are not meant women simply but Women-Prophetesses in opposition to men-Prophets formerly spoken of This seems to be intimated in the words of the Text Let your Women keep silence in the Church i. your prophesying women That there were women that did prophesie appears from Act. 21.9 Now the Apostle doth inhibit all women-Prophetesses from prophesying in the Church It is not permitted to them of what rank soever to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the Law Thus also 1 Tim. 2.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man These Prophetesses might teach in private but nature it self forbids them to usurp authority over the man by teaching him in publique Object But doth not the Apostle say 1 Cor. 11.5 Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head It seems by this Text that the women did pray and prophesie in publique Answ. Women are said to pray and prophesie not by doing so actually in their own persons but by joyning with men in praying and prophesying And the meaning of the Text is Every woman that joyneth in praying or prophesying Thus Solomon is said to offer 120000. sheep not in his own person but by joyning with the Priests that did it Thus Pilate is said to scourge Jesus which he did not do in his own person but by his Officers Object 4. These Prophets were to be tried examined and judged ver 32. And therefore they were not Officers extraordinarily inspired Answ. 1. It follows not Their doctrine might be tried therefore they were not extrordinary Officers or immediatly inspired for the Apostles were extraordinary Officers as is confessed and yet their doctrines were to be tried The Bereaus are commended for it Act. 17.11 Ans. 2. Those who were extraordinarily inspired thoug◠they could not erre so far forth as they were inspired by the holy Ghost yet might sometimes in some particular cases give an answer out of their own hearts in which they might erre and be deceived Such was the case of Samuel when he saw Eliab 1 Sam. 16. Doubtlesse the Lords anointed is before me but it was not so Thus Nathan permitteth and encourageth David to build the Temple 2 Sam. 7. but herein he was mistaken Act. 21.4 The foretelling of Pauls danger at Ierusalem was from God But the consequence drawn from hence by the prophesying Disciples that therefore he should not go up to Ierusalem was from their own spirit Vide Bezam Object 2. A second Objection is taken from 1 Pet. 4.10 11. As every man hath receivid the gift even so minister the same one to another as good Stewards of the manifold grace of God If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth c. From hence is inferred that every man that is gifted may lawfully Preach the Word though he be not called and solemnly set apart to this work Answ. To this we reply 1. That we heartily assent to this Truth That every man that hath received a gift of God ought to improve it to the good of others And we limit not the word Gift in the Text as some do only to the gift of liberality though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sometimes put for that gift as 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8.4 6 7. but extend it as Oecumenius not only to the possession of riches but to all endowments of nature which whosoever is possessed of is bound to communicate to those that want them as having received them of God to be thus distributed yea and with Piscator Calvin Bullinger and others to all spirituall gifts as knowing that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one for the profit of the whole and mindefull of the heavy sentence pronounced upon the slothfull servant who hid his Talent in a Napkin Mat. 25. 2. But we assert That these spirituall gifts are to be exercised by every one in his own sphere by private persons privately by those that are in Office publikely and in the Congregation It is very observable that Aquila and Priscilla private persons yet of eminent gifts insomuch as they knew the way of Christ more perfectly then Apollos himself who was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures kept their own place and whereas Apollos being a Minister in Office as appears 1 Cor. 3.5 preached publiquely in the Synagogues they as gifted Christians did not undertake to preach publikely but took him to them and privately expounded to him the way of God more perfectly Act. 18. This is a notable patern for private Christians even of the highest form to walk by In this way they may finde emploiment for all their gifts in this way they may honour God and be promoters of the Gospel as were those women whom the Apostle honours with the Title of Labourers with him in the Gospel Phil. 4.3 They laboured not by publike preaching for this the Apostle permits not to women 1 Tim. 2. but by private advertisements and admonitions as opportunities were administred 3. Therefore it follows not that because all gifts are to be improved therefore a gifted brother may preach for first there are other waies of making use of our most excellent gifts then by preaching only and secondly It is required in him that will preach warrantably not only that he be fitted for the work but that he be appointed to the Office of the Ministry as hath been before fully demonsttated and therefore that we do not the same work twice we here supersede Object But doth not the Apostle in the 11. verse where he saith If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God warrant every man that hath the gift of speaking publikely to the edification of the Congregation to preach publikely provided he speak as the Oracles of God Answ. We answer negatively those words permit not every gifted man to be a Preacher but direct every Preacher in the right dispensation of that weighty Office Calvin excellently upon these words He that speaketh observes Qui publicâ authoritate rite ordinatus est He that by publike authority is rightly ordained to speak Let him speak as the Oracles of God And Estius Qui ad hujusmodi munus in Ecclesiâ vocatur He that is called in the Church to this work let him speak as the Oracles of God And thus some restrain the word Gift in the 10th verse As every man hath received a gift i. an Office even so minister c. and that not with out probability for it is evident that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken sometimes in Scripture not for gifts simply but for an Office as Rom. 12.