to preach without a lawfull call The Apostles in the Synod of Ierusalem speak of certain men that went out from them and troubled the Gentiles with words subverting their souls They went out They were not sent out but they went out of theiâ— own accord this is spoken of them by way of reproof And then it followes they troubled you with words subverting your souls He that preacheth unsent is not a comforter but a troubler of the people of God not a builder but a subverter of souls There be many in our daies like Ahimaaz they will be running without either call or message and haply they may out-run Gods Cushi's we wish they meet with no worse successe then he in a spirituall sense to prove uselesse Messengers We argue from the practice of the Ministers of Christ If they have been as carefull to make proof of their mission as of their doctrine then is mission required in him thâ—t will Preach the Word But they have been thus carefull Therefore If any gifted man may preach without a Call why doth the Apostle so often make mention of his Call Rom. 1.1 Gal. 1.15 16. 1 Cor. 1.1 when the Disciples of Iohn murmured against Christ for baptizing Ioh. 3.27 28. Iohn answers A man can receive nothing unlesse it be given him from heaven ye your selves bear witnesse of me that I said I am not the Christ but that I am sent before him Here Christs undertaking to baptize is justified by his Mission When the chief Priests and the Scribes with the Elders asked Christ Luk. 20.2 Tell us by what authority doest thou these things or who gave thee this authority Christ makes answer by demanding another question The Baptisme of Iohn was it from heaven or of men Which teacheth us these two truths First That none ought to preach without being authorized and sent Secondly That this Call and Sending is not only from men but from heaven True it is such as is the Ministry such ought the Call to be if the Ministry extraordinary the Call extraordinary if the Ministry ordinary the Call must be ordinary but we reade of no Ministry allowed in Scripture without a Divine Call There is a threefold Call to the Ministry mentioned Gal. 1.1 The first is of or from man only when any is designed to this work errante clave that hath no inward qualification or Call from God This though it authorizeth to outward administrations in the Church yet will not satisfie the conscience of him that so administers The second is by man as the instrument when any is designed to the Ministry by those whom God hath intrusted with the work of Ordination according to the rule of the Word these God cals by man Act. 20. This is the Call of ordinary Pastors The third by Jesus Christ immediatly and by this it is that Paul proves himself an Apostle an extraordinary Minister Lastly we argue thus That work may not be performed by any which cannot by him be performed in faith But preaching by a Brother Gifted but not Called nor Ordained cannot be done in faith Therefore A Gifted unordained brother may not Preach Concerning the major we shall say little the Apostles general Canon Rom. 14. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin doth evidently demonstrate it The truth of the minor appears in that there is no warrant in Scripture which is the ground of faith for such a practice For first there is no 1. Precept that such should preach if there were a precept it was then a necessary duty that every gifted person ought to perform it was a sin if any gifted person should not preach though he could preach but one Sermon only in all his life Where is the necessity laid upon them as the Apostle speaks of himself that they preach the Gospel 2. There is no Precept that any should hear them or obey them in the Lord or maintain them these duties of the people areappropriated to those that are Preachers by Office Mal. 2. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge and the people should enquire the Law at their lips Luk. 10.16 The hearing of them is the hearing of Christ and the refusing of them is the refusing of Christ It is not so said of any that preach without mission but contrarily there is a strict charge not to hearken to such Ier. 17.14 and a complaint of them that heap to themselves teachers 2 Tim. 4. Thus the Apostle Heb. 13 7 17. Remember them obey them submit your selves to them that have the rule over you and have spoken to you the Word of God So 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour c. Nothing of this is spoken of gifted Brethren yet if they may lawfully preach all this may they challenge and all that hear and plead for them are bound in conscience to yield because all this is due for the works sake 1 Thess. 5.12 Secondly There is no promise in Scripture made unto any that Preach and are not thereunto lawfully Ordained We say no promise either of 1. Assistance A Minister must depend upon God for his inabling unto the great work which he undertakes for all our sufficiency is of God and we have no sufficiency of our selves so much as to think any thing 2 Cor. 3.5 and God hath promised this assistance only to those whom himself sends Thus Exo. 4.10 Go saith the Lord to Moses and I will be with thy mouth Isa. 6.7 8 God touches the mouth of Isaiah and sends him Ioh. 20.21 22. Christ sends and gives the holy Ghost to the Apostles and to them is the promise Ioh. 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth Doth God do thus to those that run and are not sent O let the great errours broached of old by Origen and others that presumed the the undertaking of this work without a Call and in our daies by Anabaptists Socinians and others that despise a regular lawfull Call bear witness Surely we may say that if any amongst us Preach without a Call and yet Preach the truth they have not their assistance by vertue of any promise from the hand of God 2. Protection Thus God hath promised to those whom he sends on his message Thus the Lord encourageth Ieremiah ch 1.18 19. I have made thee this day a defenced City and an iron pillar and a brazen wall against this whole Land and they shall fight against thee but shall not prevail against thee for I am with thee saith the Lord to deliver thee Thus also Act. 18.9 the Lord incourageth Paul Be not afraid but speak and hold not thy peace for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee So also Act. 23.11 Be of good chear Paul c. And as we finde that God hath promised protection to those he sends so also the Ministers of God have incouraged themselves to a faithfull discharge of their duty against
