâ— is called Antichristian And therefore it is no wonder if our Ministry be also so called For we are now come to that height That there are some that renounce all Churches as Antichristian even those Churches themselves that renounce us as Antichristian And thus by the great subtlety of Satan under the notion of avoiding Antichristianisme there are many people tumbling down apace to direct Athiesme and are brought to renounce Christ himself lest therein they should comply with Antichrist And therefore we earnestly beseech and intreat our respective Congregations not to be affrighted at the bugbear word Antichristian or Popish But to examin Whether the Charge be true and to renounce whatsoever is truly Antichristian But to take heed that they be not frighted from Christ and from his Ordinances and Government Worship Ministery under the notion of renouncing Antichristianisme So much for the third consideration these three first considerations are more general We shall now apply our selves more punctually to the answer of the great Objection and desire it may be considered Consid. 4. In the fourth place That it hath pleased God out of his infinite Wisdom and providence to continue the two great Ordinances of Baptisme and Ordination found for the substantials of them in the Church of Rome even in their greatest apostacy We deny not but they have been exceedingly bemudded and corrupted Baptismâ— with very many superstitious ceremonies as of Oyl Spettle Crossings c. Ordination with giving power to the party Ordained to make the body of Christ c. But yet the Substantials have been preserved Children were Baptized with water in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost And the parties ordained had power given them to Preach the Word of God Now the Protestant Religion doth not teach us to renounce Baptisme received in the Church of Rome neither is a Papist when converted Protestant rebaptized Nor doth it teach us simply and absolutely to renounce Ordination but it deals with it as the Jewes were to do with a captive maid when they had a mind to marrie her They must shave her head and pare her nailes and put the raiment of â—er
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
the 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
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
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
is between a man and his wife And as it is the mutual choise one of another that makes them man and wife So it is the peoples choise and the Ministers accepting that choise that makes them to be Pastor and flock Dr Ames saith That Ordinatio Episcopalis sine titulo est aquè ridicula ac si quis maritus fingâ—ritur esse absque uxore And indeed saith Mr Hooker It is ridiculous to conceit the contrary In another place the same Doctor saith Oves rationales possunt eligere sibi pastorem sicut sponsa eligit sibi sponsum non per jurisdictionem aut gubernationem sed potius per subjectionem But we answer That Symbolical Theology is not argumentative Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam Similitudes do beautifie not fortifie There is nothing almost more dangerous in Divinity then to overstretch similitudes of which fault we believe our Brethren are much guilty As for the Similitude it self we conceive it will not hold For 1. If Minister and people be as man and wife then it will follow that they may not separate till death unlesse it be in case of adultery The Wife is as much bound to the Husband as the Husband to his Wife But there are few people if any that think themselves obliged to abide with their Ministers till death It is ordinary even with men professing godlinesse to forsake their Minister and that oftentimes upon worldly interest And there are few Ministers if any that think that they may in no case leave their people There are three cases in which we conceive all agree that a Minister may remove from his people if he cannot have his health where he is if he be denied competent maintenance and if the glory of God may be in an eminent manner advanced But we hope that it will not be said that a Husband may separate from his Wife in these cases 2. This Similitude sounds ill For it makes every Minister to be as a Husband to his Church and so by consequence the Head of his Church which complies too much with the Antichrist of Rome who cals himself the Husband and Head of the Church The Church hath no Husband but Christ 2 Cor. 11.2 3. This Similitude makes Christ to have as many Wives as there are particular Churches Our Brethren hold That every particular Congregation is the Body of Christ and the Spouse of Christ which if it were true Christ should have as many Bodies and Spouses as there are particular Churches which we conceive cannot be right For it is as absurd to say That one Head hath many Bodies and one Husband many Wives as to say That one Body hath many Heads and one Wife many Husbands But now we say That the whole Church of Christ throughout the world is but one That Christ properly hath but one Body and one Wife And that particular Churches are but members of this one Body and limbs and members of this one Spouse even as every particular Saint also is And that every Minister hath a relation to this Church-Catholick as a member thereof and seated therein and as one that by his Ordination hath power to act as a Minister wheresoever he is if called for the good of the whole And that he is placed in a particular Church for the actual and constant exercise of his Ministry as in a part of Christs