are others that say That till the last Councel of Trent the Church of Rome remained a true Church for the essentials and substantials of it and then it ceased to be a true Church The Scripture saith That Antichrist sits in the Temple of God though he be no part of it as we have formerly said no more then Satan who had his seat in Pergamus was part of the Church of Pergamus But for our parts we conceive we are not at all forced by any thing that we have said to entermeddle with this Controversie For it doth not follow That because Ordination which is an Ordinance of Christ for the substance of it was preserved in the Church of Rome that therefore the Church of Rome is a true Church no more then it followeth That a Theefe having the goods of an honest man in his house which he hath stolen should thereupon be accounted a True man Surely The Theefe is still a theefe And so is Rome still the Mother of Harlots notwithstanding her possessing the Essentials of Ordination and Baptisme Even as Babylon of old A type of Rome was Babylon still and far from being the Church of God although it had the Vessels of the Temple with her So is the Church of Rome still an Antichristian Church The Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth although it hath had the Essentials of a true Ministry by Gods overruling providence continued in her 7. The Seventh and last consideration doth more immediately concern the Ministry of England and it consisteth of three branches 1. That the first conversion of the English Nation from Heathenisme unto Christiaâ—ity did not proceed from Româ— but from Hierusalem Mr. Fox and Dr. Iohn White have learnedly demonstrated out of Gildas and sundry other Authors who affirm that Britaine received the Gospel in the time of Tiberius the Emperour under whom Christ was crucified from some of the Apostles or some Apostolical men It is mostly received that Ioseph of Arimathea was sent by Philip from France to Britaine about the year 63. and laid the first foundation of the Christian faith amongst us To this Tertullian attesteth in his Book against the Iewes And therefore it is a falsity for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English Nation and no lesse absurdity for us to derive our succession from them 2. That the Churches of England in their first Plantation were rightly gathered and constituted as being planted by the Apostles or men Apostolical And that true Christianity after it's first settlement in Britaine was never wholy exâ—â—nguished but hath continued from the very first Plantation of it to this very day This Dr. VVhite proveth â—gainst the Papists in his way to the Church § 49. Where he sheweth That the Faith continued here from King Lucius to the coming of Austin the Monk whom Gregory sent hither 600. years after Christ who when he came found divers Britaine Bishops and learned men with a Monastery at Bangor who did oppose Arrianisme and Pâ—lagianisme and the pride of Austin the Popes Ambassador 3. That during the raign of Antichrist here in England God reserved unto himself many Thousands that never bowed their knees to Baal as appears in the Book of Martyrs And amongst otherâ— he raised up Mr. VVickliffe and made him a great and famous instrument of Church-reformation Our London Divines in their Appendix to the jus divinum of Church government prove out of good Authors that in this Church of England the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordinations of Ministers and other Ecclesiastical affairs were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England c. So that if the whole be well considered it will puzzle our Antiministerial adversaries to prove that the Church of England was beholding to the Church of Rome for either the first plantation after reformation or continuation of the Gospel Church and Ministry therein from the begining to this day We will conclude this consideration with the remarkable speeches of two New-England Ministers The first is Mr. Philips of Watertown who having proved That England was not beholden to Rome for its first conversion nor after reformation at last hath these words When it pleased God more fully to clear up the light of his Gospell in this Nation so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian and were made the first fruits unto God and the Lambe The Church-state was not essentially altered all this time nor were these first fruits unto God New constituted Churches but members of some Churches clearing themselves from corruption and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition into a more healthful and sound estate In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places especially after Luthers time yea even in England something by Henry the 8 th more by Edward the 6 th and Queen Elizabeth who did not constitute new Churches but reformed the Churches deeply degenerated from the first constitution and the pure state thereof as they did the like in the state of Iudah often sometimes better and more fully and sometimes not so fully in the dayes of the Judges David Asa Iehoshaphat Hezekiah Iosiah Ezra and Nehemiah The other is Mr. Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 7. Pag. III. where he saith Four things we observe in the State of the Churches in England which make way for Reformation amongst them First the Efficient instruments of their first plantation which were either Apostles or Apostolicall men whether Philip or Ioseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as any of our Countrymen may read in Mr. Foxe's Book of Acts and Monuments in the beginning of it next after the story of the ten persecutions out of Gildas Tertullian Origen Beda Nicephorus which being so we cannot but conceive the Churches in England were rightly gathered and planted according to the Rule of the Gospel and all the corruptions found in them since have sprung from Popish Apostacy in succeeding ages and from want of through and perfect purging out of that leaven in the late times of reformation in the dayes of our Fâ—therâ— So that all the work now iâ— not to make them Churcheâ— which were nonâ— before but to reduce and restore them to thâ—ir primitive institution c. And thus we have â—t lâ—st finished our several considerâ—tions in answer to thiâ— great Objection and shâ—ll here put an â—nd to our first Proposition to wit That the Call to the O ffice of the Ministry which some of our Ministerâ— did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lâ—wfull and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantiall dâ—fects We have proved it by arguments drawn from the principles of our adversaries and also from our owne principlâ—â— We have indeavoured to give full satisfaction to all the Objectionâ— that are brought against it We had thought to have given our people a summary recapitulation
holy Spirit he gave unto his Ministers which he gave to no earthly Monarch the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he committed to them the Word of Reconciliation he made them Stewards of the Mysteries of God and Watchmenâ—ver â—ver the precious Souls of his people There is hardly any thing necessary for man in his Natural or Civil Relation but the Ministry is compared to it Are Light and Stars necessary Is Saâ—â— necessary Are Rulers Shepherds Stewards Ambassadours Husbandmen Builders Angels Chariots and Horsmen necessary Ministers are called The Light of the world The Salt of the earth Stars in Christs right hand They are Angels Rulers Ambassadors Stewards Husbandmen Fathers Shepherds Builders Watchmen The Chariots and Horsmen of Israel The people of Constantinople professed they could sooner want the Sun then Chrysostom's Ministry And Chrysostom tels us That Herod might very well have saved John Baptist notwithstanding his Oath for his Oath was to give the daughter of Herodias what she should ask though it were to half his Kingdom but John Baptist's head was more worth then all his Kingdome Hence it is That the Devil in all Ages hath laboured by his wicked Instruments to discountenance disparage and overthrow the Ministry as knowing that it is a spiritual Engine in the hand of the Lord of Hoasts to batter down his Strong holds and designed for this very purpose to bring people from the power of Satan unto the Kingdom of Iesus Christ. In the Old Testament though the Ministry that then was was acknowledged to be of Divine Institution yet even then it was by a carnal part of the World opposed as a superfluous humane Invention and the Persons to whom that Ministry was committed were in their several Generations vilified and traduced as a Society of men which rather sought some worldly carnal personal interest then the sacred things of Gods Kingdom Thus Enoch who had this Testimony that he pleased God â—ndured hard speeches which ungodly sinners spoke against him Noah a Preacher of Righteousnesse was not believed in his Generation they did not they would not know any thing till the Floud came and swept them all away Moses a Prophet mighty in word and deed had Jannes and Jambres to resist him in Aegypt and Corah and his company to withstand him in the Wilderness Elijah that man of God whom one calleth an Earthly Angel and an heavenly Mortal who whilst he lived on Earth below commanded the Heavens and Clouds that are above yet was he persecuted by Jezebel and accounted by Ahab both an Enemy to him and to the State and accused to his face as the Troubler of Israel Thus Jeremiah sanctified from the Womb was smitten and imprisoned Michaiah imprisoned Urijah slain with the Sword Zechariah stoned to death In the New Testament John Baptist who was filled with the holy Ghost from his Mothers womb was beheaded And Christ Iesus himself who was not ashamed to be stiled the Minister of the Circumcision The Bishop of our souls The Apostle and High-Priest of our profession was crucified between two thieves The holy Apostles of whom the world was not worthy were not worthy to live in the world but were despised and rejected of men and accounted the scum and off-scouring of the world In the ten first Persecâ—tions The Devil especially endeavoured the ruine of the Godly and Learned Ministry It is said expresly of the sixth Persecution That the Emperour Maximinus raised it against the Teachers and Leaders of the Church thinking that if these Captains were removed out of the way he should the easilier prevail against the rest The greatest Design thâ—â— Julian the Apostate had for the overthrowing the Christian Religion was by destroying of Learning and taking away the means of subsisâ—ence from the Ministry The Scripture tels us that for the space of 1260 daies that is all the time of Antichrists reign the two Witnesses should prophestein sackcloth and this sackcloth is not yet put off nor as yet likely to be For there are a Generation of men risen up amongst us that say That it is the greatest cheat that ever was put upon Christians to make them believe that there is a distinct Office of the Ministry pâ—culiar to some men and not to others This they call a Monopolizing of the Ministery and the worst of all Monopolies And they say just as Corah and his Company You take too much upon you yee sons of Levi Are not all the people of God holy And may not any man that is gifted preach though he be not Ordained But in the mean time they forget that this Speech of Corahs was accounted Rebellion and that the earth was not able to bear it but opened her mouth and swallowed him up and the rest of his companions It was heretofore accounted a great fault for a Minister to be a Iustice of Peace and tâ—ought incompatible with his Calling and impossible for one man to wait upon both But there are many in our daies that continuing in their Civil Callings think themselves able to discharge the Ministerial And although the Apostle out of the sense of the weightiness of it cried out Who is sufficient for these things Yet there are very many that think every man almost sufficient And as Jeroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people which were not of the sons of Levi and it was reckoned as his great sinne So it is with us The lowest of the people and such as are not called to the Ministry nor trained up in the Schools of the Prophets are become Preachers and cried up as the None-such of our times There are divers waies by which some men endeavour to destroy the Ministry 1. By railing upon and reviling their persons and raising all manner of reproaches against them as if they were the onely Incendiaries of Church and State pestilent fellows the causers of all the disturbance in the Commonwealth 2. By crying down the present Ministry as Antichristian because made as they say by Antichristian Bishops 3. By taking away their Maintenance 4. By setting up the basest and meanest of the people and such as have no Arts nor Knowledge in the Tongues to be Preachers that thereby they might make the world believe That the Ministerial Office is of all other the lowest and the easiest 5. By dâ—crying the very Office it self These with others of the like Nature are thâ— waies and means by which men seek to ruine the Ministry and thereby Religion and to open a wide gap to all Errours Heresies Blasphemies Prophaneness and Atheism Herein dealing with us as Alexander did with the Athenians who desired to make Peace with them upon condition that they would deliver eight of their chief men into his hands Demosthenes to disswade the Athenians from delivering them up tels them a Fable of the Wolves and the Sheep The Wolves desired to make Peace with the Sheep upon condition they would deliver up their Dogs to be destroyed which they
that their Persons are better but that their Ministry is higher Therefore let us all take heed of despising the Ministry lest the Lord smite the Earth with a Curse For he that despiseth despiseth not man but God So much shall suffice for the First Proposition CHAP. II. Containing the Second Proposition PROVING That the Office of the Ministry is perpetually necessary THat it is so will appear by these ensuing Arguments If all the former Arguments which evince the necessity of this Office by divine Institution be of a moral nature then are they of perpetuall Obligation by Divine appointment For the Commands of the Morall Law given to the Jews oblige all and Precepts of the Gospel given both to Jews and Gentiles in the Apostles times do equally oblige all beleevers in these daies as they did beleevers in the daies of the Apostles to whom they were at first immediatly prescribed because those precepts are of a moral nature Whatsoever duties God râ—quired in the Churches of Galatia Philippi Câ—losse c. all these Scriptures do as really binde now aâ— they did then binde them for Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning The same evils which were sins then are sinnes now the duties enjoyned then are duties now and shall binde all ages until the appearance of Christ This Rule is so exact and perpetuall that they and they alone which walk according to this Rule Peace shall be on them and upon the Israel of God But all the former Arguments which prove the Office of the Ministry to be necessary are of a morall nature Not given to Apostles as Apostles but to them as Stewards and Ministers of God and so appertain to all Ministers of Christ. And in every Argument there are those proofs produced out of Scripture which were not given only to Apostles but to ordinary Pastors as may appear by a particular review of all the fore-going Arguments If the Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution till the day of Jesus Christ then the Office of the Ministry to dispense those Ordinances is perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution The reason of this consequence appears thus If the Lord had only appointed Ordinances to continue and had appointed none to administer them then the Ordinanres would fail because that which is every mans work is usually and effectually no mans work and though God hath immediatly appointed these Ordinances yet now he doth not immediatly administer them but the administration of these Ordinances he hath committed unto others not to Angels for their glory is so great and our infirmities so many that we could not endure their visible ministration but this Ministry he hath committed unto men to some and not to all as hath been proved in the former Proposition and these are called the Ministers of Christ Stewards or dispensers of the Mysteries of God and are workers together with God and such have this Treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power might be of God The Ministry of the Word and the dispensing of the Sacraments we finde conjoyned in the Institution of Christ to whom Christ gave Commission to preach to them he also gave Commission and Command to Baptize and he promiseth to concur with them in their administration But