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having gifts which the Apostle in the verses following expounds of Offices So also 1 Tim. 4.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neglect not the
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
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
man what may we say of those that intrude upon the work of the Ministry if they miscarry they destroy souls and this is indeed to destroy the man Si navem poscat sibi peronatus arator non meritò exclamet frontem melicerta perisse de rebus In brief shall an exact scrutiny passe upon such as are to feed the bodies of poor men and not upon such as feed the souls Act. 20.28 The work of the Ministry the preaching of the Word is a work of the highest consequence and importance that ever God committed to the sons of men The reconciling of men to God 2 Cor. 5.19 Even an heavenly Embassy of infinite and eternall consequence Now if God allow not these works which are of an inferiour nature to be done by men untried and unappointed to the Office how shall he approve of such as adventure upon this work of preaching the Word which is negotium negotiorum the work of works without any trial or commission If none may administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto then neither may any preach but he that is lawfully called and ordained But none may administer the Sacraments but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto Therefore The minor is easily granted and proved from the nature of the Sacraments They are Seals of the righteousnesse by faith If it be an intolerable usurpation amongst men for a private man to take the broad seal of the Kingdom and put it to what instruments he pleaseth much more intolerable is it for a private man to usurp the dispensation of the broad Seal of the Kingdom of heaven As in all States there are Keepers of the Seals appointed whose office it is to dispose them according to Law Even so it is in the Church of God Jesus Christ hath appointed Keepers of his Seals those whom he cals Stewards of the mysteries of God to whom he hath committed the word of Reconciliation and to whom he hath given power to baptize and to administer the Lords Supper The connexion is clear because that these two works are joyntly in the same Commission Mat. 28.19 20. and of the two the preaching of the Word is the greater work This the Apostle intimates 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel The negative particle is here as in many other places taken for the comparative he was sent rather to preach then to baptize and by this manner of expression it appears that to preach was his more proper and especiall work This account all the rest of the Apostles had of it therefore they did put off ministring to Tables that they might give themselves to the Word and Praier In the consideration of the greatnesse of this work the Prophet Isaiah being sent about it cries out Wo is me I am undone the Prophet Ieremiah Ah Lord God behold I cannot speak for I am a childe and Paul also Who is sufficient for these things Of this account it hath been alwaies had in the Church of God ancient and modern till these unhappy times of licentiousnesse And therefore we humbly entreat all those that do conscienciously and as we beleeve justly scruple to have their Children baptized by or receive the Lords Supper from the hands of any un-ordained person that they would seriously consider upon what warrant they hear un-ordained men preach Seeing there is the same Commission for preaching and for baptizing and that preaching is the great if not the greatest work of a Minister To usurp authority over the Church is a sin But to preacâ— without calling and Ordination to the work is to usurp authority over the Church Therefore The first Proposition is clear by its own light the other is easily proved by asserting Preaching to be an act of authority which is evident both in that the Apostle 1 Thes. 5.12 gives this charge Know them that are over you in the Lord and admonish you where to admonish is to be over Heb. 7. without controversie the lesser is blessed of the greater and this is further eviâ—enced in that the Apostle suffers not women to preach because they may not usurp authority over the man 1 Tim. 2. but is commanded to be in subjection upon which place Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very act of teaching is to usurp authority over the man Besides them the publike work of the Ministry of the Word is an authoritative administration like unto that of Criers Heralds and Embassadors to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus and therefore may not be performed by any but such as are authorized and immediatly or mediatly deputed by him 2 Cor. 5.19 20. appears because in preaching the key of the Kingdom of Heaven is used