In the vocation and calling of ecclesiastical persons, a prince ought to carry himself _ad modum procurantis speciem, non designantis individuum_.

Which shall be more plainly and particularly understood in these propositions which follow.

_Propos._ 1. Princes may and ought to provide and take care that men of those ecclesiastical orders, and those only which are inst.i.tuted in the New Testament by divine authority, have vocation and office in the church.

Now, beside the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, which were not ordained to be ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, there are but two ecclesiastical orders or degrees inst.i.tuted by Christ in the New Testament,(993) viz., elders and deacons. _Excellenter canones duos tantum sacros ordines appellari censet, diaconatus scilicet et presbyteratus, quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse, et de his solis preceptum apostoli habemus_, saith the Master of sentences.(994) As for the order and decree of bishops superior to that of elders, that there is no divine ordinance nor inst.i.tution for it, it is not only holden by Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerhard, Balduine, the Magdeburgians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius, Pola.n.u.s, Junius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets, Perkins, Cartwright, the Professors of Leyden, and the far greatest part of writers in reformed churches, but also by Jerome, who, upon t.i.t. i., and in his epistle to Evagrius, speaketh so plainly, that the Archbishop of Spalato is driven to say,(995) _Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum, neque ei in his dictis a.s.sentimus_; also by Ambrose on 1 Tim. iii.; Augustine in his Book of Questions out of both Testaments, quest. 101; Chrysostom on 1 Tim. iii.; Isidore, dist. 21, cap. 1; the Canon Law, dist.

93, cap. 24, and dist. 95, cap. 5; Lombard., lib. 4, dist. 24. And after him, by many schoolmen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura, Richardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato, lib. 2, cap. 4, num. 25. Gerhard(996) citeth for the same judgment, Anselmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oec.u.menius, the Council of Basil, Arelatensis, J. Parisiensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Ca.s.sander, all which authors have grounded that which they say upon Scripture; for beside that Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt bishops and elders, it showeth also that they are one and the same order. For in Ephesus and Crete, they who were made elders were likewise made bishops, Acts xx. 17, 28; t.i.t. i. 5, 7. And the Apostle, Phil. i. 1, divideth the whole ministry in the church of Philippi into two orders, bishops and deacons. Moreover, 1 Tim. iii., he giveth order only for bishops and deacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest, that beside those two orders of elders and deacons, there is no other ecclesiastical order which hath any divine inst.i.tution, or necessary use in the church; and princes should do well to apply their power and authority to the extirpation and rooting out of popes, cardinals, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, abbots, deans, vice-deans, priors, archdeacons, subdeacons, abbots, chancellors, chantors, subchantors, exorcists, monks, eremites, acoloths, and all the rabble of popish orders, which undo the church, and work more mischief in the earth than can be either soon seen or shortly told.

But, contrariwise, princes ought to establish and maintain in the church, elders and deacons, according to the apostolical inst.i.tution. Now elders are either such as labour in the word and doctrine, or else such as are appointed for discipline only. They who labour in the word and doctrine are either such as do only teach, and are ordained for conserving, in schools and seminaries of learning, the purity of Christian doctrine, and the true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the contrary heresies and errors, whom the Apostle calleth doctors or teachers; or else they are such as do not only teach, but also have a more particular charge to watch over the flock, to seek that which is lost, to bring home that which wandereth, to heal that which is diseased, to bind up that which is broken, to visit every family, to warn every person, to rebuke, to comfort, &c., whom the Apostle called sometimes pastors, and sometimes bishops or overseers. The other sort of elders are ordained only for discipline and church government, and for a.s.sisting of the pastors in ruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults.

That this sort of elders is inst.i.tuted by the Apostle, it is put out of doubt, not alone by Calvin, Beza, and the divines of Geneva, but also by Chemnitius (_Exam._ part 2, p. 218), Gerhard (_Loc. Theol._, tom. 6, p.

363, 364), Zanchius (in 4 _Proec._, col. 727), Martyr (in 1 Cor. xii. 28), Bullinger (in 1 Tim. v. 17), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, contr. 5, lib. 1, cap. 2), Pola.n.u.s (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 11), Pareus (in Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28), Cartwright (on 1 Tim. v. 17), the Professors of Leyden (_Syn. Pur. Theol._ disp. 42, thes. 20), and many more of our divines, who teach that the Apostle, 1 Tim. v. 17, directly implieth that there were some elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the word and doctrine; and those elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. xii. 8; and by _governments_, 1 Cor. xii. 28, where the Apostle saith not, _helps in governments_, as our new English translation corruptly readeth, but _helps, governments_, &c. plainly putting governments for a different order from helps or deacons. Of these elders(997) speaketh Ambrose,(998) as Dr Fulk also understandeth him,(999) showing that with all nations eldership is honourable; wherefore the synagogue also, and afterwards the church, hath had some elders of the congregation, without whose council and advice nothing was done in the church; and that he knew not by what negligence this had grown out of use, except it had been by the sluggishness of the teachers, or rather their pride, whilst they seemed to themselves to be something, and so did arrogate the doing of all by themselves.