that any others have any such Command to enjoyn them or Commission to enable them or any such promise of Gods concurrence with them if they undertake these Administrations or that any suâ—â— practise was in the daies of the Apostles we reade not in the New Testament and because the whole nature and vertue of the Sacraments of the New Testament depends solely and wholly upon the Authority of God being the Institutour of them therefore we may neither adde to nor detract from his Institution lest the Lord adde to the Plagues written in this Book and take away our part out of the Book of Life So much for the consequence of the Major Now to the Minor which is this The Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution which will be evident if we consider the publike Ordinances of the Word of Baptism and of the Supper of the Lord. 1. For the Word It is evident that the Word preached shall continue in all ages from Mat. 28.20 where Jesus Christ commands his Apostles and Ministers to teach all Nations and promiseth to be with them in that work to the end of the world as also from Eph. 4.11 12 13. Christ gave Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come to the unity of the Faith 2. For Baptism we desire these particulars to be considered 1. That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament appointed by God himself Iohn was sent to baptize he did not go about this work till he was sent and because Baptism was first adminisâ—red by him therefore he is so frequently called Iohn the Baptist not that Baptism was his invention but that the Administration thereof was first committed unto him the Institution it self was of God God was the Authour Iohn only the Minister therefore the Baptism of Iohn is denied to be of men and affirmed to be of Heaven And when the Pharisees rejected his Baptism it is asserted they rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him And the Lord Jesus Christ to declare the Baptism of Iohn to be of God even he that came to fullfill all righteousnesse came from Galilee to Iordan to be baptized of Iohn 2. It is evident that Baptism was appointed not only to the Jew but to the Gentile it was indeed first administred to the Jew by Iohn and by the Disciples of our Lord and after Christs Resurrection by the Apostles to those primitive Converts but when the partition Wall was broken down Baptism of Repentance was preached unto the Gentiles not only in Iudea but in Samaria also they that beleeved were baptized both men and women and so Cornelius the Roman Centurion and so the Jaylor and all his at Philippi and Corinth Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanus 3. This Ordinance of Baptism instituted both for Jew and Gentile was not to continue only in the Infancy of the Church as the Photinians and Socinians affirm but is perpetuall as may appear by these Arguments 1. The promise and precept of Christ wherein the Lord commands the Word to be preached unto all and all Nations to be baptized and Christ promiseth that he will be with his Officers in the Administration of his Ordinances to the end of the world If to the end of the world there shall be Disciples and if all Disciples must be baptized then Baptism must continue to the end of the world 2. The ends for which Baptism was ordained are not
despise the balm of Gilead and reject all healing medicines It is in the number of those sins which go before us unto judgement when people put away the Ministry of the Word from them they are said by the holy Ghost before the day of Judgement come to judge themselves unworthy of eternall Life And thus we have done with the Arguments proving the perpetuity of the Ministry there remains one great Objection to be Answered CHAP. III. Wherein the grand Objection Asserting the Loss of the Ministry under Antichrist is Answered WE confesse that there was a Ministry Ordained of Christ and continued all the daies of the Apostles and some Centuries after yet the Mystery and Ministry of the Man of Sinne was then working which at length so farre prevailed that all the world wondered afâ—er the Beast and power was given him over all Kindreds and Tongues and Nations so that be causâ—d all both great and small rich and poor bond and free to receive his Mâ—rk in their Right hand or in their Foreheads In this Apostacy the Church which had been a chaste Virgin became the Mother of Harlots and Abominations and not only the Kings and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the Wine of her Fornications but especially the Priests in all Nations were the abominable Pandors to promote the filthinesse of her Whoredoms they were the Merchants made rich by her Fornications Now under this Reign of Antichrist Bethel was turned into Bethavâ—n the Ministry was wholly lost being only in pretence for Christ but in reality for Antichrist And therefore we look upon all Ministers now as Members of that notorious Strumpet as Locusts from the bottomlesse Pit as Priests of Baal and Limbs of Antichrist and so account it not a sinne but a duty to contemn their persons and abhorre their Ministry We acknowledge first that the Apostacy under Antichrist was exceeding dreadfull Secondly That not only the people and the Princes but the Priests also had a great hand and were chief agents in this defection Thirdly That its the duty of Gods people to come out of Babylon that they partake not of their sins nor receive of their plagues But yet we need the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in Christ that we may know the things that differ that we may not call good evil and evil good but according to the Word of truth judge righteous judgement And therefore we intreat the Reader or this Objector conscientiously to ponder these Considerations 1. Consider as there have been many false Christs so there are and have been many mistaken Antichrists and the holy Ghost bids us not to beleeve every Spirit but to try the spirits when many shall say Loe here is Christ and loe there is Christ And it s as true of Antichrist some say Lo here is Antichrist Some Lo there yet the Lord commands us saying beleeve them not The Truths Ordinances Servants and Ministers of Christ do not therefore cease to be of Christ because some either by mistake or by design shall say they are of Antichrist The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ who is God blessed for ever will not cease to be a most precious Truth because Michael Servetus Georgius Blandatra Franciscus David Laelius Socinus and his adherents condemn it as an Antichristian Errour Was Valentinus Gentilis therefore a friend and Martyr to God the Father because he died as an enemy to God the Son Were the Valdenses who appeared against the Romish errours the limbs of Satan because some of the Romanist affirm that Satan was let loose in Berengarius and his Disciples How luxuriant and confident are the fancies of many concerning the things contained in the Revelations wherein modest Christians would chuse rather to be humbly inquisitive then Dogmatically positive Was Innocent the third the lesse nocent or was Pope Calixtus the more holy because some of their followers make them to be the Angel coming down from heaven having the Key of the bottomlâ—sse pit to binde Satan as if the binding of Satan were nothing else but to Excommunicate Emperours and to depresse the Imperial power under the Papal Shall Dominicus or Franciscus those two great Founders of the Orders of the Friars Dominican and Franciscan the great upholders of Papacy shall they be lesse suspected because some of their disciples admired them and confidently averred them to be that Angel ascending from the East having the Seal of the living God Rev. 7.2 Men have no power to make Christian Unchristian or Antichristian either persons or things according to their pleasure The Word of God is established in the heavens and his Truths do not vary after the variety of mens mistaking fancies Therefore we have great need to be sober and humble and to beg of the Lord the spirit of love and of a sound minde that we may neither justifie the wicked nor condemn the Righteous 2. Consider concerning Antichrist Though we grant it that Antichrist is not an individual person as Bellarmine and the Papists generally affirm But the state and succession of men which with one and the self same spirit oppose Christ. 2. That the seat of this great Whore is not as some intimate Constantinople nor Ierusalem as others affirm but Rome that great City that then reigned over the Kings of the earth spiritually called Sodom and Egypt And 3. that the Antichrist is not the Turk and Mahumetanism in the East But the Pope and Papism in the West yet there is no ground to condemn every thing in that Antichristian Synagogue for Antichristian for without all question the Books of the Old and New Testament were wonderfully preserved even in mystical Babylon As formerly when the Oracles of God were committed to Israel the Lord continued the holy Scripture in the Jewish Church notwithstanding their spiritual Apostacy and Babylonish Captivity The good Word of the Lord is no lesse the Word of Truth because the false Antichristian Synagogue do acknowledge it no more then the Scripture ceaseth to be the Scripture because Satan the father of lies did alledge it Gold is gold wherever you finde it Truth is truth however men either accept it or contradict it It 's a vast comprehensive Errour to reject all Tenents though never so true for errours because an erroneous Society doth confesse them For all is not false which the false Church asserteth Every errour is founded upon the mistake of some truth as every evil doth usually arise from the abuse of some good In this mixture of good and evil light and darknesse where there are many precious truths yet many abominable falshoods it 's our duty to sever between the righteous and the vile that we neither swallow down all for truth because there is a mixture of truth nor reject all for false because there is superadded a redundancy of falshood Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of God and his coming is
the Bottomlesse pit which were innumerable called two like their types Moses and Aaron who brought Israel out of Egypt or as Elias and Elisha which reduced Israel out of Baalism yet these Witnesses though in number few continue in their successions all the reign of the Beast for the daies of their prophecying in Sackcloth are One thousand two hundred and sixty years and so expire not till the 42 moneths of the Beasts Reign be expired Now fifthly we adde that these Sackcloth Prophesiers were not only Saints who mournfully bewailed the abominations of those times that the holy City should be trampled under foot but also that they were holy pious Ministers distinct from the Saints in Office and in the act of their Prophetical function which is intimated to us 1. From the power bestowed upon them the Lord gives to them not only to pray and to mourn but to Prophesie Rev. 11.3 Not so much by prediction of things future as by Preaching the everlasting Gospel It was a mighty power from on high that a few contemned persecuted Ministers should have gifts to be able and power to be couragious to preach against the son of perdition when all the world wondered after the Beast 2. From their effectual exercise of that power and that in their publick detecting those Antichristian abominations and denouncing the wrath of God against them It is said in the daies of their Prophesie though they were poor men and had no carnal weapons to defend themselves or offend their enemies yet in a spiritual sense fire proceedeth out of their mouths and devoureth their enemies Revel 11.5 For the Lord did make his words in their mouth to be fire and the people wood and it devoured them Ier. 5.14 and the holy Ghost adds further that these Prophets tormented them that dwel upon the earth v. 10. 3. The Spirit of truth doth not only call these two by the name of Prophets but elsewhere distinguisheth the Prophets and Righteous men He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receiveth a Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man shall receive a Righteous mans reward Where Christ incouraging poor Preachers of the Gospel against all the hard and harsh usage of the world intimates to us 1. That there are some who by way of Office and distinction from others are Prophets and Preachers 2. That there is some eminent reward due to Prophets 3. That they who do any good to Prophets even because of that Office shall receive a Prophets reward And in this very Prophesie concerning Antichrist the Spirit maketh these two distinct the Prophets and the Saints Babylon is therefore ruined because in her is found the blood of the Prophets and of the Saints Rev. 17.24 Now if we descend from the words of this Prophecy and come to observe the answerable event in History we shall finde that in every age there were Ministers opposing the tenents of Antichrist Their particular names times places and their manner of resisting the man of sin it will be too large to insist upon yet a brief Catalogue of Ministers is here inserted From the time of Christ and his Apostles for 600 years our famous Iewell against the Romanists hath abundantly proved that the truths professed in the reformed Churches were maintained by the Ancients And in the succeeding Centuries when the Man of Sinne began to prevail there were in their several Ages Godly and Learned Ministers who opposed the Popish Errours defending the sufficiency of Scripture Communion in both kindes Justification by free Grace disclaiming the defilements of worship in adoring Images Invocation of Saints praying for the Dead worshipping Reliques and openly testifying against the rising and swelling power of the Pope declaiming against his Supremacy and title of Universal Bishop as Antichristian From the 600 year of Christ to the 700 besides Isidore Hesychius and others there were in this Island these two famous Preachers Aidan who converted from Paganism the Kingdom of Northumberland which then contained not only the Country now so called but also Cumberland Westmoreland Lancashire Yorkshire the Bishoprick of Durham and some part of Scotland Also Finan by whose Ministry the Lord turned to the Christian faith the Kingdom of the East Saxons and of Mercia as our own Countryman doth testifie Bâ—sides our famous Countrymen Bede Alâ—vinus and many others there were Adlebertus and Clemens and Sampson with many other Priests who did mightily withstand Pope Boniface Besides Taurinensis Agobarduâ— Rabanus Maurus there was Scotus accused by the Pope for an Heretique and murdered as is conceived by his own Scholars for his opposing the carnal presence And Bertram a Priest in France was so clear a Protestant in the point of the Sacrament in a Book that he set forth that some Romanists say it was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram And the most learned of the Papists confess that Walafridus Strabo Ionas Bishop of Orleans and Hinâ—marus Archbishop of Rhemes departed from the received opinion of the Church Catholique In this Age the most unlearned and unhappy are recounted Radulphus Flaviaâ—ensis Stephanus Eduensis Smaragdus and our English Alfricke whose Saxon Homily was appointed to be read publikely to the people against the carnal presence In this Age more light began to appear even in the heat and height of Antichristianism not only by the Ministry of Fulbert Bishop of Chartres Anselme of Laon Author of the Interlineal Gloss Oecumenius Theophylact and others but especially by Berengarius and his disciples Besides Arnulphus the Martyr Hugo de Sancto Victore Robertus Tuitiensis Gulielmus de sancto amore Ioâ—chim Abbas Niceas were Peter Bruis and his Scholar Henry of Tholousâ— two famous Preachers against Popish errours insomuch as Peter was apprehended and burnt In this Age the Waldenses appeared who were the famous opposers of Antichrist In this Age are recorded Alâ—â—ssiodore Peter de Vinâ—is Arnoldus de nova villa and those two famous Preachers Gerardus and Dulcinus who preached that the Pope was Antichrist and Rome Babylon Besides our famous Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne the great hammer of the Romanists who wrote to the Pope that he was Antichrist In this Age appeared for Christ Thomas Bradwardin Richard Armachanus Taulerus a famous Preacher in Germany and that glorious instrument of the Lord Iohn Wickliff In this Century besides Peter de Alliaco Nichol. Clemangis and many others we need name no other but those great Worthies and Martyrs Savanorola a famous Preacher in Florence with Iohn Huss and Hierom of Prague whose memories are pretious throughout all the Reformed Churches In this Age the Father of mercies raised up Martin Luther and so many others and from that time the defection from Rome was so eminent that it hath visibly continued to this day and concerning the following times