to take men in or shut men out and this key is in the hand of ordinary Teachers as well as extraordinary yea the power of binding and loosing is exercised For though to preach be no act of jurisdiction strictly so called yet it is an act not only of order but of power not such as is common to every member of the Church but peculiar to such as are in publike Office Now to perform any authoritative act without authority what is it other then to usurp authority Gifts conferre the faculty of administration but not the power The Question which the Pharisees put to our Saviour being propounded to these men By what authority dost thou these things and who gave thee this authority Could they answer as Christ Ioh. 7.28 I am not come of my self That which the Scripture reproves may no man practice but the Scripture reproves uncalled men for preaching Therfore The major will not be denied The minor appears in that the false Prophets are reproved Ier. 23.21 32. not only for their false doctrine telling their own dreams and stealing the Word of God from his people but also for running when they were not sent I am against them saith the Lord a fearfull commination If God be against them who shall be with them if they finde not acceptance with God all that approbatiâ—n and applause which they finde from men what will it profit He is not approved whom man approves but he whom God approves The false Prophets themselves accuse Ieremiah Jer. 29.27 for making himself a Prophet which though it was a most unjust and false imputation yet it holds forth this truth That no man ought to make himself a Prophet the false Prophets themselves being witnesses It is very observable that Shemaiah the Nehelamite a false Prophet and a dreamer writes to Zephaniah the sonne of Maasiah the Priest and to all the Priests and accuseth Ieremiah for a mad man in making himself a Prophet and tells them that upon this account they ought to put him in prison and in the stocks It seems by this that it was no little sin and deserves no little punishment even in the judgement of false Prophets
preach in the publique Congregation Answ. Because he hath a calling to do the one and no calling to do the other You may as well ask Why may not the Lord-Maior of London exercise his jurisdiction at York as well as at London Or why may not a Justice of Peace send Warrants out of his own County Or why might not Vzziah as well offer Incense in the Temple as pray in his own Family The answer to all these Questions is easie for the one they have a lawfull calling but not for the other Obj. 9. But why then do you your selves suffer men whom you call Probationers and Expectants for the Ministry to preach without Ordination May not private men preach as well as they Answ. There is a great difference between a private mans preaching that never intends the Ministry and a Probationers preaching that intends the Ministry and preacheth by way of triall that so the people that are to choose him may have experience of his gifts A probationer and a Minister differ but in degree but a private man and a Minister differ toto genere In the Old Testament there were Prophets and sons of the Prophets that were trained up in the Schools of the Prophets These Sons of the Prophets did prophesie by way of trial and exercise 1 Sam. 19.20 2 King 2.3 1 King 20.35 36. 2. That these Sons of the Prophets or as they are commonly called these Expectants are not allowed in the Presbyteriall government to preach without approbation and license The Directory stablished by both Nations is That such as intend the Ministry may occasionally both reade the Scriptures and exercise gifts in preaching in the Congregation being allowed thereunto by the Presbytery And therefore even Probationers under the Presbyterian Government are not to preach though but occasionally and for a little while without a License and Authority so to do from them to whom Christ hath given this power to authorize men for such an employment So much in answer to Objections and so much for the Third Proposition The Fourth Proposition Concerning the severall waies and means of calling men to the Ministry which is the Subject of all the following Chapters in the First Part. CHAP. VII Wherein are handled three Questions about an immâ—diate Call to the Ministry HAving shewed That no man ought to take upon him the Office or the work of the Ministry but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto We shall now proceed according to our method formerly propounded to speak something concerning the divers waies and means of calling men unto the Ministry That which we have to say we shall comprehend in the ensuing Propositions That the Power and Authority of calling men to the Ministry belongs properly to God only It is he that is the Lord of the Harvest and therefore he only it is that can send forth Labourers into his harvest Ministers are his Embassadours and therefore to be sent by him He only can give the Heavenly Unction and make us able Ministers of the New Testament 2 Cor. 3.6 And it is for the great honour and encouragement of the Gospel-Ministry that all the three persons are said to call men to this sacred office Of God the Father it is said 1 Cor. 12.28 And God hath set c. and Mat. 9.38 Pray unto the Lord c. Of God the Son Eph. 4.11 Of God the holy Ghost Act. 20.28 That there are two waies by which God doth call men to the Office of the Ministry the one immediate the other mediate The immediate call is when a man is chosen by God without the intervention of man Thus were the Prophets and Apostles called Paul saith of himself That he was an Apostle