is Christ onely that institutes the office and that furnisheth and fitteth men with graces and abilities for the discharge of so great an employment with willing and ready mindes to give up themselves to so holy services It is Christ onely that sets the Laws and Rules according to which they must act All that man doth in Ordination is in a subordinate way as an Instrument under Christ to give the being of an outward Call and to constitute him an Officer according to the method prescribed by Christ in his Word All that we say that we may be rightly understood may be reduced to these three heads 1. That it is the will of Christ who is King of his Church that men should be outwardly called to the Ministry as well as inwardly fitted And that without this Call none can warrantably do any act that belongs to an Officer as not having the specificall form of an Officer and as Mr Hooker saith Whatsoever is done without this is void and of none effect 2. That this outward Call consisteth in Election and Ordination 3. That Ordination is that which gives the Being of this outward Call that makes a man a Minister That in this sense gives him his Ministeriall Office Election doth only design the person but it is Ordination that bestoweth the Office upon him Arg. 5. We might argue in the fifth place from the persons appointed by Christ to ordain and from the great solemnity used in Ordination and from the blame that is laid upon those that ordain unworthy persons unto the Ministerial Office 1. The persons that are said in Scripture to ordain are as we shall prove hereafter either Apostles Prophets Evangelists or Presbyters And this is a sufficient Argument to us to prove that it is Ordination that constitutes the Minister and not Election For it is not likely that Christ would appoint his Apostles and his Apostles appoint extraordinary and ordinary Elders to convey onely an adjunct of the Ministerial Call and leave the great work of conveying the Office-power unto the common people 2. The solemnity used in Ordination is Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands We do not reade the like solemnity expressed in Scripture in Election and therefore it is against reason to think That Election should constitute the Minister and give him all his Essentials and Ordination only give him a ceremonial complement 3. The blame laid upon Timothy if he should lay hands suddenly upon any Minister is very great For hereby he makes himself impure and becomes accessory to the sins of those whom he makes Ministers Now we may thus reason Where the greatest blame lies for unworthy men coming into the Ministry surely there must lie the greatest power of admitting men into the Ministry else the blame is not just But the greatest blame is laid upon the Ministers Ergo. If the constituting cause of the Ministerial Call did lie in Election The Minisâ—ers may well excuse themselves and say We do but ordain we do but give an adjunct the people did the main act they gave the Essence and therefore the blame belongs to them and not to us See more of this in Separation examined by Mr Firmin pag. 58. Much more might be added for the proof of this Assertion but we shall purposely wave what else might be said least we should be overtedious CHAP. XII Wherein the third Assertion is proved viz. That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands THE third Assertion is That Ordination of Ministers ought to be by prayer fasting and Imposition of hands Here are two things to be made out 1. That Ordination ought to be with prayer and fasting Prayer and fasting though they be not necessary to the very being and essence of Ordination yet they are very necessary to the better being of it as divine conduits to convey the blessing of God upon it First For Prayer It is observable in the old Testament that Aaron and his sons did not enter upon their Ministry till they had been sanctified by the holy oyl and sprinkling of bloud and had been seven whole dayes before the Lord abiding at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Levit. 8.33 In the New Testament our blessed Saviour when he chose his Apostles is said to have spent all the night before in prayer Luk. 6.12 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to our remembrance we do not reade that our Saviour spent a whole night in prayer but upon this occasion which sheweth of how great consequence it is that those who preach the Gospel should be sent out with solemn and earnest prayer And this is the more observable if we compare the 9th of Matth. 36 37 38. with Luke 6.12 13 14. When Christ saw the misery of the people in the want of faithful Ministers that they were as Sheep not having a Shepherd he directs them to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into his harvest and then as seemeth by Luke's relation he put that in practice which he commended to do for themselves he spent the whole night in prayer and then Mat. 10.1 2. he chose and sent out his twelve Apostles to preach the Gospel Secondly For joyning of Fasting with prayer we may consider That it was not ordinary and common prayer or some few and occasional Petitions that were put up but as in câ—ses of greatest concernment when some great evil was to be averted or some singular mercy to be obtained fasting was joyned with prayer In the Acts where you have the records of the Primitive Churches practice as the best president for succeeding ages it is recorded that persons designed to the work of the Ministry were set apart and commended to God for his assistance support and successe by fasting and prayer Acts 13.1 2 3. It is said of the Prophets and Teachers of Antioch As they ministred to the Lord and fasted the holy Ghost said Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them And then when by a new fast as it may seem purposely called upon that occasion they had sought God on that behalf they fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them and sent them away to preach And as it was thus done to Paul and Barnabas so when they had travelled farre in preaching the Gospel and had found that happy successe on their Ministry that many among the Gentiles were converted because themselves could not make their constant abode in anyone place the greater service of the Church calling them forth to other places that there might be a foundation of a fixed Ministry for the building up of those that were already converted and for the bringing in of others yet uncalled They ordained them Elders in every Church which should stay with them and watch over them in the Lord Act. 14.23 And these they sent out with the like solemnity in seeking God by fasting and prayer and
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