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
all opposition especially upon this ground that they had their commission from God and his immutable promise for protection Isa. 49.1 2 3 4 5. Isa. 51.16 Ier. 26.14 15. But no where hath God made any such promise to those that intrude themselves into this work but threatens to be against them as hath been declared The Angels of God have a charge to keep us in our waies Psal. 91. but they that go out of them may fear the portion â—f the sonnes of Sceva the Jew Act. 19.15 that they be beaten by the evil spirit they undertake to cast out 3. Success in respect of the weighty ends of the Ministry the principall the glory of God the secondary the conversion and salvation of souls How is it possible that he who intrudes himself into the work of the Ministry should glorifie God in the work since God is honoured only in his own waies and means and therefore cannot be glorified when his waies are not observed To obey is better then sacrifice saith the Prophet and to hearken then the fat of Rams Christ glorified not himself to be made an High-priest such therefore as assume the Ministry glorifie themselves and not God Neither is there any promise made neither is it to be expected that he who assumes this work of the Ministry without a Call should ever become the instrument of the conversion and edification of souls Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the preaching of such as are sent Rom. 10.14 17. but unsent Preachers have the curse of God upon their labours that they shall not profit the people at all Ier. 23.32 Luther hath a good saying to this purpose Deus non fortunat labores corum qui non sunt vocati quamvis salutaria quaedam afferant tamen non aedificant that is God doth not prosper their labours who are not called and though they preach some profitable truths yet do they not profit the people Hence it comes to pass that they that hear uncalled Preachers fall i nto so many errours as a just punishment of God upon them according to that the Apostle saith 2 Tim. 4.3 4. For the time will come that they will not indure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables Gods blessing of conversion is promised only to his own Ordinance which they cannot expect who either by preaching without a Call or hearing such as so preach do overthrow Thirdly There is no one approved example recorded in Scripture of any one not being Sent and Called either immediatly or mediatly by God especially in a constituted Church that undertook this work of preaching or any other work appropriated by God to the Ministry And thus we have also finished this second Chapter and sufficiently and clearly proved as we suppose That it is unlawfull for any man not lawfully called and set apart to the Office of a Minister to undertake and intrude upon the work of Preaching appropriated by God to that Office CHAP. VI. Answering the Arguments brought for the Preaching of men out of Office IN this Chapter we shall give Answers to the chief and main Arguments produced by such as maintain this unwarrantable practice of Preaching by men out of Office for though a Christian ought not to depart from the plain rule of the Word of God though he be not able to satisfie all the Sophistical cavils of gain-saying adversaries yet that we may remove all stumbling blocks and occasions to fall out of the way that if it be possible some may be reclaimed from their â—rrour others may be more firmly established in the truth when they see discovered the vanity and invalidity of pretenders Arguments for the preaching of gifted men out of Office we shall likewise undertake this task The first and principal Argument is drawn from 1 Cor. 14.31 Ye may all prophesie one by one that all may learn and all may be comforted Whence is thus inferred That the Apostle giving liberty to the gifted Brethren of the Church of Corinth out of Office to Prophesie you may All Prophesie warrants this practice of Preaching in all men that have gifts though they be not set apart to this Office In Answer to this Argument we first lay down this Rule which is also of excellent use for the understanding of many other places of Scripture viz. That this universal All is to be restrained and limited according to the subject or matter treated of As when the Apostle saith All things are lawfull for me he means not simply All things but restrainedly All indifferent things of which he was there treating 1. Cor 6.12 and 10.23 In like manner when the same Apostle 2 Cor. 5.17 saith All things are made new This Proposition is to be restrained from the subject and matter of which he was speaking unto Beleevers The like may be observed in many other places Luk. 13.15 1 Cor. 12.7 Isa. 9.17 c. These things thus premised We say First In this place of the Apostle Ye may all prophesie the word All is to be restrained according to the subject of which the Apostle speaks He saith not of the Body or People of the Church of Corinth that they might All Prophesie but of the Prophets in that Church that they might All Prophesie This is evident both from the antecedent and subsequent words In the 29th verse the Apostle saith Let the Prophets speak two or three c. then he subjoyns For ye may All prophesie and then it follows immediatly And the spirit of the Prophets shall be subject to the Prophets By this discourse of the Apostle it evidently appears that the liberty of prophecying was not given to every member of the Church of Corinth but only to the Prophets that were in that Church Now it is clear they were not all Prophets c. 12.29 Are all Prophets i. All are not Prophets and therefore all had not granted them this liberty of prophecying And thus far we have the consent not only of Beza and others upon the place but even of the most sober of our adversaries who will not assert a promiscuous liberty of prophecying to every member of the Church but only to such as are gifted and qualified for the work and desired by the Church to exercise that Gift Secondly The Prophets both in this place and where ever else in the Scriptures mentioned were an order of Ministry not only gifted Brethren but constituted Officers in the Church Thus 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. As the Apostles and Teachers were Officers set by God in his Church so also were the Prophets Reade also Eph. 4.11 12. When Christ gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts Officers for the good of the Church he gave amongst these Officers Prophets And we do not beleeve that there can
consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election c. For our parts we crave leave to dissent from these worthy men and that upon these grounds Arg. 1. Because our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their assertion as we can finde nor do we think that any can be brought Arg. 2. Because that those very Texts fore-mentioned which are the chief if not the only Texts that are brought for popular Election do seem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this assertion When Matthias was made an Apostle it was not the Election of the people that did constitute him an Apostle The people chose two if they chose at all but that which did constitute him an Apostle was the determination by lot As in a Corporation when the community chooseth two and the Aldermen one of these two in propriety of speech it is the Aldermen that choose the Mayor not the community All that the 120. did if they did that was to set two before the Lord but it was God that did constitute and appoint Matthias to be the Apostle In the choise of Deacons the people nominated seven Persons to be Deacons but it was the Apostles Ordination not the peoples Election that did constitute and make them Deacons So saith the Text expresly Look ye out among you seven men whom we may appoint or constitute over this businesse The essence and substance of the Deacons Call is placed not in the peoples nomination but in the Apostles Ordination As for Act. 14.23 we have already shewed that they that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Apostles and not the Churches And that if they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by suffrages it was per suffragia propria non aliena by their own suffrage not the Peoples though we think as we have formerly said that the word is to be taken for a bare decerning and appointing without the ceremony of lifting up of hands as it is taken Act. 10.41 There is nothing at all in this Text that proves That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call is in the peoples Election but it rather proves the quite contrary That the Apostolicall Ordination was that which did constitute Elders in every Church Arg. 3. All those Texts that we shall hereafter bring for the asserting of the divine right of Ordination do prove that the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth consist in Ordination and not in Election There are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for Election and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct but an essentiall constituent of the Ministeriall Call as we shall hereafter God willing prove at large Arg. 4. We argue from the nature of popular Election Election by the people properly is nothing else but their designation of a person that is to be made their Minister or that is already a Minister to his particular charge It is not simply a making of a Minister but the making of him a Minister of such a place As it is one thing saith Mr Rutherford to make a gold Ring another thing to appropriate it to such or such a finger Election is nothing else but the appropriation of a Minister for the exercise of his Ministry in such a place It doth not give him the Office but the opportunity of exercising his officiall authority over those that choose him This appears in the Election of Deacons all that the people did by Election was only to design the persons and to set them before the Apostles but it was the Apostles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons This likewise appears from Deut. 1.13 which place though it speaks of the choice of civil Officers yet it doth very clearly describe unto us the nature of Election Take ye wise men and understanding and known among your tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The peoples taking of men did not give them the essentials of their office They nominated the persons but it was Moses that made them Rulers Our brethren of New-England in their Platform of Church-discipline tell us That all Office-power is proper to the Eldership and that the brotherhood have only a power of priviledge Now then we demand If the people have no Office-power belonging to them how can they by Election make an Officer Indeed they may and do design persons unto office by choosing of them but that they that have not the power of Office neither formally nor virtually committed unto them and that cannot act or exercise an Office-power that they by a bare Election should communicate Office-power and give the essentials of a Ministeriall Call is to us a riddle we understand not Nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter The lesser is blessed of the greater not the greater of the lesser Adde further If Election be as our Brethren say the constituting of a Minister and the giving him the essentials of his Office why then did the Apostles take so much pains to return to Lystra Iconium and Antioch to ordain them Elders in every Church and why did Paul leave Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Why did they not spare their journey and send to the people to make their own Ministers by Election Can we imagine that they took such pains only to adde an adjunct to the Ministeriall Call an adjunct which doth not give essence but follows the essence supposing the Subject compleat in its essence before For our parts we are far from so thinking but rather conceive it much more sutable to Scripture to say That Titâ—â— was left to make Ministers in Crete and that the Apostles went about from Church to Church to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call and that all that the people did was to nominate the person to be ordained or rather to approve and accept of the Ministers made them by the Apostles Arg. 5. If Election gives the essentials to a Minister then may a Minister elected administer the Sacraments without Ordination For as Mr Hooker well saith in another case He that hath compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without exception he cannot justly be hindred from doing all acts of that Office For to be an Officer compleat without an Office or being compleat in his Office yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his Office implies a contradiction for it 's all one to say a man is bound to a rule and yet by a rule he should not do it But a person Elected cannot administer the Sacraments without Ordination he cannot do it lawfully it being cross to Scripture-Presidents nor can he do it in the opinion of those Reverend men with whom we now dispute Mr Hooker cals it an Anabaptisticall phrensie to say That an un-ordained person may baptize And
besides This is contrary to their own practice in New-England where it is frequent to have a man Elected and preach half a year a whole year nay as Mr Gi. Firmin once a Preacher there saith he knew one elected and preached two years to his people and they maintained him all that while and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament but he and they when they would partake the Lords Supper went ten miles to the Church out of which they issued to receive the Sacrament which practice without doubt was very unnecessary if Election gives the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call and Ordination be only an adjunct We say in Logick Forma dat operari Effects depend upon the Form not upon extrinsecall circumstances This is Argumentum ad hominem Arg. 6. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election then it will follow That a Minister is only a Minister to that particular charge to which he is called and that he cannot act as a Minister in any other place This consequence is confessed by Reverend Mr Hooker who saith That a Minister preaching to another Congregation though he ceaseth not to be a Pastor yet he doth not preach as a Pastor nor can he do any Pastorall acts but in that place and to that people to whom he is a Pastor Thus also it is said in the answer of the Elders of severall Churches in New-England unto nine Positions Pos. 8. If you mean by Ministerial act such an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can perform any Ministeriall act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no further then his Call This is also confessed in the New-England Platform of Church-Discipline And therefore we need not say more for the proof of the consequence But as for the minor That a Minister can perform no Pastorall act out of his own Congregation is an assertion 1. Unheard of in the Church of Christ before these late years 2. Contrary to the practice of the Brethren themselves with whom we dispute It is acknowledged by all of them that the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministeriall act and cannot be done but by a Pastor or Teacher and yet it is ordinary both in Old England and in New England for members of one Congregation to receive in another Congregation M. Firmin tels us That M. Phillips Pastor of the Church in Water-town while M. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England went to Boston and administred the Lords Supper to that Church This surely was a Pastorall act and M. Phillips acted herein as a Pastor to those that were out of his own Congregation And if we may argue from our Brethrens practice we may safely conclude That a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation Thirdly Contrary to Scripture For the Scripture tels us 1. That there is a Church generall visible as well as a particular Church visible Act. 8.1 Gal. 1.13 1 Cor. 10.32 Gal. 4.26 Eph. 3.10 1 Cor. 12.28 1 Tim. 3 15. 2. That Ministers are primarily seated in the Church generall visible and but secondarily in this or that particular Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Teachers are set by God in the same Church with the Apostles Eph. 4.11 12. Pastors and Teachers are given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints and for the building of the body of Christ in general 3. That every Minister hath a double relation one to his particular Church another to the Church general visible And though he be actually to exercise his Ministry especially over that charge where he is fixed yet he hath a virtual and habitual power to preach as a Minister in any place where he shall be lawfully called Therefore Ministers are spoken of in Scripture under a general notion to shew the indefinitenesse of their Office They are called Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.4 Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4.1 Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the Gospel 1 Thess. 