not of men nor by men but by Christ c. where the Apostle tels us of three sorts of Ministers 1. Such as are called neither of men nor by men but by Christ and God immediatly such were the Apostles 2 Such as are called by God and also by men appointed by God for this work such were the Apostles successors 3. Such as are neither called by God immediatly or mediatly but only of man that is by the meer authority of men such were the false Apostles Zanchy tels us out of Hierom of a fourth sort and they are such as are neither of man nor by man nor by Christ but by themselves Qui per seipsos Ministerium sibi sumunt non vocati Who take upon themselves the work of the Ministry uncalled And these he saith are omnium pessimi the worst of all Of these the Prophet Ieremy speaks I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran I have not spoken unto them yet they prophesied We purpose not to speak much of this immediate Call Only because there are some who are ordinarily called Anabaptists or Enthusiasts or as Chemnitius cals them fanaticos homines fanatick men that boast much of Heavenly Revelations and of divine impulses and pretend to an immediate Call we will for our peoples sake briefly answer these three Questions Quest. 1. How may we distinguish between an immediate Call from God and the imposture of fanatick men that say they are so called and are not Quest. 2. Whether are we to expect any immediate Call in these daies Quest. 3. Whether the Call of the first Reformers of Religion from the Errours of Popery was an immediate Call or no Quest. 1. How may we distinguish between an immediate Call from God and the imposture of men that say they are so called when they are not Answ. 1. They that are immediatly called to the Ministry are endued by God either with the gift of miracles or with some other testimony of the Spirit by which they are enabled to give proof of their immediate Call When Christ called his twelve Apostles he gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of sicknesse and all manner of disease And the Apostle Paul cals this power of working miracles a sign of his Apostleship 2 Cor. 12.12 Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience in signs and wonders and mighty deeds When Christ called his 70 Disciples he adorned them also with power of Miracles Luke 10.9 Thus when God called Moses immediatly he inabled him to work miracles that so the Israelites might beleeve that he was not an Impostor but that the Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob had appeared unto him Exod. 4.1 2 3 4 5. After this manner was the calling of Elias and Elisha confirmed And yet from hence we dare not as some do gather a generall Rule That an immediate Call is alwaies joyned with the gift of miracles for it is said expresly of Iohn Baptist That he did no miracle and yet he was immediatly called Neither do we reade of many of the Prophets of the Old Testament that they wrought any miracles But we say That an immediate
ordinary so the calling we are to expect is ordinary Adde That God hath promised to preserve an ordinary Ministry in the world till the coming of Christ 1 Cor. 11.26 Eph. 4.12 13. Mat. 28.20 Isa. 59.21 And therefore there is no need of waiting for and expecting an extraordinary and immediate Call As it is necessary saith Learned Zanchy that there shall be alwaies a Church upon earth because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it So also it is every way as necessary that a lawfull Ministry be preserved Vnum enim ab altero separari non potest nec Ecclesia a Ministerio nec Ministerium ab Ecclesiâ For the one cannot be separated from the other neither the Church from the Ministry nor the Ministry from the Church And from hence it appears saith the same Authour That even in the Church of Rome though the worship of God be most corrupt in it yet God hath preserved in it so much of the substance of Religion as was necessary to salvation so that as the Church is not wholly extinct therein so neither was the Ministry We deny not but that there are some Learned Divines that pleade much for an immediate and extraordinary call in times of publique and generall defection from the Truth For our parts we will not espouse this quarrell We cannot we ought not to set bounds to the infinite power and free-will of God We dispute not what God may do at such times only we say with Gerhard Destituimur promissione quòd debeamus hoc tempore post confirmatum Novi Testamenti canonem immediatam vocationem expectare We have no promise that we ought after the confirmation of the Canon of the New Testament to expect an immediate call And afterwards he saith Nulla apparet immediatae vocationis necessitas There appears no necessity of this immediate Call And besides even those that are for an immediate Call do lay down divers limitations which are very worthy to be considered by the people of our age lest they should suck poison from such a doctrine One that pleads much for it gives these Rules 1. That this extraordinary and immediate Call then only takes place when a mediate and ordinary cannot be had and that such a Call ought not to be pretended unto in contempt of the ordinary way 2. That whosoever shall pretend to this immediate Call ought first to be tried before he be admitted That his doctrine ought to be examined by the Word That his life and conversation ought to be diligently lookt into lest he prove one of those concerning whom the Apostle speaketh That serve not our Lord Iesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple After this he puts this Question Anne cessante ordinaria vocatione