had no sooner done but the Wolves presently devoured the Sheep Even so when once not only the Persons of Ministers are disgraced and their Maintenance taken away but when the very Calling and Office of the Ministry is denied and libertie given to every man that will to preach then will the Wolves devour the Sheep of Christ then will Errors Heresies Blasphemie Atheism and Poperie come in like a mighty floud then will ruine and desolation come like an armed man upon that Nation where this is practized without remedie And thâ—refore to testifie our Love unto the Truth that the Sun of Righteousness may not go down in our daies that the Truth of the Gospel may live when we are dead and the Word of Christ may run and be glorified And to prevent the growth of Atheism which every where abounds and threatneth the overthrow and ruine of the way that God hath called holy and to reduce poor misled souls which ignorantly conceive they sinne not in traducing the Ministers of the Gospel as if they were men onely seeking their own things and not t he things of the Lord Iesus and contemning the Ministry as if it were not Gods Institution but an humane in vention introduced to uphold some carnal interest We the Members of the Provincial Assembly convened by Authority of Parliament conceive it our Duty to clear unto our respective Congregations the Ministry and Ministers such as serve the Lord in uprightness from these unkinde and ungrounded aspersions Beseeching the Lord the Father of Spirits to convince and settle the Iudgments of them that through misguidance may doubt and to give Repentance unto such as carnally oppose themselves that they may come to the acknowledgement of the Truth and so recover themselves out of the snare of Satan wherein they suffer themselves to be taken captive at his pleasure The Summe of all we shall say about the Gospel-Ministry we shall comprehend in this following Scheme The Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry containing 1. The Justification of the Ministry wherein are handled these particulars 1. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church of God by Divine Institution 2. That this Office is perpetually necessary in the Church of God 3. That no man ought to take upon him the Office or do the work of the Ministry except he be lawfully called and ordained thereunto 4. The several waies of calling men to the Ministry where is spoken of 1. An immediate call and therein laid down 1. The characters of an immediate call 2. A resolution whether we are now to expect an immediate call 3. Whether the call of the first Reformers of Religion from Popery was an immediate call 2. A mediate call consisting in Election concerning which are handled two things 1. That the Election of a Minister doth not by Divine Right belong wholly and solely to the major part of every Congregation 2. That the whole Essence of the Ministerial call doth not consist in Election without Ordination Ordination concering which are made good these four Assertions 1. That Ordination of Ministers is an Ordinance of Christ. 2. That the Essence of the Ministerial call consisteth in Ordination 3. That Ordination ought to be with praier fasting and Imposition of hands 4. That Ordination ought to be by the Presbytery 2. The Justification c. B B. 2. The Justification of our Ministry which is comprised under two Propositions 1. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful valid which is proved 1. By Arguments drawn from the principles of our Adversaries wherein by the way is proved 1. That the Chuâ—ches of England are true Churches 2. And the two great Objections against them taken from their Parochiall and Nationall constitution are sufficiently answered 2. By Arguments taken from our own Principles and the nature of the thing And here our Ministry is largely vindicated from the foul aspersion of Antichristianism which is cast upon it because conveyed unto us as is said by Popish and Antichristian Bishops 2. That the Call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers do receive since the abolition of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid in which is shewed 1. That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture 2. That the instances of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels do not prove the contrary And because Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is highly accused of Novelty as having not the least shadow of Antiquity and thereby many Candidates of the Ministry are discouraged from this way of entring into the Ministry and Ordination so received is accounted null We have therefore added an Appendix wherein is briefly held forth the Judgement and Practise of Antiquity both in reference to Ordination and the whole matter of Episcopacy Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry The First Part. CONTAINING A Justification of The Gospel-Ministry in generall The necessity of Ordination thereunto by Imposition of Hands The Unlawfulnesse of private mens assuming to themselves either the Office or Work of the Ministry without a lawful Call and Ordination LONDON Printed by Abraham Miller 1654. Ius Divinum Ministerij Evangelici OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE Gospel-Ministry CHAPTER I. Containing the first Proposition PROP. I. That the Office of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is necessary in the Church by Divine Institution FOr the understanding of this Proposition we shall briefly shew 1. What is meant by Ministry 2. What by Office 1. What is meant by Ministry The word Ministry is a term of large comprehension Sometimes it is taken for a Civil Service in the Common-wealth Sometimes for a spirituall worship of Jesus Christ Sometimes for the Office of a Deacon But in this Proposition it is taken for an Ecclesiasticall Function appointed by Christ in his Church for the Preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments This is called a Ministry in opposition to Lordly Domination and Principality For Ministers are not appointed to be Lords over Gods Heritage but to be examples to the flock The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your Servant The Office of the Ministry is not a Dominion but a Service and a labourious Service and therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that labour at the oar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word taken from those that do in pulvere desudare But yet it is a most glorious and honourable Service because a Service to God his Church and the Souls of People and therefore called The Ministry of Christ The Stewardship of the Mysteries