Deacons were inst.i.tuted by the apostles(1000) for collecting, receiving, keeping, and distributing ecclesiastical goods, which were given and dedicated for the maintenance of ministers, churches, schools, and for the help and relief of the poor, the stranger, the sick, and the weak; also for furnishing such things as are necessary to the ministration of the sacrament.(1001) Besides which employments, the Scripture hath a.s.signed neither preaching, nor baptising, nor any other ecclesiastical function to ordinary deacons.

_Propos._ 2. Princes, in their dominions, ought to procure and effect, that there be never wanting men qualified and fit for those ecclesiastical functions and charges which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only be called, chosen, and set apart for the same.

There are two things contained in this proposition. 1. That princes ought to procure that the church never want men qualified and gifted for the work and service of the holy ministry, for which end and purpose they ought to provide and maintain schools and colleges, entrusted and committed to the rule and oversight of orthodox, learned, G.o.dly, faithful, and diligent masters, that so qualified and able men may be still furnished and sent to take care that the ministers of the church neither want due reverence, 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. xiii. 17, nor sufficient maintenance, 1 Cor. ix., that so men be not scarred from the service of the ministry, but rather encouraged unto the same, 2 Chron. x.x.xi. 4.

2. That princes ought also to take order and course, that well-qualified men, and no others, be advanced and called to bear charge and office in the church, for which purpose they should cause not one disdainful prelate, but a whole presbytery or company of elders, to take trial of him who is to be taken into the number of preaching elders, and to examine well the piety of his life, the verity of his doctrine, and his fitness to teach. And further, that due trial may be continually had of the growth or decay of the graces and utterance of every pastor, it is the part of princes to enjoin the visitation of particular churches, and the keeping of other presbyterial meetings, likewise the a.s.sembling of provincial, and national synods, for putting order to such things as have not been helped in the particular presbyteries. And as for the other sort of elders, together with deacons, we judge the ancient order of this church to have been most convenient for providing of well-qualified men for those functions and offices; for the eighth head of the First Book of Discipline, touching the election of elders and deacons, ordaineth that only men of best knowledge and cleanest life be nominate to be in election, and that their names be publicly read to the whole church by the minister, giving them advertis.e.m.e.nt that from among them must be chosen elders and deacons, that if any of these nominate be noted with public infamy, he ought to be repelled; and that if any man know others of better qualities within the church than those that be nominate, they shall be put in election, that the church may have the choice.

If these courses, whereof we have spoken, be followed by Christian princes, they shall, by the blessing of G.o.d, procure that the church shall be served with able and fit ministers; but though thus they may _procurare speciem_, yet they may not _designare individuum_, which now I am to demonstrate.

_Propos._ 3. Nevertheless,(1002) princes may not design nor appoint such or such particular men to the charge of such or such particular churches, or to the exercise of such or such ecclesiastical functions, but ought to provide that such an order and form be kept in the election and ordination of the ministers of the church, as is warranted by the example of the apostles and primitive church.

The vocation of a minister in the church is either inward or outward. The inward calling which one must have in finding himself, by the grace of G.o.d, made both able and willing to serve G.o.d and his church faithfully in the holy ministry, lieth not open to the view of men, and is only manifest to him from whom nothing can be hid; the outward calling is made up of election and ordination: that signified in Scripture by _cheirotonia_ this by _cheirothesia_ concerning which things we say with Zanchius,(1003) _Magistratus_, &c.: "It pertaineth to a Christian magistrate and prince to see for ministers unto his churches. But how? Not out of his own arbitrement, but as G.o.d's word teacheth; therefore let the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul be read, how ministers were elected and ordained, and let them follow that form."

The right of election pertaineth to the whole church, which as it is maintained by foreign divines who write of the controversies with Papists, and as it was the order which this church prescribed in the Books of Discipline, so it is commended unto us by the example of the apostles, and of the churches planted by them. Joseph and Matthias were chosen and offered to Christ by the whole church, being about 120 persons, Acts i.