3.2 and Ministers in the Lord Ephes. 6.21 Embassadours for Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 But never Ministers of the people Indeed they are for the people but not of the people That a Minister is a Minister of the Church Catholick visible appears thus He that can ministerially admit or eject a Member into or out of the Church-Catholick visible is a Minister and Officer of the Church-Catholick visible But every Minister by Baptism or Excommunication admitteth or ejecteth Members into or out of the Church-Catholick visible Therefore c. This Argument is urged by Apolloâ—iâ—s and also by that godly learned Minister Mr Hudson who hath largely handled this point and to whom we must necessarily referre the Reader that would be further satisfied about it We shall onely relate a passage out of Mr Ball in his Trial of the new Church-way p. 33. collected by Mr Hudson A Minister chosen and set over one Society is to look unto that people committed to his charge c. But he is a Minister in the Church universal For as the Church is one so is the Ministry one of which every Minister sound orthodox doth hold his part And though he is a Minister over that flock which he is to attend yet he is a Minister in the Church universal The function or power of exercising that function in the abstract must be distinguished from the power of exercising it concretely according to the divers circumstances of places The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church the later is proper to the place and people where he doth minister The lawful use of the power is limited to that Congregation ordinarily the power it self is not so bounded In Ordination Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely though they be set over a certain people And as the faithfull in respect of their community between them must and ought to perform the offices of love one to another though of different Societies so the Ministers in respect of their communion must and ought upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices toward the faithfull of distinct societies And one more passage out of Mr Rutherford in his peaceable plea pag. 263. Ordination saith he maketh a man a Pastor under Christ formally and essentially the peoples consent and choice do not make him a Minister but their Minister the Minister of such a Church he is indefinitely made a Pastor for the Church Fourthly This Assertion That a Minister can perform no Pastoral act out of his own Congregation as it is contrary to the universal Church to the practice of our Brethren themselves to the holy Scriptures so also it is contrary to sound reason For hence it will follow 1. That when a
any out of his own Congregation he doth it not as a Minister but as a gifted brother That the great work of conversion which is the chief work of a Minister doth properly belong to gifted Brethren All this ariseth from that groundlesse conceit That a Minister is no Minister out of his own Congregation which we have abundantly disproved Secondly It will also follow That there must be Churches before there be Ministers which is against Scripture and sound reason We do not deny but that there must be a Church before their Minister but not before a Minister The Church-Entitative is before the Church Ministerial but yet a Minister must needs be before a Church For every Church must consist of persons baptized Unbaptized persons cannot make a Church And therefore there must be a Minister to baptize them before they can be made capable to enter into Church-fellowship Our Saviour Christ chose his Apostles for the gathering of Churches There were first Apostles before Churches and afterward◠the Apostles ordained Elders in these gathered Churches And one great work of these Elders was to convert the neighbouring Heathen and when converted to baptize them and gather them into Churches And therefore Elders as well as Apostles were before Churches And whosoever with us holds as our Brethren do that none but a Minister in Office can baptize must needs hold that there must be ordinary Ministers before Churches and that therefore the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in the Election of the Church So much for the proof of the second Proposition It will be expected that we should answer to the Arguments that are brought by these Reverend men that hold the contrary to this Proposition As for Texts of Scripture there are none brought nor as we said before can be brought The great argument used by D. Ames and improved by M. Hooker is this Arg. 1. One Relate gives being and the essentiall constituting causes to the other But Pastor and People Shepherd and Flock are relates Ergo. He addes further That they are simul natura and that the one cannot be without th◠other There cannot be a Pastor before there be a people which choose him c. Answ. We shall answer to this Argument according to the grounds formerly laid That every Minister hath a double relation one to the particular Church of which he is a Minister the other to the Church universall As to his relation to his particular Church it is very true That Pastor and People are relates and simul naturâ He cannot be their Pastor but by their submission to his Ministry and when he leaves them he ceaseth to be their Minister But now besides this particular relation he hath a relation also to the Church universall and by his Ordination is invested as we have said with habituall power to act as a Minister beyond his particular Church when he is lawfully called thereunto and as long as this correlative the Church universall lasteth so long his ministeriall office lasteth though his particular relation should cease In a word The people give being to a Minister as to be their Minister but not as to be a Minister Another Argument brought by M. Hooker is Arg. 2. It is lawfull for a people to reject a Pastor upon just cause if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his life or hereticall in his doctrine and put him out of his Office Ergo It is in their power also to call him outwardly and put him into his Office The consequence is proved from the staple rule Ejusdem est instituere destituere He that hath power to invest hath power to devest The Antecedent is as certain by warrant from the Word Mat. 7.15 Mat. 7.15 Beware of Wolves Phil. 3.2 Beware of false Prophets Answ. If by putting him out of his office be meant only a putting him from being their Officer then the argument must be thus framed They that have power to put out a Minister from being their Minister have power to choose him to be their Minister and this we deny not But if by putting him out of office be meant a putting him absolutely from being an Officer we deny that the people in this sense have power destituere to put him out of office or instituere to put him into office And we retort the Argument They that have not power instituere have not power destituere They that have not power to put a Minister into office have not power to put him out of office But people not being Officers have not power to make an Officer as hath been shewed Ergo. But it seems that Mr Hooker by the peoples rejecting their Pastor and putting him out of office doth mean their excommunicating of him for he saith afterwards That this rejection cuts him off from being a member in that Congregation where he was c. For answer to this we refer the Reader to what is said by a Minister that is come out of New-England who saith That if Reverend Mr Hooker had been alive and had seen what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches it would have caused him to bethink himself again of the Peoples power Something we hear of saith he is done in a Church not farre from the place where he lived it cannot be kept close the light of that fire shines into England Afterwards he brings Mr Cotton to confute Mr Hooker Mr Cotton saith That Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers Then he cites Mr Burroughs If the Church be without Officers they cannot do that which belongs to Officers to do they have no Sacraments amongst them neither can they have any spiritual Iurisdiction exercised amongst them only brotherly admonition and withdrawing from such as walk disorderly for their own preservation Much more to this purpose is brought by this Author to whom we refer the Reader As for those two Texts of Scripture Matth. 7.15 Phil. 3.2 by which Mr Hooker proves his Antecedent they do not at all come up to the point in hand Though people are to beware of wolves and of false prophets it doth not therefore follow that a people may excommunicate their Minister Indeed this will follow That people are to be careful to preserve themselves from heretical Ministers and to withdraw from them and this withdrawing if it be upon just grounds makes him cease to be their Minister but not from being a Minister as we have often said We will not trouble the Reader with answering any more Arguments because they seem to us to have no weight in them these two already answered being the chief that are brought Only we shal speak a little to a similitude that is often brought by our Brethren of the contrary judgment For it is ordinarily said That there is the same relation between a Minister and his particularCongregation as
though they deny the necessity of Ordination yet they acknowledge that for order and decency it is fit to retain it in the Church For our parts we think the Scripture to be so clear for the proof of this Assertion that we wonder there should be any found to stand up in opposition against it For First In the Old Testament not onely the high-Priest but all the other Priests and Levites were by divine appointment inaugurated to their Ministerial Offices and when any men unconsecrated intruded themselves into the Priestly or Levitical Office they were remarkably punished by God himself Witnesse Corah and his company of whom we have formerly made mention Now surely this was written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come to teach us that it is the will of Christ that no man should enter into the Ministerial Office unordained or unconsecrate To hint this the Prophet Isaiah tels us That in the times of the New Testament the Lord would take from among Christians some to be Priests and some to be Levites where the New Testament Ministers are cloathed with Old Testament titles and are called Priests and Levites not in reference to any real unbloudy and propitiatory Sacrifice by them to be offered as the Papists falsly imagine but as we conceive to signifie unto us 1. That there should be an Office of the Ministry distinct from all other Offices undeâ— the New Testament as well as under the Old and therefore it is said that God would take of them for Priests not take all them for Priests And 2. That these Ministers were to be consecrated to their respective offices as the Priests and Levites were Secondly In the New Testament we read 1. That in the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferiour Office and serving only for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not onely be elected by the people but also ordained to this office Much more ought this to be done in the choise of persons who are called to the work of preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. That even the very Apostle Paul though chosen immediately by Christ unto the great Office of preaching unto the Gentiles and that in a miraculous way yet notwithstanding it was the pleasure of the holy Ghost that he must be separated and set apart by men for this great work And if this was thought necessary for an extraordinary Officer If Paul that was separated from his mothers womb to preach Christ to the Heathen and was separated by an immediate voice from Heaven to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles must also have an outward solemn separation by the Prophets at Antioch unto this work how much more is this necessary in ordinary Officers 3. That Paul and Barnabas who were themselves separated to the work of the Ministry Act. 13.1 went about Act. 14.23 ordaining Elders in every Church The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as we have shewed not a choosing by the suffrages of the people but a special designing and appointing of Ministers by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas 4. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every Church which surely had been very vain and superfluous if Ordination be not an Institution of Christ and necessary in his Church 5. That Timothy was ordained not only by the laying on of Pauls hands but also by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery By laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche is meant the whole work of Ordination and hence we see that it is the will of the holy Ghost that not only Paul an Apostle as formerly but Timothy an Evangelist must be set apart unto his Office by Ordination 6. That Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on no man neither to be partakers of other mens sin but to keep himself pure This negative command implies an affirmative that it was his Office to lay on hands that is to ordain Elders but his care must be not to do it rashly and unadvisedly upon men insufficient lest he should thereby be made partakers of other mens sins This Text doth necessarily imply a precept for Ordination 7. That Timothy is commanded to commit those things which he had heard from Paul among many witnesses to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Where we have 1. A Separation of some men to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The Qualification of these teachers they must be faithfull men and such as are able to teach others 3. We have an injunction laid upon Timothy that he should commit what he had heard of Paul unto these faithfull men Now this committing was not only to be by way of instruction but also by way of Ordination Pauls charge committed to Timothy was not so much to make men fit to teach others as by Ordination to set men apart for the teaching of others that there might be a perpetual Succession of teachers For the further making out of this truth let the Reader consider what is said by Mr Gillespy in his Miscellany Questions and what we have before said pag. 84. 8. That laying on of hands is reckoned not only as an institution of Christ but as one of the principles of the Doctrines of Christ but of this Text we shall speak more in the third Assertion By all these places it is evident That it is the will of Christ that those that enter into the Ministerial Calling should be consecrated set apart and ordained thereunto Most of the Objections brought against this Assertion have been answered at large in the handling of the third Proposition If any shall further object and say Obj. 1. That these are but examples and examples do not amount up to a Rule Answ. 1. That Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a Rule Of this nature is Ordination 2. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary Elders we should be left at uncertainties and every man might do what seemeth good in his own eyes which would tend to confusion and the dissolution of the Church 3. The Apostles taught the Churches to do nothing but what they had a commandment from Christ to teach them Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 11.28 and in all their Disciplinary Institutions which were not meerly occasional and had only a temporary reason of their Institution of which kinde Ordination we are sure is not are to be imitated as though they were the immediate Institutionâ— of Christ. 4. For Ordination of Ministers we have not only Apostolical example but Apostolical preâ—â—pt as we have already proved out of 1 Tim. 5.22 Object 2. If it be further objected That the Ordination mentioned
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