that their Persons are better but that their Ministry is higher Therefore let us all take heed of despising the Ministry lest the Lord smite the Earth with a Curse For he that despiseth despiseth not man but God So much shall suffice for the First Proposition CHAP. II. Containing the Second Proposition PROVING That the Office of the Ministry is perpetually necessary THat it is so will appear by these ensuing Arguments If all the former Arguments which evince the necessity of this Office by divine Institution be of a moral nature then are they of perpetuall Obligation by Divine appointment For the Commands of the Morall Law given to the Jews oblige all and Precepts of the Gospel given both to Jews and Gentiles in the Apostles times do equally oblige all beleevers in these daies as they did beleevers in the daies of the Apostles to whom they were at first immediatly prescribed because those precepts are of a moral nature Whatsoever duties God râ—quired in the Churches of Galatia Philippi Câ—losse c. all these Scriptures do as really binde now aâ— they did then binde them for Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning The same evils which were sins then are sinnes now the duties enjoyned then are duties now and shall binde all ages until the appearance of Christ This Rule is so exact and perpetuall that they and they alone which walk according to this Rule Peace shall be on them and upon the Israel of God But all the former Arguments which prove the Office of the Ministry to be necessary are of a morall nature Not given to Apostles as Apostles but to them as Stewards and Ministers of God and so appertain to all Ministers of Christ. And in every Argument there are those proofs produced out of Scripture which were not given only to Apostles but to ordinary Pastors as may appear by a particular review of all the fore-going Arguments If the Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution till the day of Jesus Christ then the Office of the Ministry to dispense those Ordinances is perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution The reason of this consequence appears thus If the Lord had only appointed Ordinances to continue and had appointed none to administer them then the Ordinanres would fail because that which is every mans work is usually and effectually no mans work and though God hath immediatly appointed these Ordinances yet now he doth not immediatly administer them but the administration of these Ordinances he hath committed unto others not to Angels for their glory is so great and our infirmities so many that we could not endure their visible ministration but this Ministry he hath committed unto men to some and not to all as hath been proved in the former Proposition and these are called the Ministers of Christ Stewards or dispensers of the Mysteries of God and are workers together with God and such have this Treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power might be of God The Ministry of the Word and the dispensing of the Sacraments we finde conjoyned in the Institution of Christ to whom Christ gave Commission to preach to them he also gave Commission and Command to Baptize and he promiseth to concur with them in their administration But that any others have any such Command to enjoyn them or Commission to enable them or any such promise of Gods concurrence with them if they undertake these Administrations or that any suâ—â— practise was in the daies of the Apostles we reade not in the New Testament and because the whole nature and vertue of the Sacraments of the New Testament depends solely and wholly upon the Authority of God being the Institutour of them therefore we may neither adde to nor detract from his Institution lest the Lord adde to the Plagues written in this Book and take away our part out of the Book of Life So much for the consequence of the Major Now to the Minor which is this The Ordinances be perpetually necessary in the Church by Divine Institution which will be evident if we consider the publike Ordinances of the Word of Baptism and of the Supper of the Lord. 1. For the Word It is evident that the Word preached shall continue in all ages from Mat. 28.20 where Jesus Christ commands his Apostles and Ministers to teach all Nations and promiseth to be with them in that work to the end of the world as also from Eph. 4.11 12 13. Christ gave Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come to the unity of the Faith 2. For Baptism we desire these particulars to be considered 1. That Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament appointed by God himself Iohn was sent to baptize he did not go about this work till he was sent and because Baptism was first adminisâ—red by him therefore he is so frequently called Iohn the Baptist not that Baptism was his invention but that the Administration thereof was first committed unto him the Institution it self was of God God was the Authour Iohn only the Minister therefore the Baptism of Iohn is denied to be of men and affirmed to be of Heaven And when the Pharisees rejected his Baptism it is asserted they rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him And the Lord Jesus Christ to declare the Baptism of Iohn to be of God even he that came to fullfill all righteousnesse came from Galilee to Iordan to be baptized of Iohn 2. It is evident that Baptism was appointed not only to the Jew but to the Gentile it was indeed first administred to the Jew by Iohn and by the Disciples of our Lord and after Christs Resurrection by the Apostles to those primitive Converts but when the partition Wall was broken down Baptism of Repentance was preached unto the Gentiles not only in Iudea but in Samaria also they that beleeved were baptized both men and women and so Cornelius the Roman Centurion and so the Jaylor and all his at Philippi and Corinth Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanus 3. This Ordinance of Baptism instituted both for Jew and Gentile was not to continue only in the Infancy of the Church as the Photinians and Socinians affirm but is perpetuall as may appear by these Arguments 1. The promise and precept of Christ wherein the Lord commands the Word to be preached unto all and all Nations to be baptized and Christ promiseth that he will be with his Officers in the Administration of his Ordinances to the end of the world If to the end of the world there shall be Disciples and if all Disciples must be baptized then Baptism must continue to the end of the world 2. The ends for which Baptism was ordained are not