15, 23; the apostles required the whole church and mult.i.tude of disciples, to choose out from among them seven men to be deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3; the Holy Ghost said to the whole church at Antioch, being a.s.sembled together to minister unto the Lord, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul," Acts xiii. 1, 2; the whole church chose Judas and Silas to be sent to Antioch, Acts xv.

22; the brethren who travelled in the church's affairs were chosen by the church, and are called the church's messengers, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; such men only were ordained elders by Paul and Barnabas who were chosen and approved by the whole church, their suffrages being signified by the lifting up of their hands, Acts xiv. 23. Albeit, Chrysostom and other ecclesiastical writers use the word _cheirotonia_ for ordination and imposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sense, they speak it figuratively and synecdochically, as Junius showeth.(1004) For these two, election by most voices, and ordination by laying on of hands, were joined together, did cohere, as an antecedent and a consequent, whence the use obtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, _per modum intellectus_, collecting the antecedent from the consequent, and the consequent from the antecedent. Nevertheless, according to the proper and native signification of the word, it noteth the signifying of a suffrage or election by the lifting up of the hand, for _cheimotonehin_ is no other thing nor _chehiras tehinein_ or _hanatehineiu_ to lift or hold up the hands in sign of a suffrage; and so Chrysostom himself useth the word when he speaketh properly, for he saith that the senate of Rome took upon him _cheirosoiehin theohne_; that is (as D. Potter turneth his words(1005)), to make G.o.ds by most voices.

Bellarmine(1006) reckoneth out three significations of the word _cheirosoiehin_: 1. To choose by suffrages; 2. Simply to choose which way soever it be; 3. To ordain by imposition of hands. Junius answereth him,(1007) that the first is the proper signification; the second is metaphorical; the third synecdochical.

Our English translators, 2 Cor. i. 19, have followed the metaphorical signification, and in this place, Acts xiv. 23, the synecdochical. But what had they to do either with a metaphor or a synecdoche when the text may bear the proper sense? Now that Luke, in this place, useth the word in the proper sense, and not in the synecdochical, Gerhard(1008) proveth from the words which he subjoineth, to signify the ordaining of those elders by the laying on of hands; for he saith that they prayed, and fasted, and commended them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of hands upon them, as may be learned from Acts vi. 6, "When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them;" Acts xiii. 3, "When they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them;" so Acts viii. 15, 17, prayer and laying on of hands went together. Wherefore by _cheirotouhesagtes_ Luke pointeth at the election of those elders by voices, being, in the following words, to make mention of their ordination by imposition of hands.

Cartwright(1009) hath for the same point other weighty reasons: "It is absurd (saith he) to imagine that the Holy Ghost, by Luke, speaking with the tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a word in that signification in which it was never used before his time by any writer, holy or profane, for how could he then be understood, if using the note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification whereunto they used it, unless therefore his purpose was to write that which none could read? It must needs be that as he wrote so he meant the election by voices. And if Demosthenes, for knowledge in the tongue, would have been ashamed to have noted the laying down of hands by a word that signifieth the lifting of them up, they do the Holy Ghost (which taught Demosthenes to speak) great injury in using this impropriety and strangeness of speech unto himself, which is yet more absurd, considering that there were both proper words to utter the laying on of hands by, and the same also was used in the translation of the LXX, which Luke, for the Gentiles' sake, did, as it may seem (where he conveniently could), most follow. And yet it is most of all absurd that Luke, which straiteneth himself to keep the words of the seventy interpreters, when as he could have otherwise uttered things in better terms than they did, should here forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most proper and natural to signify the same. The Greek Scholiast also, and the Greek Ignatius, do plainly refer this word to the choice of the church by voices."

But it is objected, that Luke saith not of the whole church, but only of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices elders in every city.

_Ans._ But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages? Election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in taking of a suffrage, had place only among a mult.i.tude a.s.sembled together.

Wherefore we say with Junius,(1010) that t? ?e???t??e?? is both a common and a particular action whereby a man chooseth, by his own suffrage in particular, and likewise with others in common, so that in one and the same action we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.

From that which hath been said, it plainly appeareth that the election of ministers, according to the apostolic inst.i.tution, pertaineth to the whole body of that church where they are to serve; and that this was the apostolic and primitive practice, it is acknowledged even by some of the Papists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gaspar Sanctius, all upon Acts xiv. 23. The canon law(1011) itself commendeth this form and saith, _Electio clericorum est pet.i.tio plebis_. And was he not a popish archbishop(1012) who condescended that the city of Magedeburg should have _jus vocandi ac const.i.tuendi ecclesiae ministros_? Neither would the city accept of peace without this condition.