a debate about it For we deny not but that a Congregation sufficiently Presbyterated that is wherein there are many Ministers may ordain though we believe that there are but very few such if any and therefore are of the opinion of the Reverend Assembly in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Ordination That it is very requisite that no single Congregation that can conveniently associate do assume to it self all and sole power in Ordination Quest. 4. What part hath the Ruling Elder in Ordination Answ. Supposing that there is such an Officer in the Church for the proof of which we referre the Reader to our Vindication We answer That the power of ordering of the whole work of Ordination belongs to the whole Presbytery that is to the Teaching and Ruling Elders But Imposition of hands is to be alwayes by Preaching Presbyters and the rather because it is accompanied with Prayer and Exhortation both before in and after which is the proper work of the Teaching Elder Quest. 5. Whether may one Preaching Presbyter lay on hands without the assistance of other Ministers Answ. Imposition of hands ought to be performed not by one single Presbyter but by a combination of preaching Presbyters In the Ordination of Deacons not one Apostle alone but a company of them laid on hands Act. 6.6 When Paul and Barnabas were separated unto the work whereunto they were called by God the Prophets and Teachers joyned together in laying on of hands It is observable that in all the Texts where mention is made of Imposition of hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Singular or Dual Number and so there must of necessity be more then one Imposer of hands Timothy was ordained by the Imposition not onely of Pauls hands but also of the Presbytery And therefore when we reade that Timothy is enjoyned to lay hands suddenly on no man and Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders we must not imagine that they were indued thereby with the sole power of Ordination For surely the Apostle would not require Timothy or Titus to do that which he himself would not do If Paul with the Presbytery laid hands upon Timothy then no doubt Timothy was also together with other Presbyters to lay hands upon those whom he should ordain The naming of one doth not exclude others especially if we consider that Titus was left to ordain Elders as Paul had appointed him Now it is without all peradventure that Paul did appoint him to do according as he himself practised Quest. 6. Whether a company of Believers associated together may ordain without Ministers Answ. The Answer to this Question is that which we especially aim at in this our fourth Assertion and wherein we desire most of all to satisfie the expectation of the Reader For this end we shall offer this Proposition in Answer to the Question That Ordination of Ministers doth belong to Church-Officers and not to a Church without Officers And that Ordination by people without Ministers is a perverting of the Ordinance and of no more force then Baptism by a Midwife or consecration of the Lords Supper by a person out of Office For the proof of this we might argue from what is recorded by Jewish Writers concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin When Moses by Gods appointment assumed the seventy Elders to assist him in Government and part of his spirit was by God put upon them this was done saith Maimonides Sanhedr cap. 4. by Moses laying hands upon them And at length before his departure out of this life when a successour was to be provided for him God commands him to take Ioshua and lay his hand upon him c. and accordingly it was done Numb 27.18 And so for those seventy Elders it is certain from the Jewish Writers that the succession of these was continued through all Ages by their creating others in the place of those that died by this Ceremony of Imposition of hands To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides Moses our Master created the seventy Elders by Imposition of hands and the divine Majesty rested on them and those Elders imposed hands on others and others on others And they were found created untill the house of judgement of Ioshua and unto the house of judgement of Moses that is from time to time ascending to the Sanhedrin in Ioshua's and Moses's time Petrus Cunaeus de Rep. Hebraeâ—rum cap. 12. saith This Senatorian dignity because it was most honourable was granted to none without a legitimate act namely Imposition of hands So Moses laid his hand upon Ioshua and the seventy Elders which solemnity being performed presently a divine Spirit from above fell down upon them and filled their brests And these being thus initiated themselves admitted others after the same way The same Authour tels us also out of Maimonides of a constitution made That no man should after such a time use Imposition of hands but by grant from Rabbi Hillel that divine old man who was Prince of the great Council and how afterwards it came to cease And what care was taken by Juda the son of Baba to support and uphold it But because these things are not recorded in Scripture we shall wave all such way of arguing and rather dispute First From the constant practice of the Church of Christ as it is set down in the Apostolical Writings We challenge any man to shew any one Text in all the New Testament for the justification of popular Ordination We reade of Ordination by Apostles Act. 6. Act. 14. And by Prophets and Teachers Act. 13. And by Evangelists Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5.22 And by a Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 But for Ordination by the people we meet not at all with it And without all peradventure If Ordination be an Ordinance of Christ it is to be managed according to the will of Christ and that is by Ministers and not by the community of believers May we not say to such Churches that usurp upon this work as it is said Matth. 21.23 By what Authority do you these things And who gave you this Authority Shew us your warrant out of the Word We reade indeed of Ordination in Churches Act. 18.23 and in Cities Tit. 1.5 but no where of Ordination by Churches or by Cities taking them for believers without Officers We adde Secondly That Ordination by the people is not onely not written in Scripture but it is against the Scripture For to what end and purpose should Jesus Christ appoint Officers extraordinary and ordinary for the doing of that work which the people themselves may do To what purpose did Paul and Barnabas go from place to place to ordain Elders Why was Titus left in Crete to appoint Elders in every City Might not the people say What need Paul leave Titus to do that which
we can do our selves Frastra â—it per plura c. If this Doctrine were true the Apostles needed only to have preached and to have converted the people to the faith and when they had done to have said We have now done our work you may now elect and ordain your Officers your selves the power to do these things belongs to you But the Apostles did quite contrary and therefore certainly Ordination is not the peoples but the Ministers Office Adde thirdly that which to us seems to be of weight That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the ordained c. is all written in the Epistles unto Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers In the other Epistles which were written unto the Churches there is no mention made of these things which doth abundantly prove unto us That the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the people Lastly We might argue from the nature of Ordination It is a potestative and authoritative mission It is an eminent act of Jurisdiction not onely confirming a Minister in that Office which he had before by Election but conveying the very Office-power of preaching and administring the Sacraments It is that as we have said which gives the essentials of the Ministerial Call And therefore by the rule of the Gospel it belongs to Officers and not to private persons The Scripture doth accurately distinguish between Church-Rulers and private believers Heb. 13.17 24. 1 Thess. 5.12 Private persons can with no more lawfulnesse convey power to another to administer the Sacraments then they can themselves lawfully administer the Sacraments Church-power is first seated in Christ the head and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to Church-Officers And they alone who have received it from the Apostles can derive and transmit it to other Ministers And though we freely confesse That all Church-power is in the people finaliter objective that is for their use and benefit according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.22 All things are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas all are yours i.e. for your service and salvation yet we are farre from thinking that all things are theirs formally and originally that is of their making and authorizing Or that they that are not Ministers themselves can derive the Ministerial Office to others This we beleeve to be both against Scripture and reason The serious consideration of these things is of marvellous concernment for the people of our age upon this one account especially because there are a generation of men risen up amongst us that renounce and disclaim all Ordination from Ministers as unwarrantable and Antichristian and take it up from the people as the only way of the Gospel herein committing amongst many other these three evils 1. In renouncing the Ordinance of Christ and calling that which is truly Christian Antichristian 2. In setting up a new way of Ordination which hath not the least footing in the New Testament or in all Antiquity 3. In plunging themselves into this inextricable difficulty for he that renounceth Ordination by Ministers as Antichristian must of necessity renounce not only our present Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches in the Christian world he must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-communion as some in our unhappy dayes do For all Ordination by the people is null and void as being not only not grounded upon Scripture but against Scripture And to intrude into the Ministerial Office without Ordination is as the sinne of Corah and his company as we have formerly shewed Our desire is that these particulars may be duly weighed by all sober Christians It will not be amiss here to consider what is said against this Thesis by the Elders of New-England In four things they agree with us 1. They say Church-officers are to be ordained 2. And to be ordained by Imposition of hands 3. That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be performed by those Elders 4. That where there are no Elders if the Church so desire Imposition of hands may be performed by the Elders of other Churches But they differ from what we have asserted when they say In such Churches where there are no Elders Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the Brethren chosen by the Church thereunto For the proof of this they bring a Reason and a Scripture The Reason is If the people may elect Officers which is the greater and wherein the substance of the Office consists they may much more occasion and need so requiring impose hands in Ordination which is the lesse and but the accomplishment of the other Answ. 1. If this Argument were valid it would follow that people might ordain their own Ministers not only when they want Elders but when they have Elders For if Election give the essence to a Minister and Ordination only an adjunct we see no reason why they that give the essence should not also give the adjunct And why an adjunct should belong to the Officers in that Church to whom the essence doth not belong But 2. We say That Scripture-light being Judge Election is not the greater and Ordination the lesse It is possible that it is upon this ground that some men have made so slight of Ordination that so they might entitle the people thereunto But we have abundantly shewed 1. That Election doth not give the essence of the Ministerial Call That Election is only the designation of the person that is to be made a Minister not the making of him a Minister 2. That Ordination is that which gives the essence That it is an Authoritative appointing of a person to the Ministry and an actual investing him into the office That it is held forth in the Scripture as the greater and therefore not given to one and the same persons but this later referred to the more honourable persons as appears from Acts 6.3 5. Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 The Text they quote in the Margine for the proof of this is not out of the New Testament but the Old out of Numb 8.10 11. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. Ans. 1. This Text doth not prove that for which it is brought but makes rather against our Brethren For they say That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be by the Elders and not by the people but in case of want of Elders But here Aaron and his sons were present And if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders which our Brethren will in no case consent unto 2. That the children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites But
without it for they say in the same place that the outward Call of a Minister consisteth properly and essentially in election by the people and that this election is so necessary as that the Ministerâ— Câ—ll withouâ— it is â— nullity but not so without ordination The Brownistâ— and Anabaptists doe speake fâ—rre more slightingly and undervaluiâ—gly of Ordination and therefore we â—rave leave to use â—rgumentum ad hâ—minem Thus They that are lawfully elected by the people are lawfull Ministers But sucâ— are the Ministerâ— of Englâ—â—â— c. Ergo. Or thus If a Minister rightly chosen by the people be a true Minister though not at all ordained then a Minister rightly chosen by the people is a true Minister though â—orruptly ordained But according to these men a Miâ—ister rightly chosen by the people is a true Minister though not at all ordained Ergâ— But many Ministers during the prevalency of Episcopacy wâ—re not at all elâ—cted by the pâ—ople But mâ—ny were â—nd thiâ— argument serves to justifie their Ministry 2. Though there are some that were at first obtruded unjustly and unduely upon the people yet the pâ—opleâ— aftâ—r â—cceptance â—nd â—pprobâ—tio◠〈◊〉 supply thâ— want of elâ—ction â—t first 〈…〉 afâ—er â—onsent â—nd â—â—ceptance of Leah made her to be his wife though he chose her not at first And by thiâ— sâ—y oâ—r Brethren in New-England we hold the calling of many Ministers in England may be excused who at first came into their places without the consent of the people But the people that â—hose them were wicked and ungodly and therefore they were not rightly chosen This is not true of many placeâ— where Ministers were chosen by Congregations wherein there were many godly people 2. Visible Saints and unblameable livers are sufficient to to make up the matter of a true Church and who can deny but that there are such in many if not in most of the Congregations in England But what though we judge that the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in popular election yet the Ministers whom we plead against look upon their Ordination as that which giveâ— them the essence of their Call and think they stand Ministers by that What is that to you what they â—hink their 〈◊〉 â—hinâ—ing in your opinion is their personal errour but it câ—nnot nullifie their Ministry for he that hath the essentials of a true Minister is a true Minister but he that is rightly elected hath the essentiâ—ls of â— true Minister â—ccordâ—ng â—o you and therefore whatsoever his judgement is about ordination he must stand a true Minister to you unlesse you will crosse your own position Suppose as one saith a Deacon thinks his Ordination gives him the essentials of his office the people think their election doth what then â— will you separate froâ— him and not go to him for reliefe in case of want he hath election and ordination so that to be sure a Deacon he is The case is the same with the present Ministry This instance is urged by Mr. Burroughs of which we shall have occasion afterwards to make further use We shall add another Argument of the same nature to prove that the Ministry of England is a true Ministrie If there were true Churches in England during the prevalency of Episcopacy then there was a true Ministry For according to those men it is the true being of a Church that giveth being to the truth of Ministry and Ordinances and not the Ministry and Ordinances that give being to a Church But there were true Churches in England during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo c. That there were true Churches appears From what the New-England Ministers say in their Answer to the 32. Questions pag. 24.25.26.27 And in their Apologie for the Church-Covenant pag. 36 37 38 39 40. where they shew 1. That the Gospel was brought into England in the Apostles dayes or a little after and that Churches were by them constituted in England according to the Evangelicall pattern 2. That though Popish Apostacy did afterwards for many ages overspread all the Churches of England as in other Countries yet still God reserved a remnant according to the election of Grace amongst them for whose sake he preserved the holy Scriptures amongst them and baptisme in the name of the Trinity onely 3. That when God of his rich Grace was pleased to stir up the Spirit of King Edward the â—ixt and Queen Elizabeth to cast off the Pope and all fundamentall errors in doctrine worship and a great part of the tyranny of PopishChurch-government c. the people of the Nation generally reâ—â—ived the Articles of religion c. wherein is contained the marrow and summe of the Oracles of God c. 4. That wheresoever the people do with common and mutuall consent gather into settled Congregations ordinarily every Lords day as in England they do to teach and hear this Doctrine and do professe their subjection thereunto and do binde themselves and their Children as in baptisme they do to continue therein that such Congregations are true Churches notwithstanding sundry defects and corruptions found in them wherein say they we follow the judgement of Calvin Whitakers and many other Divines of chief note nor can we judge or speak harshly of the wombes that bare us nor of the paps that gave us suck This also appears 2. From that Mr. Phillips of Watertown in New-England saith in a Book of his written for the Justification of Infant-Baptisme and also concerning the form of a Church therein he proveth that there is a true Ministry in England because there are true Churches and that there are true Churches in England and in other Reformed Churches of the like consideration he Proveth 1. Because the true visible state of Christs Church is by Gods promise to continue unto the end of the World Luk. 1.33 Matth. 16.16 and 18.18.20 Mat. 28.19 20. 1 Cor. 11 26. Then he argueth If the visible Church-state be to continue then either it continued in England and other places of like consideration or in some other places of the World But not in other places of the world c. Ergo. Again If there be no other Churches in the World nor have bin for many hundred years but Popish or Reformed Then if the visible state of Christs Church must abide for ever either the Popish or the Reformed Churches must be the true Churches of Christ. But not the Popish Ergo the Reformed 2. He argueth If Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God and the Courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time to tread under foot then there was a true Church-state where he sate and whilest he sate there and it was the true measured Temple whose Courts he treads under foot nor can there be Antichrist unlesse there be the Temple and Courts thereof where he is And if Antichrist â—ver sate in England then