c. Whether when the ordinary Call ceaseth it be then lawful for every private Christian verst in the Scriptures to go up into the Pulpit and preach against false Doctrines and assert the Truth and answers God forbid for this would open a door euivis ubivis qui se sapientem existimaret c. to every one every where who thinks himself wise under a pretence whether true or false of confuting false doctrine to have clandestine meetings as the Anabaptists and Libertines of our daies are wont to do following the evil example of those that first at Antioch afterwards in Galatia and elsewhere creeping in privately brought great tumults and confusions into the Church Of whom the Apostle speaks Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law to whom we gave no such commandment Thus farre Bucanus and much more to this purpose in the same Chapter By this it appears That even they that justifie an immediate Call in some cases do notwithstanding flatly condemn the disorderly practices of our times So much in answer to the second Question The third Question is Whether the Call of Luther and the rest of the best Reformers of Religion from the errors of Popery was an immediate and extraordinary Call or no Answ. He that would be satisfied about the Call of Luther to the Ministry let him reade Gerhard de Ministerio where he shall finde proved That Luther though he did alwaies pleade his doctrine to be of God yet he did never so much as pretend to an immediate and extraordinary Call but that he was called after a mediate and ordinary way That he was ordained Presbyter in the Year of our Lord 1507. at 24 years of Age That when he was ordained Presbyter he did receive power to preach the Word of God That the next Year after he was called by Iohn Staupitius with the consent of Elector Frederick to be Divinity Professor of the Church and University of Wittenberg By the Statutes of which University he was bound to this sc. Vestrum est legem divinam interpretari librum vitae docere It is your Office to interpret the Divine Law and to teach the Book of Life Object If it be objected That Luther received his Ordination from the Church of Rome and therefore it is null and void Answ. To this Gerhard answereth That although the rite of Ordination in the Church of Rome was corrupted with many Superstitious and Vnprofitable Ceremonies yet Ordination it self was not nullified We must distinguish between the impurity of the Bishop Ordaining and the Ordination which is done in the Name of the whole Church And in the Ordination we must distinguish that which is divine from that which is humane that which is essential from that which is accidentall that which is godly and Christian from that which was Antichristian As in the Israelitish Church they were to use the Ministry Sacrifices and Ordination of the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses chair yet the people were warned to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16.12 So also is the Church of Rome We use the Ministry Sacraments and Ordination of those that were in ordinary succession but we reject the leaven of their Superstition But to this Objection we shall speak more fully in our fifth Proposition The like to that is said of Luther may be said of Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bucer Peter Martyr c Zanchy saith That Luther was a lawful Teacher and a Minister created in the Church of Rome with Imposition of hands and with authority to create others The like he saith of Zuinglius Bucer c. and of himself Qui in Papatu fuimus creati Doctores cum authoritate alios creandi We were made Teachers under the Papacy with authority to make others We confesse that Zanchy Bucanus and divers others speak much if not too much of an extraordinary Call that these blessed Reformers had But yet we desire it may be considered
is between a man and his wife And as it is the mutual choise one of another that makes them man and wife So it is the peoples choise and the Ministers accepting that choise that makes them to be Pastor and flock Dr Ames saith That Ordinatio Episcopalis sine titulo est aquè ridicula ac si quis maritus fingâ—ritur esse absque uxore And indeed saith Mr Hooker It is ridiculous to conceit the contrary In another place the same Doctor saith Oves rationales possunt eligere sibi pastorem sicut sponsa eligit sibi sponsum non per jurisdictionem aut gubernationem sed potius per subjectionem But we answer That Symbolical Theology is not argumentative Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam Similitudes do beautifie not fortifie There is nothing almost more dangerous in Divinity then to overstretch similitudes of which fault we believe our Brethren are much guilty As for the Similitude it self we conceive it will not hold For 1. If Minister and people be as man and wife then it will follow that they may not separate till death unlesse it be in case of adultery The Wife is as much bound to the Husband as the Husband to his Wife But there are few people if any that think themselves obliged to abide with their Ministers till death It is ordinary even with men professing godlinesse to forsake their Minister and that oftentimes upon worldly interest And there are few Ministers if any that think that they may in no case leave their people There are three cases in which we conceive all agree that a Minister may remove from his people if he cannot have his health where he is if he be denied competent maintenance and if the glory of God may be in an eminent manner advanced But we hope that it will not be said that a Husband may separate from his Wife in these