That in the ancient church, for a long time, the election of ministers remained in the power of the whole church or congregation, it is evident from Cypr., lib. 1, epist. 4, 68; August., epist. 106; Leo I., epist. 95; Socrat., lib. 4, cap. 30; and lib. 6, cap. 2; Possidon, _in Vita Aug._, cap. 4. The testimonies and examples themselves, for brevity's cause, I omit. As for the thirteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea, which forbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to minister at the altar, we say with Osiander,(1013) that this canon cannot be approved, except only in this respect, that howbeit the people's election and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholly and solely to be committed to them, excluding the judgment and voice of the clergy. And that this is all which the Council meant, we judge with Calvin(1014) and Gerhard.(1015) That this is the true interpretation of the canon, Junius(1016) proveth both by the words ?????? ?p?t??pe??, _permittere turbis_, for ?p?t??pe?? signifieth to quit and leave the whole matter to the fidelity and will of others; and, likewise, by the common end and purpose of that Council which was to repress certain faults of the people which had prevailed through custom. Indeed, if the whole matter were altogether left to the people, contentions and confusions might be feared; but whilst we plead for the election of the people, we add,

1. Let the clergy of the adjacent bounds, in their presbyterial a.s.sembly, try and judge who are fit for the ministry; thereafter let a certain number of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded to the vacant church, that a free election may be made of some one of that number, providing always that if the church or congregation have any real reason for refusing the persons nominate and offered unto them, and for choosing of others, their lawful desires be herein yielded unto.

2. Even when it comes to the election,(1017) yet _populus non solus judicat, sed proeunte et moderante actionem clero et presbyterio_, let the elders of the congregation, together with some of the clergy concurring with them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the people.

Would to G.o.d that these things were observed by all who desire the worthy office of a pastor; for neither the patron's presentation, nor the clergy's nomination, examination and recommendation, nor the bishop's laying on of hands and giving of inst.i.tution, nor all these put together, can make up to a man's calling to be a pastor to such or such a particular flock, without their own free election. Even, as in those places where princes are elected, the election gives them _jus ad rem_ (as they speak), without which the inauguration can never give them _jus in re_; so a man hath, from his election, power to be a pastor so far as concerneth _jus ad rem_, and ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his pastoral office, which ordination ought to be given unto him only who is elected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and thrust upon a people, without their own election, it is well said by Zanchius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his ministry, nor yet be profitable to the people, because they will not willingly hear him, nor submit themselves unto him.

Furthermore, because patronages and presentation to benefices do often prejudge the free and lawful election which G.o.d's word craveth, therefore the Second Book of Discipline, chap. 12, albeit it permitteth and alloweth the ancient patrons of prebendaries, and such benefices as have not _curam animarum_, to reserve their patronages, and to dispone thereupon to benefices that have _curam animarum_, may have no place in this light of reformation. Not that we think a man presented to a benefice that hath _curam animarum_ cannot be lawfully elected, but because of the often and ordinary abuse of this unnecessary custom, we could wish it abolished by princes.

It followeth to speak of ordination, wherein, with Calvin,(1018) Junius,(1019) Gersom Burer,(1020) and other learned men, we distinguish betwixt the act of it and the rite of it. The act of ordination standeth in the mission to the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function, with power and authority to perform the same; and thus are pastors ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the word, minister the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline among them. For "How shall they preach except they be sent?" Rom. x. 15. Unto which mission or ordination neither prayer nor imposition of hands, nor any other of the church's rites, is essential and necessary, as the Archbishop of Spalato showeth,(1021) who placeth the essential act of ordination in _missione potestativa_, or a simple deputation and application of a minister to his ministerial function with power to perform it. This may be done, saith he, by word alone, without any other ceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus given should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of the church, then his ordination is _quasi solennis missio in possessionem honoris illius, ex decreto_, saith Junius.(1022) Chemnitius noteth,(1023) that when Christ, after he had chosen his twelve apostles, ordained them to preach the gospel, to cast out devils, and to heal diseases, we read of no ceremony used in this ordination, but only that Christ gave them power to preach, to heal, and to cast out devils, and so sent them away to the work. And howsoever the church hath for order and decency used some rite in ordination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of necessity, or as appointed by Christ or his apostles. When our writers prove against Papists that order is no sacrament, this is one of their arguments, that there is no rite inst.i.tuted in the New Testament to be used in the giving of orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in ordination not only by the apostles, who had power to give extraordinarily the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but likewise by the presbytery or company of elders; and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, by the laying on of Paul's hands. 2 Tim. i. 16, as the mean, but also with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, as the rite and sign of his ordination; therefore the church, in the after ages, hath still kept and used the same rite in ordination, which rite shall, with our leave, be yet retained in the church, providing, 1. It be not used with opinion of necessity; for that the church hath full liberty either to use any other decent rite (not being determined by the word to any one), or else to use no rite at all, beside a public declaration that the person there presented is called and appointed to serve the church in the pastoral office, together with exhortation to the said person, and the commending of him to the grace of G.o.d, the church not being tied by the word to use any rite at all in the giving of ordination. 2. That it be not used as a sacred significant ceremony to represent and signify either the delivering to the person ordained authority to preach and to minister the sacraments, or the consecration and manc.i.p.ation of him to the holy ministry; or, lastly, G.o.d's bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him, together with his powerful protection and gracious preservation in the performing of the works of his calling, but only as a moral sign, solemnly to a.s.sign and point out the person ordained; which, also, was one of the ends and uses whereunto this rite of laying on of hands was applied by the apostles themselves, as Chemnitius showeth.(1024) And so Joshua was designed and known to the people of Israel as the man appointed to be the successor of Moses, by that very sign, that Moses laid his hands on him, Deut. x.x.xiv.