as Apostles but only as Beleevers and so ordained it for all Beleevers who did not onely Eat the Bread but Drink the Cup of the Lord. The Precepts and Promises which are of a middle nature betwixt the two former not so general as to concern all believers nor yet so strait and peculiar as to be limited to the Apostles as Go Teach and Baptize c. These Precepts and Promises thereunto annexed were given to Apostles not as Apostles nor to them as believers but given to them as Ministers and Stewards of the mysteries of God For the Apostles did not administer the Sacraments as Apostles for to baptize was no peculiar work of the Apostles as such Now Christs promise in Matth. 28.20 is to Apostles teaching and baptizing But these are acts ministerial which therefore appertain to all Ministers called of God in his Name to perform these duties If any shall object and say This promise was not to their persons but to their doctrine which shall continue to the end of the world Answ. It is true the doctrine of the Apostles shall continue to the end of the world it is such a light as all the breath of men or rage of hell can never blow out and one jot or tittle of this word shall not fail But this promise is not onely to their doctrine but to their persons invested in such an Office not onely to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely to their doctrine taught but to their teaching and baptizing This promise cannot be confined to the persons of Apostles for where are the Prophets and Evangelists And do the Apostles live for ever But this promise reacheth all ages I am with you alwayes to the end of the world which strongly argueth That the Office of the Ministry shall continue till the second coming of Christ and though many have endeavoured to suppresse both Ministry and Magistracy yet they shall continue till Christ deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father Then and not till then will he put down all Rule and all Authority and Power Then there shall be no Temple there shall be no need of the Sunne neither of the Moon to shine therein for the glory of the Lord shall lighten it and the Lamb is the light thereof When Christ sendeth forth his Apostles about a ministerial imploiment he promiseth to be with them unto the worlds end which doth not cannot intimate either that the Apostles themselves should live so long or that this his promise should be made good no longer then they lived But that as the imploiment it self then given them in charge for the main substance and subject matter of it so that promise of his gracious presence and efficacious assistance should be continued as to them in particular for their times so to others that should in those administrations succeed them from time to time in the severall ages ensuing to the worlds end Obj. But may not these words I will be alwaies with you unto the worlds end be limited to the particular age or dispensation during the lives of the Apostles Sol. To prevent this Objection the holy Ghost useth three expressions to declare the perpetuity of this promise 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this promise shall continue so long as the world continues 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this promise shall have no end till the worlds end 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all dayes and successions of times not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only with you during your dayes but all the dayes of the Gospel till time shall be no more All which words clearly hold out a continuance of the power and function of the Ministry and Christs special spiritual presence with the persons assigned to this Office in the exercise thereof not for some particular age as the lives of the Apostles but in all successive times to the end of the world which is evident from the terms in this promise used being duely considered with collation of other places of Scripture in the New Testament especially wherein elswhere they are found And first the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken sometime in the notion of an adjunct and sometime of a subject Sometime in the notion of an adjunct of time or continuance and here most properly and in its native sense according to its original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grammarians generally agree it is used for Eternity either for the continuance of eternity before time which is commonly called aeternitas à parte ante and so it may well be taken Acts 15.18 where it is said That Gods works were known to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from eternity or for the continuance of eternity when time shall be no more commonly called aeternitas à parte post as it is manifestly taken where the Messias is said to abide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto eternity or for ever whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for never as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for life eternal that shall never have an end this is correspondent to that Psal. 60.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from eternity unto eternity thou art God that is without either beginning or ending But from hence with some restriction it is used for some long continuance of time as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in Hebrew is And more peculiarly applied to the world it importeth the perpetual continuance of the thing spoken of untill the world have a period of its present being Thus it seems to be taken where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both joyned together for as one of the Jewish Doctors well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rock of flint Deut. 8.15 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The flint of Rock Deut. 32.13 are in effect the same So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perpetual continuance of this world Ephes. 2.2 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of this present perpetual continuance are in effect and substance one and the same Yea where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not expressed as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.70 Acts 3.21 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 9.32 is from the worlds beginning So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.33 compared with 1 Cor. 15.24 25. and Luke 1.55 is unto the worlds end Hence also that distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this world Mark 4.19 Luke 16.8 20.34 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world that now is 2 Tim. 4.10 Tit. 2.12 and as some copies also have it Matth. 12.32 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The present world Gal. 1.4 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world that shall be Matth. 12.32 Heb. 6.5 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is coming or that is to come Mark 10.30
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
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
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