there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other Reformed Churches The Temple or Church is the subject wherein he must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor Constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing therefore of Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it to â—ease to be but changeth it into a better estate He adds 3. If ever there were true Churches Constituted in England they remain so still or else God hath by some manifest act unchurched them But there were true Churches in England in the Apostles dayes or a little after and God hath by no manifest act UnChurched them Ergo. Thus farr this Reverend Author That there are true Churches in England and so by consequence true Ministers appears further 3. Where there are a company of visible Saints meeting constantly together in publike to worship God according to his own way prescribed in his Word for the substance of it there are according to these mens opinion a true Church and a true Church-state and a true Ministry But during the prevalency of Episcopacy there were in our Congregations companies of visible Saints meeting together to worship God according to his own way prescribed in the Word for the substance of it Ergo. The Congregations in England are not combined together by a Church-Covenant which is the essential form of a particular Church and therefore are not true Churches and so by consequence have no true Ministry We acknowledge no such Church Covenant as commanded in Scripture distinct from the Covenant of grace Supposing but not granting that a Church-Covenant is necessary to the being of a Church yet we desire that our Brethren in New-England may be heard pleading for us Mr. Hooker saith that this Church Covenant is dispensed after a double manner either explicitely or implicitely An implicite Covevant is when in their practise they do that whereby they make themselves ingaged to walk in such a Society according to such Rules of Government which are exercised amongst them and so submit themselves thereunto but do not make any verbal profession thereof Thus the people in the Parishes in England when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place attend all the Ordinances there used and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them submit thereunto c. By such actions and a fixed attendance upon all such services and duties they declare that by their practise which others do hold forth by their profession And therefore it is a great Scandal for any to say that for want of a Church-Covenant we Nullify all Churches but our own and that upon our grounds received there must be no Church in the World but in New-England c. So likewise in their Apology for a Church-Covenant they say Though we deny not but the Covenant in many Congregations of England is more implicite and not so plain as were to be desired yet we hope we may say of them with Mr Parker Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 16. pag. 167. Non abest realis substantialis quanquam magis quam par erat implicita Coitio in faedus eaque voluntaria professio fidâ—i substantialis qua Deo gratia essentiam Ecclesiae idque visibilis hucusque sartam tectam in Anglia conservavit That is there wants not that real and substantial coming together or agreeing in Covenant though more implicite then were meet and that substantial profession of Faith which thanks be to God hath preserved the Essence of visible Churches in England unto this day But the Congregations of England are Parochiall Churches and therefore no true Churches of Christ and so by consequence have no true Ministry There is much opposition in our dayes against distinguishing of Congregations by local bounds and much endeavour to break this bond asunder and to leave people at liberty to joyn notwithstanding their dwellings with what Church they please with no Churches if they please and most People speak of Parochial Churches in a most contemptible way as of so many cages of unclean Birds and of Parochiall Ministers as of so many Parish Priests But we hope this ariseth not so much out of Malice and from a spirit of opposition as from a misunderstanding of our judgement concerning Parochial Congregations We will therefore briefly declare what we do not hold and what we do hold 1. We do not say That the bare dwelling in a Parish is sufficient to make a man a member of the Church of Christ within that Parish A Turk or Pagan or Idolater may be within the bounds of a Parish and yet we do not hold him a member of the Church in that Parish 2. We do not say That all that dwell in a Parish and that joyn constantly in hearing of the word of God therein Preached should upon that account be admitted to the Lords Table We heartily desire and sincerely endeavour to keep all Ignorant and Scandalous People from the Sacrament although they dwell within the same bounds with those that are admitted 3. We do not allow but much dislike the unequal division of Parishes and we heartily desire a redresse herein But we say 1. That it is most expedient for edification and most agreeable to the Evangelical pattern that Congregations should be distinguished by the respective bounds of their dwellings Thus all the Christians in Corinth did belong to the Church of Corinth and all the Believers in Ephâ—sus to the Church of Ephesus The Churches in the New Testament are distinguished one from another by the places where the believers dwelâ— As the Church at Corinth from the Church at Ephesus And we do not read of any of one Town member of a Church in another Town distinct from it The Reverend Assembly gave 3. reasons for the proof of this Assertion 1. Because they who dwell together being bound to all kind of Moral duties one to another have the better oportunity thereby to discharge them which Moral tie is perpetual for Christ came not to destroy the Law but to sulful it 2. The Communion of Saints must be so ordered as may stand with the most convenient use of the Ordinances and discharge of Morall duties without respect of persons 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done unto edifying Heb. 10.24 25. Iam 2.1.2 3. The Pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency 2. We say That all that live within the same Parish being Baptized persons and making profession of Christianity may claime admission into the society of Christians within those bounds enjoy the priviledges and Ordinances there dispensed if by their Scandalous lives they make not themselves unworthy For we believe that all Baptized Persons
are called A Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.32 And if all the Churches in the World are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But how doth it appear that it is the will of Christ that the Churches of one Nation should be governed by lesser and greater Assemblies and so become a Nationall Church For this we desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government wherein this very thing is largely proved both by the light of Nature and by the Scripture See Vindicat. p. 20. 26. And thus we have endevoured by two Arguments to convince those that oppose our Ministry from their own principles and to give them to understand that according to their own Tenents they are bound in conscience to acknowledge many of our Ministers at least to be true Ministers although it should be granted them that our Ordination is unwarrantable and Antichristian For most of these men are amongst the number of them that vilify and disregard Ordination The best of them make it but a meer circumstance or adjunct to the call of the Ministry And who knowes not but circumstances may be wanting or corrupted and yet the substance remain intire If we be true Churches then according to their own positions we are true Ministers If rightly Elected then we have that which they say is essential to the Ministerial call Suppose Ordination by Bishops should be an humane addition not agreeable to the Rule yet notwithstanding humâ—nâ— additioâ—â— do not nullify divine institution Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this saying I confesse for my part I never yet doubted of the lawfulnesse of the call of many of the Ministers of the Parishional Congregations in England though they had something superadded which was sinfull yet it did not nullify that call they had by the Church that communion of Saints amongst whom they exercised their Ministery If a man be Baptized in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost though there should be many Ceremonial additions of Sâ—le Spiâ—â—l◠〈◊〉 the sign of the Crosse c. Yet these additions would not nullify the Ordinance of Baptismâ— Now more can the superaddition of Ordination unto our election though it be supposed by them to be sinful nullify our Ministry which in their judgements is for the 〈◊〉 of it conferâ—ed by Election CHAP. II. Wherein the same Proposition is proved by Arguments taken from our own Principles BUt omitting this way of Argumentation we shall now God assisting undertake to prove according to our own Principles who hold That Ordination is that which gives the Essâ—rice to the Ministerial call That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects This appears by these ensuing Arguments They that for the substance of their call were called to the Ministry according to the mind of Christ are lawful Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers that were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ Ergo. Here we desire the Reader to take notice that in this Argument we shall not at all speak of the peoples election of their Minister Not because we are enemies to popular Election rightly managed and ordered or because we think that the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election as well as Ordination for we have formerly declared the contrary But because the great stumbling stone and Rock of offence against the present Ministry is in reference to to their Ordination therefore it is that we insist upon that onely The Minor is proved by surveying the Book of Ordination established by Act of Parliament according to which Ministers were to be Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Out of which we thus Argue They who were sufficiently gifted and qualified for the Ministry and were inwardly called by God and outwardly called by prayer and fasting with the imposition of the hands of Preaching Presbyters were called to the Office of the Ministry for the substance of it according to the mind of Christ. But such were they who were Ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy Ergo. That they were such that is ought to have been such according the Rule established and that many were such de facto and if any were not such it was viâ—ium personae ordinantis not vitium regulae the fault of the person ordaining not of the Rule for Ordination appears by viewing the Book it self in which we shall find 1. That the party to be Ordained is to be one that is apt to teach willing to take pains in the Ministry found in the faith of honest life and conversation And sure we are many were such and if any were not it was a personal not a Church error 2. The party to be Ordained is to be examined touching his perswasion of an inward calling by the Spirit whether he be inwardly moved by God to the work of the Ministry and touching his faith of the sufficiency of the Scriptures his purpose to execute his Ministry according to the word of God to oppose all erroneous and strange doctrines to fashion his conversation according to what may become a Minister of the Gospel c. 3. The party thus qualified after a Sermon Preached and prayer made to God for a blessing is to be Ordained and set apart to the work of the Ministry by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop together with other Preaching Presbyters This is the substance of the Book as touching the Ordination of Ministers from which it appears That Ministers made during the prevalency of Episcopacy were for the substance of their call called according to the mind of Christ and therefore lawful Ministers But it will be objected That the Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them and not onely so but by Bishops who held themselves to be a superiour Order of Ministry by divine right above Presbyters who were not onely Bishops but Lord Bishops who were wicked and Antichristian and whom we have renounced and sworn to endeavour to extirpate in our late solemn League and Covenant What our opinio n is concerning the divine right of Episcopacy and what difference there is between a Presbyter Bishop and a Bishop over Presbyters between a Scripture Bishop and the Bishop that obtained in the Primitivâ— times and the Bishop of our times we shall have occasion to declare hereafter For the present before we return an answer to this great objection consisting of many particulars we must crave leave to premise these few conclusions many of which we shall in the next proposition prove at large That according