Body or a limb or member of his Spouse And that they by their choice make him their Minister their Pastor their Shepherd but not a Minister a Pastor a Shepherd So much in answer to the Arguments against the second Proposition and also concerning Election of Ministers CHAP. X. Concerning Ordination of Ministers wherein the first Assertion about Ordination is proved Namely That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. THat the method which we propounded in the beginning may not be forgotten we crave leave to put the Reader in minde of what we have already said That the Call of men to the Ministry is either immediate or mediate That the mediate Call is by Election and Ordination And having finished what we thought fit to say about Election we are now to proceed to speak about Ordination concerning which we shall offer this general Proposition That the work of Ordination that is to say An outward solemn constituting and setting apart of persons to the Office of the Ministry by prayer fasting and imposition of hands of the Presbytery is an Ordinance of Christ. For the more methodical proving of this general Proposition we shall undertake to make good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial Call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with prayer fasting and imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. For the understanding of this Assertion we must distinguish between the Substance Essence and Formal Act of Ordination and the Rite used in Ordination The Essential Act of Ordination is the constituting or appointing of a man to be a Minister or the sending of him with Power and Authority to preach the Gospel The Rite is Imposition of hands In this Assertion we are not at all to speak of Imposition of hands but onely of Ordination as it relates to the setting of a man apart to the Office of the Ministry Now that this is an Ordinance of Christ we shall not need to spend much time in proving it 1. Because we have already made this out in our third Proposition where we asserted That no man ought to take upon him the Office of a Minister but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto 2. Because the proving of the other three will prove this also 3. Because we have not so many enemies to contest withall in this as in the other three Propositions For though there be many that hold Ordination to be onely an adjunct of the Ministerial Call and not an Essential ingredient which is against the second Proposition And many that deny Imposition of hands against the third And many that say that a Church without Officers may ordain against the fourth Proposition And though there be very many that hold That an unordained man may preach as a gifted Brother yet there are but few in comparison who say That a man may enter into the Office of the Ministry and preach authoritatively as a Pastor without Ordination Our Brethren in New-England in their Plat-form of Church-Government say That Church-officers are not only to be chosen by the Church but also to be ordained by Imposition of hands and prayer c. And in their Answer to the thirty two Questions they say expresly That Ordination is necessary by Divine Institution The very Socinians themselves though great enemies to the Ministerial Calling and no wonder when such great enemies to Christ himself
though they deny the necessity of Ordination yet they acknowledge that for order and decency it is fit to retain it in the Church For our parts we think the Scripture to be so clear for the proof of this Assertion that we wonder there should be any found to stand up in opposition against it For First In the Old Testament not onely the high-Priest but all the other Priests and Levites were by divine appointment inaugurated to their Ministerial Offices and when any men unconsecrated intruded themselves into the Priestly or Levitical Office they were remarkably punished by God himself Witnesse Corah and his company of whom we have formerly made mention Now surely this was written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come to teach us that it is the will of Christ that no man should enter into the Ministerial Office unordained or unconsecrate To hint this the Prophet Isaiah tels us That in the times of the New Testament the Lord would take from among Christians some to be Priests and some to be Levites where the New Testament Ministers are cloathed with Old Testament titles and are called Priests and Levites not in reference to any real unbloudy and propitiatory Sacrifice by them to be offered as the Papists falsly imagine but as we conceive to signifie unto us 1. That there should be an Office of the Ministry distinct from all other Offices undeâ— the New Testament as well as under the Old and therefore it is said that God would take of them for Priests not take all them for Priests And 2. That these Ministers were to be consecrated to their respective offices as the Priests and Levites were Secondly In the New Testament we read 1. That in the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferiour Office and serving only for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not onely be elected by the people but also ordained to this office Much more ought this to be done in the choise of persons who are called to the work of preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. That even the very Apostle Paul though chosen immediately by Christ unto the great Office of preaching unto the Gentiles and that in a miraculous way yet notwithstanding it