cases 2. This Similitude sounds ill For it makes every Minister to be as a Husband to his Church and so by consequence the Head of his Church which complies too much with the Antichrist of Rome who cals himself the Husband and Head of the Church The Church hath no Husband but Christ 2 Cor. 11.2 3. This Similitude makes Christ to have as many Wives as there are particular Churches Our Brethren hold That every particular Congregation is the Body of Christ and the Spouse of Christ which if it were true Christ should have as many Bodies and Spouses as there are particular Churches which we conceive cannot be right For it is as absurd to say That one Head hath many Bodies and one Husband many Wives as to say That one Body hath many Heads and one Wife many Husbands But now we say That the whole Church of Christ throughout the world is but one That Christ properly hath but one Body and one Wife And that particular Churches are but members of this one Body and limbs and members of this one Spouse even as every particular Saint also is And that every Minister hath a relation to this Church-Catholick as a member thereof and seated therein and as one that by his Ordination hath power to act as a Minister wheresoever he is if called for the good of the whole And that he is placed in a particular Church for the actual and constant exercise of his Ministry as in a part of Christs Body or a limb or member of his Spouse And that they by their choice make him their Minister their Pastor their Shepherd but not a Minister a Pastor a Shepherd So much in answer to the Arguments against the second Proposition and also concerning Election of Ministers CHAP. X. Concerning Ordination of Ministers wherein the first Assertion about Ordination is proved Namely That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. THat the method which we propounded in the beginning may not be forgotten we crave leave to put the Reader in minde of what we have already said That the Call of men to the Ministry is either immediate or mediate That the mediate Call is by Election and Ordination And having finished what we thought fit to say about Election we are now to proceed to speak about Ordination concerning which we shall offer this general Proposition That the work of Ordination that is to say An outward solemn constituting and setting apart of persons to the Office of the Ministry by prayer fasting and imposition of hands of the Presbytery is an Ordinance of Christ. For the more methodical proving of this general Proposition we shall undertake to make good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial Call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with prayer fasting and imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. For the understanding of this Assertion we must distinguish between the Substance Essence and Formal Act of Ordination and the Rite used in Ordination The Essential Act of Ordination is the constituting or appointing of a man to be a Minister or the sending of him with Power and Authority to preach the Gospel The Rite is Imposition of hands In this Assertion we are not at all to speak of Imposition of hands but onely of Ordination as it relates to the setting of a man apart to the Office of the Ministry Now that this is an Ordinance of Christ we shall not need to spend much time in proving it 1. Because we have already made this out in our third Proposition where we asserted That no man ought to take upon him the Office of a Minister but he that is lawfully called and ordained thereunto 2. Because the proving of the other three will prove this also 3. Because we have not so many enemies to contest withall in this as in the other three Propositions For though there be many that hold Ordination to be onely an adjunct of the Ministerial Call and not an Essential ingredient which is against the second Proposition And many that deny Imposition of hands against the third And many that say that a Church without Officers may ordain against the fourth Proposition And though there be very many that hold That an unordained man may preach as a gifted Brother yet there are but few in comparison who say That a man may enter into the Office of the Ministry and preach authoritatively as a Pastor without Ordination Our Brethren in New-England in their Plat-form of Church-Government say That Church-officers are not only to be chosen by the Church but also to be ordained by Imposition of hands and prayer c. And in their Answer to the thirty two Questions they say expresly That Ordination is necessary by Divine Institution The very Socinians themselves though great enemies to the Ministerial Calling and no wonder when such great enemies to Christ himself
Digby recorded in a letter of his full of excellent learning writen to Sr. Kenelme Digby This Gentleman was a great adorer of Monarchical Episcopacy and yet observe what he saith He that would reduce the Church now to the form of government in the most Primitive timeâ— should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a form not chosen for 〈◊〉 best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forc'd the Church from what it wish't to what it might not suffering that dignity and state Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it to manifest it self to the world and which soon afterwards upon the least lucida intervalla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy of which way of government I am so well perswaded that I think it pitty it was not made betimes an Article of the Scottish Catechisme That Bishops are jure Divino By this passage it is easie to perceive