nourished in the wildernesse for a time times and half a time from the face of the Serpent verse 14. Note here 1. That by the 1260 daies and a time times and half a time is meant the whole time of Antichrists raign 2. That the Church during the whole raign of Antichrist should be in a sad lamentable and Wildernesse condition 3. That maugre all the fury of the ten-headed or two-headed beast yet notwithstanding the Church of Christ should be preserved and kept safe For there were two wings of a great Eagle given unto her to enable her to fly into the Wildernesse where she is fed and nourished 42. Moneths And all this is to be understood not onely of a Church entitative or a Church without Officers but of a Church instituted or Ministerial a Church administring Ordinances For this woman is not onely kept alive in the Wildernesse all the time of Antichrists raign but she is fed and nourished by Gospel-Administraâ—ions â—he is fed by the Two witnesses for the prophesying of the witnesses is contemporary with the womans flight into the Wildernesse Even aâ— Elias was nourished in the Wildernesse and kept safe from the fury and rage of Iezebel And as God reserved 7000. that had not bowed their knees to Baal c. and by good Obadiah preserved an hundred Prophets of the Lord alive all the time of Ahabs bitter opposition against them Even so was the Woman that is The Church of Christ reserved and nourished by the Ordinances Scriptures and Ministry of Christ though in a Wildernesse-condition all the time of Antichrist's prevalency The like to this we read of in the 11. of the Revelation where we have two things very observable for our purpose The one concerning the Temple measured and the outward Court unmeasured The other concerning the two Witnesses 1. Concerning the Temple measured and the outward Court unmeasured The outward Court was to be left out or cast out to wit as prophane and that which God will make no account of It was not to be measured but to be given unto the Gentiles that is the Antichristian party to be trod under foot forty and two Moneths that is all the time of Antichrists raign The meaning is as Mr. Mâ—de well observeth That the Antichristian Apostasie which he calls redivivus Ethnicismus shall prevail over the Christian Churâ—h and shall bring in a new kind of Idolatry into the places where the true Religion was professed But now the Temple and the Altar and they that worship therein are to be measured with a divine reed This measuring is an allusion to Ezek. 40.1 c. where the Temple with all in it was to be measured by Gods appointment to shew that that building was of God So must the true Church of Christ under Antichrist be measured that is kept pure from Antichrist's Idolatry walking exactly according to the Rule of the Word and also kept safe from Antichrist's rage and fury 1. Note here That though the outward Court was given to the Gentiles to be troden down yet the Temple with the worshippers therein was not given 2. That during the prevalency ofAntichrist the Temple and Altar and worshippers therein that is a true Church and a true Ministry and true Gospel-Ordinances are preserved and kept safe While the outward Court is worshipping the Beast the true Church is serving God according to his Word as in the inner Court of the Temple Our English Annotations say That by the measuring of the Temple and altar and the worshippers therein is signified 1. The fewnesse â—f the true Christians under Antichrist in comparison of the Idâ—latrous ones as the Priests and Levites that worshipped in the inner Court were few in comparison of the people that worshipped in the outward 2. That Gods people while Antichrist raged should have a place in the Wildernesse where they might serve God according to his will as the Jewes offered sacrifices on the altâ—r in the Temple and which should be for safety as a Sanctuary unto them Isai. 8.14 Ezek 11.16 Therefore Temple and altar and worshippers and all are measured So Jerusalem is measured after the captivity that it may be inhabited again Zech. 2.1 2 3 4. c. 2. The Second thing observable is concerning the two Witnesses who are said to Prophesie in sackcloth 1260. dayes that is all the time of the raign of Antichrist By the Two Witnesses in general are meant Omnes Veritatis divinae interpretes assertores saith Mr. Mede All the Interpreters and assertors of divine truth qui soedam illam lachrymabilem Ecclesi ae Christi contaminationem assiduis querelis deflereâ—t c. who should by their daily complaints bewaile the foul and lamentable pollution of Christ's Church These Witnesses are said to be two for the fewnesse of them and because two witnesses were sufficient to confirm any truth and also in alâ—usion to Mosâ—s and Aâ—ron in the Wildernesse To Elijah and Elisha when the Israelites worshipped the Calves and Baal To Zerubbabel and Iâ—hoshua in Babylon and after the return of the Israelites from captivity For our parts we conceive that by the Two witnesses in a more especial manner are meant the True Ministers of Jesus Christ who are called Witnesses of Christ Act. 1.8 and whose proper Office it is to bear witnesse to truth and holinesse against all the Heresies Blasphemies Idolatries and ungodlinesse of Antichrist Now these two witnesses are said to Prophesie though cloathed in Sackcloth all antichrists reign which is a clear and demonstrative argument to us That there hath been a true Ministry preserved by God from the beginning of the Christian Church even to this very day notwithstanding the great and universal Apostacy that hath been in it And our learned Protestants in divers Books have given us a Catalogue of the faithful Ministers of God and other godly men whom the Lord raised up in all ages of the Church to bear witnesse against the growing and spreading abominations of Antichristianisme in the Christian World 3. The third thing we offer to consideration is To beseech our people accurately to distinguish between the Church of Rome and the Antichristianisme of the Church of Rome as between a man and the Plague-sore that is upon him and between a Field that is full of tares and yet hath some Wheat in it It is certain that the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes when the faith of it was spread throughout the World and it is as certain that afterwards by little and litle it apostatized till at last Antichrist set up his throne in that Church And yet still we must distinguish between the Church and the Apostasie of it between the Corn and the Tares that are in it Thus the Apostle seems to do 2 Thess. 2.4 where he puts a difference between the Temple of God in which the man of sin shall sit as God and between the man of sin sitting
captivity from off her â—nd then take her to wife So doth the Protestant Reformed Religion It distinguisheth between the Ordinances of God and the corruptions cleaving unto the Ordinances It washeth away all the defilements and pollutionâ— contracted in the Church of Rome both from Baptisme and Ordination but it doth not renounce either the one or the other 1. Because they are none of Antichrist's posts or Antichrist's inventions but are the institutions of Jesus Christ and were in the Church of Rome long before Antichrist sat there 2. Because they have been preserved sound for the substantials and essentials of them And the truth is he that renounceth the one must needs renounce the other which were well if some of our dissenting Brethren would seriously consider Now that this Position may not seem strange we will a a little compare the Apostacy of the 10. Tribes with the Apostacy of the church of Rome The 10. Tribes did not onely worship God after a false manner by setting up their golden Calves in Dan and Bethel but afterwards in the raign of Ahab they directly worshipped false Gods and set up Baal and Ashtaroth and fell away wholy from the true God and yet notwithstanding all this when the Prophet came to â—noint Jehu he saith unto him Thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord â—veâ—over Israel Here note That they are called the people of God notwithstanding their Apostacy And the Ordinance of Circumcision which was retained amongst them in this their Apostacy was Gods Ordinance and they that were circumcised under that Apostacy not onely did not renounce their circumcision but had sinned against God if they had done it and were accordingly admitted to the passeover by Hâ—â—â—kiah as truly circumcised For Gods Ordinanceâ— are not to be renounced for mans Corruptions cleaving to them but the corruptions are to be removed and the Ordinances embraced And afterwards in Christâ— time it is evident that the Office of the Priest and the High-Priest was excâ—edingly corrupted They came ordinarily into thâ—ir office by bribery faction And as many learned men think there were Two high Priestâ— together Anâ—as and Caiaphas when Christ was crucified The Priests and High-Priests had their chief stroak in the Crucifying of Christ. And yet we read Iohn 11.15 Caiaphas is owned by the Holy Ghost as high Priest c. Act. 23. when Paul said to the High-Priest God will sâ—itâ— thee thou whited wall c. and they that stood by said Râ—vilest thou the High-Priest Paul answered I wist not Brethren that he was the High-Priest For it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Rulâ—r of thy People Here also Paul as many think acknowledged him as an High-Priest though the Priesthood at that time was tyrannical heretical and they came by most unjust wayes into their places and offices From all this it appears That corruptionâ— cleaving to Gods Ordinances do not null Gods Ordinances That we are not to renounce divine Ordinances because of circumstantial defilements annexed to them That Baptisme and Ordination were found for the substance in the Church of Rome and therefore to be reformed but not renounced 5. The fift thing we desire may be considered is That it is no disparagement to the present Ministry of the Church of England to say That we receive our Ministry from Christ and his Apostles and from the Prâ—mitive Churches through the impure and corrupt Channel of the Church of Rome For 1. It was no disparagement to Jesus Christ that he received his humane nature from Adam through many unclean channels as Thamar Rahab Bethshebah c. 2. It is no disparagement to the holy Scriptures of the old Testament that the Christians received them from the Church of the Iewes even after they had crucified that Christ who was the center of the whole Old Testament Nor is it any disparagement to the Old and New Testament that we receive them as delivered to us by sucession from the Apostles through the Church of Rome although that Church by their corrupt Glosses and Interpretations had much depraved and corrupted them 3. It was no disparagement to circumcision that it came from God through the hands of Idolaters unto Christ and his Apostles Nor to Baptisme that it comes to us from Christ through the Antichristian Church of Rome insomuch as many of those that renounce Ordination do yet retain their Baptisme though it may be easily made to appear that it was as much corrupted as Ordination 4. It is no disparagement to the Ordinance of Marriage that many have been married in the Church of Rome and married with all the Popish Ceremonies yet we never heard of any that have renounced their marriage as unlawful because solemnized in the Church of Rome which yet notwithstanding doth hold Marriage to be a Sacrament in a proper sense and have many corruptions in their way of marriage and yet it is by the Law of God and man valid for the sustance of it 5. It was no disparagement to the Vessels of the Temple that they had been 70. years in Babylon and abused and prophaned by Belshazzar who in contempt of the God of Heaven drank Wine in those holy and consecrated Vessels for afterwards the Israelites made no scruple of receiving them and restoring them to the Temple This is the fift consideration 6. The sixt consideration is That the receiving of our Ordination from Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Churches and so all along through the Apostate Church of Rome is so far from nullifying our Ministry or disparaging of it that it is a great strengthening of it when it shall appear to all the World That our Ministry is derived to us from Christ and his Apostles by succession of a Ministry continued in the Church for 1600. years And that we have 1. a lineal succession from Christ and his Apostles 2. Not onely a lineal succession but that which is more and without which the lineal is of no benefit we have a Doctrinal succession also We succeed them in Preaching the same Doctrine that they did deliver to the Churches The Papists boast much of a lineal succession but they want the Doctrinal They succeed the Apostles as darknesse succeeds light and as Manasseh succeded Hezekiah But this is the happinesse of the present Ministry That we have both a lineal and doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles But doth not this discourse of ours when we say That the essentials of a 〈…〉 true Ministry and that Baptisme and Ordination for the Substantials of them were preserved in the Church of Rome during the prevalency of Antichrist make Rome to be a true Church of Christ. There are indeed some learned Orthodox Divines That say That the Church of Rome is Vâ—rè Ecclesia though not Vera Ecclesia is Truly a Church though far from being a true Orthodox Church There
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
done if he had made them at that time distinct orderâ— with distinct Offices or if he had made Titus at that time Bishop or as some would have it Arch-Bishop or Primate and Metropolitan of the hundred Cities that were in Creet So much for the proof that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence 2. The second thing we are to prove is That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and not onely so in a general signification as all Preachers of the Gospel may be called Evangelists but in a special and proper sence This will the better appear if we consider what an Evangelist is and the difference between Evangelists and other Officers of the Church Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a settled residence upon any one charge They were Comites et Vicarii Apostoloâ—um Vice-Apostles who had Curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And they did as Ambrose speakes Evangâ—lizare sine Cathedra Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Act. 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require To this agreeth Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy Evangelists saith he were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in Ecclesiastical affaires wheresoever they found need They were extraordinary and temporary Officers as the Apostles and Prophets were and Officers of a Rank higher then Pastors and Teachers and so they are reckoned Ephesians 4.11 Now that Timothy and Titus were such Officers is made evident Not onely because one of them is in direct terms called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 But also from the perpetual motion of both of them from place to place not onely before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but as much after as before And that they did so move appears from divers Authors who have exactly set down their several peregrinations both before and after We shall not trouble the Reader with their travailes before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but shall onely relate what is said by the Reverend Minsters in their humble answer at the Isle of Wight of their journeyings after their going thither And first of Timothy If Timothy say they was Bishop of Ephesus he must be so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia and he left him there to exercise his Office in regulating ordering that Church and in ordaining but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletum For after Paul had been at Miletum he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with himand those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philâ—mon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus for we find that after all this towards the end of Saint Paulâ— life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand he sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seems that Timothy was not there because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts he saith Tychieus have I sent to Ephesus Now if your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one Totall what is said The severall journeys and stations of Timothy the Order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in several Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like may be said also concerning Titus after he was left at Creet he was sent for by Paul to Nicopolis and after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at Troas and not with Paul in Macedonia whence he is sent againe to Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Creet but unto Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture From all this we gather 3. Conclusions That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense that is were not fixed Stars in Ephesus or Creet And whereas it is answered that the necessities of those times made even the most fixed Stars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services that were of most use for the successe of that great work yet so that after their errands fully done they returned to their own charge and that therefore they might be Bishops notwithstanding their severall journeys We challenge any of them to shew in all the New Testament any one that was appointed Overseer of a particucular Church whose motion was as Planetary as we have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have been or if that fail to shew that after Timothy and Titus went abroad upon the service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment But we are fully assured that they can shew neither the one nor the other and therefore we may safely conclude that they were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and Evangelists in a proper sense and Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers and Officers of an higher Rank and Order That they were not onely Evangelists before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but afterwards also as hath been abundantly proved And the truth is If they were Evangelists at any time we cannot conceive how they can come to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense For we thus argue They that were made Evangelists in a proper sense by the Apostles were never afterwards made Bishops in our Brethrens sense by the Apostles For this had been to degrade them from a superiour Office to an inferiour And if according to the Councell of Chalcedon it be not onely incongruous but sacrilegious to bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter If it be an eternall reproach