was the pleasure of the holy Ghost that he must be separated and set apart by men for this great work And if this was thought necessary for an extraordinary Officer If Paul that was separated from his mothers womb to preach Christ to the Heathen and was separated by an immediate voice from Heaven to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles must also have an outward solemn separation by the Prophets at Antioch unto this work how much more is this necessary in ordinary Officers 3. That Paul and Barnabas who were themselves separated to the work of the Ministry Act. 13.1 went about Act. 14.23 ordaining Elders in every Church The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as we have shewed not a choosing by the suffrages of the people but a special designing and appointing of Ministers by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas 4. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every Church which surely had been very vain and superfluous if Ordination be not an Institution of Christ and necessary in his Church 5. That Timothy was ordained not only by the laying on of Pauls hands but also by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery By laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche is meant the whole work of Ordination and hence we see that it is the will of the holy Ghost that not only Paul an Apostle as formerly but Timothy an Evangelist must be set apart unto his Office by Ordination 6. That Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on no man neither to be partakers of other mens sin but to keep himself pure This negative command implies an affirmative that it was his Office to lay on hands that is to ordain Elders but his care must be not to do it rashly and unadvisedly upon men insufficient lest he should thereby be made partakers of other mens sins This Text doth necessarily imply a precept for Ordination 7. That Timothy is commanded to commit those things which he had heard from Paul among many witnesses to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Where we have 1. A Separation of some men to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The Qualification of these teachers they must be faithfull men and such as are able to teach others 3. We have an injunction laid upon Timothy that he should commit what he had heard of Paul unto these faithfull men Now this committing was not only to be by way of instruction but also by way of Ordination Pauls charge committed to Timothy was not so much to make men fit to teach others as by Ordination to set men apart for the teaching of others that there might be a perpetual Succession of teachers For the further making out of this truth let the Reader consider what is said by Mr Gillespy in his Miscellany Questions and what we have before said pag. 84. 8. That laying on of hands is reckoned not only as an institution of Christ but as one of the principles of the Doctrines of Christ but of this Text we shall speak more in the third Assertion By all these places it is evident That it is the will of Christ that those that enter into the Ministerial Calling should be consecrated set apart and ordained thereunto Most of the Objections brought against this Assertion have been answered at large in the handling of the third Proposition If any shall further object and say Obj. 1. That these are but examples and examples do not amount up to a Rule Answ. 1. That Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a Rule Of this nature is Ordination 2. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary Elders we should be left at uncertainties and every man might do what seemeth good in his own eyes which would tend to confusion and the dissolution of the Church 3. The Apostles taught the Churches to do nothing but what they had a commandment from Christ to teach them Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 11.28 and in all their Disciplinary Institutions which were not meerly occasional and had only a temporary reason of their Institution of which kinde Ordination we are sure is not are to be imitated as though they were the immediate Institutionâ— of Christ. 4. For Ordination of Ministers we have not only Apostolical example but Apostolical preâ—â—pt as we have already proved out of 1 Tim. 5.22 Object 2. If it be further objected That the Ordination mentioned
then commended them to the Lord in whom they believed The Reasons why Ministers should be set a part with prayer and fasting are weighty and still the same 1. The inidoneousnesse and insufficiency of any meer man though of the greatest abilities and indowments whether for nature art or grace for such a work wherein we have to do withthe highest mysteries of God and heaven and with the most precious things on earth the truths of God and souls of men 2. The discouragements which every where attend this work when most faithfully performed from Satan and wicked men 3. The successe of every ones Ministry depends wholly on Gods blessing For neither is he that planteth any thing neither he that watereth but God that giveth the increase Nor doth the faith of believers depend at all on the wisdome or or power of the Minister but on the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 And therefore it is necessary in the most solemn manner that is by prayer and fasting to implore aid from God whensoever we ordain Ministers But this will be granted by all sides and therefore we will adde no more about it The second thing we are to make out is That Ordination of Ministers ought to be with imposition of hands That we may more orderly handle this Assertion which is so much controverted in our unhappy dayes and be rightly understood we shall crave leave to premise three things 1. That Imposition of hands is not a proper Gospel-duty never used but in the New Testament but it is a Rite and Ceremony borrowed from the Old Testament and by Christ made a Gospel-institution That which Grotius saith in his Annotations That the whole Government of the Churches of Christ was conformed to the patern of the Synagogues is true in many things and especially in this of Imposition of hands We finde it was used in four cases under the Old Testament 1. In benediction and blessing Gen. 48.14 20. 