gives ground for stating this to be the reason of its practise 2. This was not only practised at Ierusalem but at Antioch and not only among and by the Jews but elsewhere and by others It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they ordained Elders in every Church Object 4. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles in a miraculous way and it did conferre the holy Ghost and gift of Tongues c. and therefore as the miracle is ceased so ought the ceremony to cease As in extream Unction c. Answ. 1. The giving of the holy Ghost and conferring of extraordinary gifts was one but not the only use which the Apostles made of Imposition of hands And as praier is still to be continued in the Church though it did sometimes conveigh extraordinary blessings Act. 8.15 16 17. Act. 9.40 Iam. 5.14 15. because it had other ordinary ends and uses So is Imposition of hands to be continued upon the same account Answ. 2. We never read of the holy Ghost given by Imposition of hands in Ordination That gift which Timothy received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no other then the gift of Office Neglect not the gift i. e. Neglect not the office If Timothy had had power by laying on of hands to have conferred due qualifications for the Ministry why doth Paul require him to lay hands suddenly on no man and why must he be so carefull to see them first fit in case his laying on of hands would fit them There needed not such triall of their gifts in case a touch of his hands could have gifted them This proves clearly That there was no extraordinary gift conferred in Ordination 3. There is a double Imposition of hands The one miraculous and extraordinary which consisted in healing the sick and conveighing the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit And this was temporary and is now ceased as extream Unction is The other is ordinary Such is the Imposition of hands in Ordination and therefore to be perpetually continued in the Church We reade not only that Paul who was an extraordinary Officer but that Presbyters who were ordinary Officers imposed hands upon Timothy And the example of the Primitive Churches were intentionally left upon record for this end that they might be binding patterns in like cases in after ages And this seems to be one singular ground and reason of the Writing of the Acts of the Apostles That the Apostles acts in the Primitive Churches might be our Rules in succeeding ages Obj. 5. To what purpose then is Imposition of hands used if the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost be not conveighed thereby Answ. 1. We use it because the Apostles did use it in an ordinary way without giving the holy Ghost as well as in an extraordinary way because there is the same standing reason and because the Apostle bids us 1 Tim. 5.22 Sufficit pro universis rationibus Deus vult 2. We use it not as an operative Ceremony but as a Moral sign so declare publickly who the party is that is solemnly set apart to the work of the Ministry 3. We use it as it is a Rite and Ceremony by which the Office is conveyed 1 Tim. 4.14 4. We use it as it is a consecrating dedicating and offering up of the party unto the Lord and his service as in the Old Testament hands were laid on for this end 5. We use it as it is an Authoritative and Ministerial Benediction of the party ordained as it was used by Iacob in his fatherly blessing of Ephraim and Manasses and by Christ in his blessing and praying over the little children Mat. 19.15 Mark 10.16 And thus we have made out the Divine Right of Imposition of hands and our Exhortation to our people is That they would not stumble at that way of Ordination which hath so much of God in it nor be easily led aside into by-pathes by the seducers of this Age. And that they would not rest contented with Ministerial Examination though that ought to be and that in all exactnesse nor with Ministerial approbation nor yet with Authoritative Mission without this Apostolicall Ordinance of Imposition of hands CHAP. XIII Wherein the fourth Assertion about Ordination is proved viz. That ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie OUr last Assertion is concerning the persons who are by Divine Authority appointed to ordain and it is this That Ordinâ—tion â—f Ministers ought to be by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery For this we have an expresse Text 1 Tim. 4.14 which that we may the better understand we will give a brief Answer to some few Questions Quâ—st 1. What is meant by the word Presbytery Answ. By Presbytery is not meant the Office of a Presbyter but Collegium fâ—oâ— confessâ—â— Presbyterâ—rum a Colledge or company of Presbyters For as Mr Rutherford well observes The Office hath no hands And the word is used but in two other places Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 In both which it must necessarily be taken for the Officers and not for the Office For the Office of Elders could not meet together as in that placâ— of Luke nor could the Oâ—â—â—ce of Elders beaâ— witnesse to Paul as in that place of the Acts. Besides as Mr Hooker well saith Not onely reason doth reject but the very ear would not relish such an unsutable sense Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Office How harsh and unpleasant is such an expression Here Calvin is brought in by some who are in other things his utter enemies to countenance this interpretation And Mr Gillespy reckoneth it as one of Calvins few for they were but very few mistakes But looking upon his Commentary upon the place we finde these words Presbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sentiunt meo judicio They who think Presbytery in this place to be a Noun collective put for a Colledge of Presbyters do think rightly in my judgement And therefore though he thinks the other interpretation non male quadrare which was his errour yet he is not to be reckoned amongst those that deny that by Presbytery is meant an Assembly of Presbyters Quest. 2. Whether this Presbytery was a Presbytery of Bishops or of single Presbyters Answ. To this we shall give this short reply That in Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one as we shall have occasion hereafter to prove And therfore we answer That it was an Assembly of Bishops that is of Presbyters Quest. 3. Whether this Presbytery were Congregational or Classical Answ. Mr Hooker of New-England confesseth That he never yet heard any Argument that did evince either by dint of undeniable evidence And for our parts we do not conceive it necessary as to our purpose to disquiet the Reader with