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a Pastor-Bishop and a Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
already proved That Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called a Bishop of Ephesus in their sense It will not follow because Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus in 3. St. Johns dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle for St Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe For our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number Rev. 2.10 And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one So much for the first head of answers 2. But now in the second place Let us suppose it though we will not grant it That these Angels were Personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken Individually yet we conceive That this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause For 1. First Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth That by these words To the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the President as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church likewise But then he addeth But that Episcopal Degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetual President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligâ—rchical Tyranny whose head is the Antichâ—istian Beast now at length with â—he most certain ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest by which quotation it is evident that though Beza hâ—ld the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus presâ—s not Angâ—lus Princeps And that he was Praeses prâ— tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament To this effect do the Reverend Divines speak in their humble answer at the Isle of VVight where they say That these writings to the Angels are directed as Epistolary letters to Collective bodies usually are That is To one but intended to the body which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the Houâ—e of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person or if he were that therefore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least and so your Majestie hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators Secondly Dr Reynolds who hath written a letter in Print against the jâ—s divinum of Episcopacy acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart dial 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith That Presbyters when they met together for the carrying on of the affairs of the Church by common Councel and consent chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth The Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know From which saying we may safely conclude That though we should grant which yet we do not that this Angel is a single person yet it will not at all help the Episcopal Hierarchy For this Angel is but a Moderator of the Presbytery having no superiority of power either in Ordination or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is himself also a Presbytery and for ought appears to the contrary from the judgment of Dr. Reynolds a Moderator onely pro tempore Which kind of government is purely Presbyterial and not at all Episcopal much lesse as some would have it even from this text Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical But it is objected by some learned men That the Seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation unto the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them And that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops To this we answer 1. That it will hardly be proved that these Seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in St. Iohnâ— dayes And the situation of the most of them lying near together by the Sea side makes it very improbable 2. But suppose it would yet we answer 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferr the greatnesse of the Churches For though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 2. We do not believe that ever it can be proved That the Apostles did model the government of the Church according to the government of the Roman State This was the after-policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolical policy And therefore it doth not follow That because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of these seven Cities That therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to these seven Asian Churcheâ— 3. We are fully assured That it can never be made out That any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven starrs are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches If this opinion were true Then Tertullian did noâ— do well in saying That St. Iohn made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said That he made him Arch-Bishop And our Saviour Christ had not given unto these seven Angels their due Titles For he must have written To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other Six Surely this device was found out for the honour of Archiepiscopacy by some that did aspire unto that dignity But we hope that our more moderate Brethren are far from stamping a divinum jus upon Archbishops and Primâ—tes and Patriarchs for fear lest by the same proportion of reason they be forced to put a divine stamp at last upon the Pope himself And therefore we forbear to say any more about it For the conclusion of this discourse about the Asian Angels we shall add 4. That it can never be proved That these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Prelatical sence much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore as Ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
Ordinationem quae per solos Presbyteroâ— peragitur non esse de jurâ— divino invalidam neque Ordinationâ—m esse de jure Divino ita propriam Episcoporum ut non possit validè peragi per solos Presbyteros That is That Ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by Divine right invalid neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop that it may not be done even in the opinion of Papists themselves by Presbyters alone For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters For Bellâ—rmine saith expresly In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right And Aureolus saith Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quod in potestâ—te nullius imò nec Papae est illâ— auferre qua sunt autem jurisdictionis potest ea Pâ—pa suspendere Now then from hence we may argue That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops that neither Bishops nor Councels nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare But according to the Judgment and practise of Antiquity The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordaining to Presbâ—ters that are not Bishops And Bishops also may do the like Therefore the liberty and power of Ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely but may be lawfully done by others the Papists themselves being Judges And so much for our fourth Proposition Proposition 5. THat when Hierome saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ— Ordinatione This passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought That Ordination was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops and not to Presbyters as Bishop Bilson saith For in the very same Epistle he tells us That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one And that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop But he must bâ— understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes and his meaning iâ— Quid facit Episcopus secundum Canoâ—â—s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyteâ— excepta Ordinatione Proposition 6. THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter because madâ— by Colluâ—hus that was but a Presbyter himself and not a Bishop This was done not because the act of Colluâ—â—us was against the Canon of thâ— Scriptures but onely because it was against the Canons of some Councelâ— Thuâ— Dr. Fiâ—ld answereth Whereas saith he The Fathers make all such Ordinations void 〈◊〉 are made by Presbyters it is to be understood according to the strictnesse of the Canon in use in their time and not absolutely in the nâ—ture of the thing which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void All Ordinationâ— of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane All Ordinations of Presbyterâ— by Bishops out of their own Churches without leave Whereas I am well assured The Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Thus far Dr. Field But now whether the Church in thâ—se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free we leave it to all sober Christians to judge and determine Proposition 7. THat Aâ—rius was never condemned by any Councel oâ— heresie for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter But on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1â— an 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge We confesse That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austinâ— but this was especially if not onely because he was an Arrian Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austine saith That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi But as for his opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Austine indeed calls it proprium dogma And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum stolidum But neither of them both call it an Heresie But suppose they did for so it is commonly thought yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors and not much to be regarded appears 1. Because as Smectymâ—uus hath well observed the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead Epiphanius accused him because he said that superstitum preces did not opitulari â—is qui ex hâ—c vita discesserunt And Austine accused Aerius because he said Non licet orare vel offerrâ— pro mortuis oblationem He is further condemned for reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks 2. Because not onely Saint Hierome but Austine himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom origin and yet none of these do deserve the name of fooles and mad men much lesse to be branded for hereticks Adde to this That Alphonsus de Castro advers haeres Titul Episcopus saith That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp ad Campian rat 10. hath these words Aâ—rium Epiphanius Augustinus in haereticis nume ant praeter eos antiqui pauci Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum nihil Catholicum esse potest Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit This is sufficient to answer the objection about Aerius Proposition 8. THat even many if not most of those that hold Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris yet as we in charity believe they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary â—n the Church of Christ But they say That those Churchâ—â— are true Churches that want Bishops and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr Sermon professeth pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof And afterwards in his defence Though ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishopâ— in the Judgment of the ancient Church yet it was not to be understood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in case of
necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to Ordain and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop which answer I confirmed by divers reasons see them whereunto I now adde That there seemeth to be the like reasons for the imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publick penitents as in the Ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want and absence of the Bishop the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose upon Eph. 4. and Austin qu. ex Vet. Nov. Test. mixt qu. 101. The latter by Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councels Concil Carthag graec cap. 43. Carth. 2. cap. 4. Concil Araâ—sic cap. 2. And the Popish Writâ—rs themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to Ordain so that he to whom such licence is given have those Orders himself which he would give to another Summa Angel ordo c. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved be authorized by necessity which as they say hath no law So far B. Downame Thus also Mr. Francis Mason If by jure Divino you mean That which is according to Scripture then the preeminence of Bishops is jure Divino But if by jure Divinâ— you understand a law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure Divino And no doubt it were a most cruel and unmerciful opinion so to cry up Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination as to condemn all the reformed Churches of France Scotland Holland Helvetia c. as no Churches and their Ministers as no Ministers and their Sacraments as no Sacraments But we shall say no more of this Proposition because there is a Reverend Minister hath spoken largely to it and hath proved That it was the opinion of Dr. Field B. Downame B. Iewell Saravia B. Alley B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel and divers others That Ordination by Presbyters in some cases is lawful and valid and hath also fully and excellently discovered the woful and unsufferable miseries and mischiefs that would flow from the contrary assertion To him we refer the Reader that desires to be further satisfied herein We shall name but one Proposition more and then we have done Proposition 9. THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterianâ— in all their writingâ— for walking contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name if we did desire to recriminate We will instance only in two 1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters Cyprian professeth he would do nothing without the Clergy he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all The fourth Councel of Carthage condemâ—s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur The Church had itâ— Seniores sine quorum consâ—lio nihil agâ—batur in Ecclesiâ There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blondâ—â— and Smectymnuus but we forbear Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise iâ— sufficiently manifest to all the Christian world 2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries And Cyprian tells us That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures and to the first and purest Antiquity but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church in the point of Episcopacy Not that we intend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apostolical Traditions unwritten or by the Fathers or Canons of the Church in this great Controversie For though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity yet we do not Idolize it For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal Irenaeus tells us that S. Iohn told those that told him That Christ lived here upon earth and preached ultra quadragesimum aut etiam quinquagesimum annum beyond 40. or 50. years which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time who was Bishop of Rome celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moneth according â—s the Jewes were commanded to eat their Passeover This they did as a received Tradition not onely from Polycarpe but from S. Iohn himself But now on the contrary the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true And as for the Ancient Fathers though they were famouâ— Lights in the Church yet they have their Naevâ—s and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius A learned Gentleman undertakes in a short Epistle to make out Their Contradictions one to another Their variance from themselves Their Repugnancies both to Protestants and Papists Their want of ability in many points of our Controversies in most of will to decide them And therefore we appeal from men to God from the Canons of the Fatherâ— to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures as the onely infallible Judge of this and all other Controversies of Religion We say with the Prophet Ad Legem Testimonium To the Law and to thâ— Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them And yet we have spoken something