2. In offering of Sacrifices unto God Lev. 1.4.3 In bearing witness Lev. 24.14.4 In ordaining or appointing unto an Office Thus Moses when he ordained Ioshua to succeed him he was commanded by God to lay his hands upon him and to give him a charge in the sight of the people Num. 27.18 23. Under the New Testament it is used 1. In benediction Mark 10.16.2 In curing of bodily diseases Luke 13.13 Mark 16.18 Acts 9.17 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost Act. 8.17 18. Act. 19.6 4. In Ordination of Church-officers and of this last way of Imposition of hands are we now to speak Secondly That it is not our purpose accurately to enquire whether Imposition of hands be an Essential part of Ordination without which it is null and void or an integral part without which it is deficient and imperfect or onely an inseparable adjunct It is enough for us to assert That it is lawfull and warrantable and not onely so but that it is the duty of all that are to ordain Ministers to lay hands upon them and that it is a sin in any that is to be ordained to refuse it Thirdly That though we assert the Divine Right of Imposition of hands yet we plead for it onely in a Scripture-sense but not in a Popish-sense The Papists make it to be an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace They make Ordination a Sacrament and Imposition of hands an operative instrument of conveying not only grace in general but even justifying grace Hence it is that some few of our Divines speak a little too slightly of it at which those that are enemies to it take much advantage but yet there are no Reformed Churches that we know of but do retain it and plead for it some as a Rite and Circumstance and moral sign others as an integral part and others as an essential part of Ordination These things premised we come now to prove That it is the will of Christ that all that are ordained Ministers should â—lave Imposition of hands This appears 1. From the examples of this Ceremony used by the Apostles in Ordination 1. We finde that the Deacons though inferiour Officers must have hands laid on them 2. We finde that the Apostles Paul and Barnabas though extraordinary Officers had hands layed on them 3. We reade that Paul layed hands upon Timothy and also the Presbytery Hence it is that Calvin saith Though there be no certain precept extant concerning Imposition of hands yet because we see it was in perpetual use by the Apostles that their so accurate observation ought to be in stead of a precept to us And it is a wonder to us that they that are so exact in urging every other circumstance in Church-Government and have suffered much prejudice in their outward estate rather then they would forbear sitting at the Sacrament which yet is but an outward gesture should take such strange liberty to themselves in dispensing with a duty that hath so many examples for the enforcing of it 2. From that command of Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man This is a divine precept for imposition of hands For when Timothy is forbidden to lay hands suddenly it is implied that it was his duty to lay on hands Hence it is that the New-England Ministers do assert That Church-officers ought to be ordained by imposition of hands And from this Text Walaeus hath a memorable passage which though it be long yet we will not think much to transcribe I see this saith he speaking of Imposition of hands to be required in almost all confessions And truly since that the Apostles have alwayes used it yea the Apostle gives a precept to Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man we judge it ought not to be omitted because in that negative commandment an affirmative is included that he should lay on hands upon men that are worthy where because it is taken by a Synecdoche for the whole calling of a Pastor certainly it is to be esteemed either for a rite or an essential part otherwise it could not be taken for the whole or at least for a proper adjunct and common to this with all other callings So far Walaeus Thirdly Because the whole work of Ordination is comprehended under this Ceremony of Imposition of hands 1 Tim 4.14 1 Tim. 5.12 Ordination is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imposition of hands and the gift or office of the Ministry is said to be given by this as by the sign 1 Tim. 4.15 Now then if Imposition of hands as a part be put for the whole work of Ordination it seems very strange to us that there should be any amongst us that expresse a willingnesse to be ordained and yet an unwillingness to have Imposition of hands We rather judge That they that refuse Imposition of hands which is put for the whole will in a little time make no conscience of refusing the whole it self We reade in Scripture That prayer and
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