That there is no such Office as the Office of the Ministry or That this Office is quite lost or That every man that thinks himself gifted may intrude into the Ministerial Office These opinions we judge destructive to Christian Religion and an in-let to Popery and all errour to all disorder and confusion and at last to all profaneness and Atheism There are four things that justly deserve to be abhorred by all good Christians 1. An Vniversal Toleration of all Religions 2. An Vniversal Admittance of all men to the Lords Supper 3. Vniversal Grace that is that Christ died equally for all and that all men have free-will to be saved 4. Vniversal Allowance of all that suppose themselves gifted to preach without Ordination This last is that which we have abundantly confuted and which we conceive to be unsufferable in a well-ordered Christian Commonwealth And our prayer to God is That our respective Congregations may be established in the truth against this and all other errours And that they may take heed least being led away with the errour of the wicked they should fall from their own stedfastness And for the preventing of this mischief That they may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ to him be glory both now and for ever Amen The End of the first Part. The Second Part CONTAINING A Iustification of the present Ministers of England Both such who were ordained during the prevalency of Episcopacy from the foul aspersion of Antichristianisme and those who have been ordained since its abolition from the unjust imputation of Novelty That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable to the Scripture pattern TOGETHER With an Appendix wherein the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity about the whole matter of Episcopacy and especially about the Ordination of Ministers is briefly discussed 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Thess. 5.12 13. And we beseech you Brethren to know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you 13. And to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Cor 9.2 If I be not an Apostle unto others yet doubtlesse I am to you for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. Revel 11.3 And I will give power unto my two Witnesses and they shall prophesie a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes clothed in sackcloth Acts 20.28 Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops LONDON Printed by I. L. 1654. The Justification of our Ministry is comprised undertwo Propositions 1. That The Call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our present Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawfull and valid which is proved 1. By Arguments drawn from the principles of our Adversaries wherein by the way Is proved 1. That the Churches of England are true Churches 2. The two great Objections against them taken from their Parochial and National constitution are sufficiently answered 2. By Arguments taken from our own Principles and the nature of the thing And here our Ministry is largely vindicated from that foul aspersion of Antichristianisme which is cast upon it because conveyed unto us as is said by Popish and Antichristian Bishops 2. That The Call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers do receive since the abolition of Episcopacy is lawful and valid In which is shewed 1. That a Bishop and Presbyter are all one in Scripture 2. That the instances of Timothy and Titus and the Asian Angels do not prove the contrary And because Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is highly accused of Novelty as having not the least shadow of Antiquity and thereby many Candidates of the Ministry are discouraged from this way of entring into the Ministry and Ordination so received is accounted null We have therefore added an Appendix wherein is briefly held forth the Judgment and Practice of Antiquity both in reference to Ordination and the whole matter of Episcopacy The Preface HAving sufficiently proved That there is such an Office as the Office of a Minister and that this Office is perpetual And that no man ought to assume this Office unless he be lawfully called thereunto And that this Call is by Ordination with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery It remains now that we should speak something concerning the Justification of our own Ministry For what are we the better that there is a Ministery by Divine institution if our Ministry be of man and not of God What are we the better that there is a Ministry from Christ if our Ministry be from Antichrist It will be said to us as it was to Christ Physitian cure thy self Trouble not the world with a general assertion of the necessity of a Ministry unlesse you will bring it down to particulars and make out unto us the divine right of your Ministry This then is the work that is now before us which we shall the rather undertake First for our peoples sake that they may with all chearfulnesse and conscienciousnesse submit unto our Ministry when it shall appear plainly unto them that we are Ministers sent by God Thaâ— we are over them in the Lord That we are the Lords Stewards and the Lords Ambassadors And that they may with confidence expect a blessing from God upon our Ministry as not doubting but that God will make use of his own Instruments and that a Minister sent by God will be blessed by God whâ—reas they that hear men not lawfully called have no promise of a blessing but rather a threatning that they shall not profit by such Preachers as we have formerly proved Hence it is that such hearers run from one errour to 〈…〉 as a just punishment of God upon them 〈◊〉 to the saying of the Apostle 2 Tim. 4.3 〈…〉 will come when they will not endure sound 〈…〉 after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves 〈…〉 having itching ears They shall make 〈◊〉 upon Teacher they shall heap up teachers And these teachers shall be sent by themselves and not by God and after their own lusts not after the Divine rule For so saith the Text They shall after their own lusts heap to themselves c. And the reason why they do this is not because they have more judicious eares then other people or because they are more holy but because they have â—â—ching eares But mark the curse that attends all such vers 4. They shall turn away their eares from the truth and shall be turned unto fables Secondly for our Brethren's sake in the Ministery For there is nothing that will more inable a Minister to dischargâ— his Office with courage faithfulnesse and chearfulnesse maugre all opposition of unreasonable men
the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
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
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
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