the indiscreet zeal of this Gentleman towards Lordly and Monarchical Prelacy and yet we have here his free clear and full confession That in the first and best and purest times of the Church the Presbyterian government was practised and not the Episcopal which is the thing which we undertook to make out in this third Proposition Against all thâ—t hath been said in this Proposition it is objected That the Blessed St. Ignatius who lived in the first Century hath in his Epistles clearly and fully asserted Episcopal government as it is distinct from Presbyterial And that therefore there was no space of time wherein the Church ofChrist was governed by the common Councel of Preâ—byters without Bishops properly so called In answer to this we must intreat the Reader to take notice that in the Primitive times there were abundance of spurious and supposititious works put forth under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs which were none of theirs but fatherâ—d upon them ut ementitis titulis fidem authoritatemque erroribus suis â—onciliarent That by their counterfect titles they might gain belief and authority to their errors Such were the Epistle of Paul to Seneca and Seneca's to Paul The lawes and constitutions Apostolical The works of Dionysius Arâ—opagita and divers others The like fraud hath been used in Ignatius his works It is certain That the Epistle of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Ignatius and of Ignatius to the Blessed Viâ—gin and two other Epistles of Ignatius unto St. Iohn the Apostle are spurious and counterfeit And as for his other twelve Epistles five of them are by invincible arguments as we conceive proved by Vedelius to be written by à Pseudo-Ignatius Eusebius and Ierom make mention but of Seven And for those seven though with Scultetus Vedelius and Rivetus we do not renounce them as none of hiâ— yet sure we are they are so much adulterated and corrupted that no man can ground any solid assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius his works The Reverend Archbishop of Armagh saith That there are but six of these Epistles that are genuine and that even these six are miserably depraved and corrupted Rivet saith very judiciously That in these Epistles some things are defective some things added some things changed And therefore they cannot merit oisr belief but onely in those things in which thâ—y agree with the Apostolical writings Baronius indeed saith that all his Epistles are come to us integrae inâ—orruptae intire and uncorrupted But yet notwithstanding it seems forgetting what he had said he tells That when there is mention made in the Epistle to the Philadelphians of the marriages of Pâ—ter and Paul That the word Paul iâ— foysted in And he also tells us as Vedelius observes That the words Gratia and Amâ—â— with which Ignatius was wont to conclude his Epistles were left out incuria librariorum in all his Epistles except two And whereas it is said in the Epistle to the Philadelphians That not onely the bread was given but the cup also was distributed to all Bellarminâ— saith That the Greek Copâ—es are corrupt For our parts we will not trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject If he please he may read that what thâ— Archbishop of Armagh what â—ivet Vedelius and Cook in his Censura Patrum And what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles There is a learned Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the objectionâ— of the two last But this Doctor should do well to answer also to what the learned Archbishop of Armagh hâ—th written about these Epistles who proves at large That six of them are Nothae the other six Mixtae and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincâ—rae gâ—nuinae Who also tellâ— us out of Casaubâ—nâ— That amongst all the Ecclesiâ—stical monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence then in Ignatius his Epistles That Baronius in his first Tome almost in every page cites Ignaâ—ius to confirm his Popish traditions In the Second Tome Anno. 109. he confesseth and disputeth it at large That these Epistles are the very Tower of the Pontifician doctrine and that it stands upheld by them as by a pillar and he often saith That there was never any found who called the truth of these Epistles into question c. And therefore this Reverend Doctor ought not to be offended if we advise him to take heed how he complies with Baronius in justifying of Ignatius from all depravations and interpolations left out of overmuch love of Prelacy he be found an advancer of Popery We shall briefly offer three Reasons why we cannot build our judgment concerning the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Episcopacy upon Ignatius his Epistles Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theoâ—oret which are either not to be found in their Epistles or to be found altered and changed and not according as they are quoted This is Rivets argument and pursued at lâ—rge by the Archbishop to whom we refer the Reader From his overmuch extolling himself in his Epistle to the Trallians where he saith That he had attained such a measure of knowledge That he understood heavenly things The Orders of Angels The differences of Archangels and of the heavenly Host The differences between Powers and Dominations The distances of Thrones and Powers The magnificencies or magnitudeâ— of Aeâ—nes or Principalities The sublimity of the Spirit The excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims The Kingdom of the Lord and the incomparable divinity of the Lord God
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