truth and not custome and custome without Truth is a mouldy error And as Sir Francis Bacon saith Antiquity without truth is a Cypher without a figure And if we should seem in what we have asserted about the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter to differ from some of the ancient Fathers yet we have the same plea for our selves which Austin had who being prest with the authority of Cyprian answers His writings I hold not Canonical but examinâ— them by the Canonical writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave Sure we are That humane authority can but produce an humane faith and when all is done it is the Scripture a perfect reconditory of all credenda petenda faciâ—nda to which we must flee as the onely rock upon which we can rightly build our faith according to that excellent saying of Austin Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus ibi quaramus Ecclesiam ibi disâ—â—tiamus causam nostram Proposition 2. THat there were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very Infancy of it and were generally received as Apostolical traditions which yet notwithstanding are not pleaded for by our Episcopal men but many of them confessedly acknowledged to be errors and mistakes Witnesse first The Millenary opinion which Iustine Martyr saith That he and all in all parts Orthodox Christians held it and calls them Christians onely in name with many other circumstances of aggravation that denied it Lactantius after a long discourse about it concludes Haec est doctrina sanctorum Prophetarum quam Christiani sâ—quimur hac est Christiana sapientia The like is affirmed by Tertullian Irenaeus and divers others as is well known Secondly we will instance in the necessity of childrens partaking of the Eucharist which was taught by Austin and others as an Apostolical tradition Rightly saith Austin do the Punick Christians call Baptisme by no other names but health and safety nor the Sacraments of Christs body by no other then life Vnde nisi ex antiquâ ut existimo Apostolica tradiâ—ionâ— qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participâtionem Dominica mensae non solâ—m non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam aeâ—ernam posse quenquam hominum pervenire In which words the absolute necessity of Baptism and of the Eucharist for all sorts of people is made an Apostolical tradition Lastly to name no more St. Basil in one Chapter names 4. customes as Apostolical Traditions to wit signing men with the sign of the Crosse praying towards the East anointing with oyl standing up at prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide which though some of our Episcopal Divines may perhaps approve of as lawful customes yet we conceive none of them will believe all of them especially the two last to be Apostolical traditions From hence we gather That there were many doctrines and practises pretended to be grounded upon Apostolical institution which yet notwithstanding are rather to be accounted Apocryphal then Apostolical Proposition 3. THat after Christs ascension into heaven The Church of God for a certain space of time was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops This appears 1. From the words of Ierom forementioned Idem Ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Et antequam Diaboli instinctu studiâ— in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo ego Cephae communi consilio Prâ—sbyterorum Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vâ—ro unusquisque eos c. And afterwards Paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam c. Here note That for a certain time the Church was governed by the Assembly of Presbyterâ— alone and that Bishops came in postea and paulatim It is not said Simulaâ— Corinthi dictum fuit Ego sum Pauli c. Sed postquam id dictum But Ierom seems to say That this was done in the Apostles dayes because then people began to say I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas These words cannot be so understood For then Ierom should contradict himself For the whole design of the place is to prove Bishops to be of humane constitution Besides Ierom doth not say That it was said so among the Corinthians But among the people diceretur iâ— populis He alludes indeed to the Apostles words and speaks in the Apostolical phrase but not at all of the Apostles times The meaning is as David Blondel well observes Postquam alii passim Corinthiorum more dementati iâ— partes diâ—cerpti sunt After that others were intoxicated after the manner of the Corinthians and divided into several factions then was one set over the rest as their Bishop And that this must needs be so appears demonstratively by this argument Because that to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one Ierom cites places out of the Philippians out of Titus and out of the second and third Epistle of Iohn which were all of them written after the Epistles to the Corinthians But St. Ierom in his 85. Epistle ad Evagrium calls the superiority of a Bishop over Presbyters an Apostolical tradition A learned writer for the Prelatical government triumphs over Dr. Blondel and Walâ— Messalinus because they passe over this objection unanswered and he seems to say that it never can be answered But if he had been pleased to have cast an eye upon the Vindication of the answer to the humble Remonstrance written by Smectymnuus he should have found this answer Ierom in that Epistle sharpens his reproof against some Deacons that would equalize thewselves to Presbyters c. To make this repoof the stronger he saith Presbyteris id est Episcopis and a little after he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum atque Episcopum and carries this proof by Paul by Peter and by Iohn the longest surviver of the Apostles Then adds Quod autem postea unâ—s electus qui caeteris praeponâ—retur in sâ—hismatis remedium factum The reason why afterwards one was elected and set over the rest was the cure of Schisme It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolical tradition when Ierom having mentioned Iohn the last of the Apostles saith iâ— waâ— posteâ— that one was set over the rest Yet should we grant it an Apostolical tradition in Ieroms sence it would be no prejudice to our cause seeing with him Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical customâ— are the same witnesse that instance of the observation of Lent which he writing ad Marcâ—llum saith is Apostolica traditio yet writing adversus Luciferianos faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo Whereby it fully appears That Ierom by Apostolical tradition meant not an Apostolical institution but an
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