As a sacred significant ceremony we may not use it, 1. Because it hath been proved,(1025) that men may never, at their pleasure, ascribe to any rite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mystery of faith or duty of piety. The apostles, indeed, by laying on of their hands, did signify their giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost; but, now, as the miracle, so the mystery hath ceased, and the church not having such power to make the signification answer to the sign, if now a sacred or mystical signification be placed in the rite, it is but an empty and void sign, and rather minical than mystical. 2. All such sacred rites as have been notoriously abused to superst.i.tion, if they have no necessary use, ought to be abolished, as we have also proven;(1026) therefore, if imposition of hands in ordination be accounted and used as a sacred rite, and as having a sacred signification (the use of it not being necessary), it becometh unlawful, by reason of the bygone and present superst.i.tious abuse of the same in Popery.

Now the right and power of giving ordination to the ministers of the church belongeth primarily and wholly to Christ, who communicateth the same with his bride the church. Both the bridegroom for his part, and the bride for her part, have delivered this power of ordination to the presbytery _jure_ DIVINO. Afterward the presbytery conferred, _jure humano_, this power upon them, who were specially called bishops, whence the tyrannical usurpation of bishops hath in process followed, claiming the proper right and ordinary position of that which at first they had only by free concession; and thus that great divine, Franciscus Junius,(1027) deriveth the power of ordination. All which, that it may be plain unto us, let us observe four several pa.s.sages.

1. The whole church(1028) hath the power of ordination communicated to her from Christ, to whom it wholly pertaineth; for, 1. It is most certain (and among our writers agreed upon) that, to the whole church collectively taken, Christ hath delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power to use the same, promising that whosoever the church bindeth on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whosoever she looseth on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, Matt. xviii. 18; therefore he hath also delivered unto the whole church power to call and ordain ministers for using the keys, otherwise the promise might be made void, because the ministers which she now hath may fail. 2. Christ hath appointed a certain and an ordinary way how the church may provide herself of ministers, and so may have ever in herself the means of grace and comfort sufficient to herself, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, "All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos," &c. But if she had not the power of ordaining ministers unto herself when she needeth, then might she sometimes be deprived of such an ordinary and certain way of providing herself. 3. When the ministry of the church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power to exercise that act of ordination which is necessary to the making of a minister. Dr Fulk(1029) showeth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that aedesius and Frumentius, being but private men, by preaching of the gospel, converted a great nation of the Indians; and that the nation of the Iberians being converted by a captive woman, the king and the queen became teachers of the gospel to the people. And might not, then, the church in those places both elect and ordain ministers?

2. The church hath, by divine inst.i.tution, delivered the power of ordaining ordinary ministers to the presbytery, whereof the church consisteth _repraesentative_. And so saith Pareus,(1030) that the power of mission (which is _ordination_) belongeth to the presbytery. _Scriptura_, saith Balduine,(1031) _ordinationem tribuit toti presbyterio, non seorsim episcopo_. With whom say the Professors of Leyden in like manner.(1032) Now when the divines of Germany and Belgia speak of a presbytery, they understand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of elders which we speak of, viz., some who labour in the word and doctrine, whom the Apostle calleth bishops, and others who labour only in discipline. The apostolic and primitive times knew neither parishional nor diocesan churches. Christians lived then in cities only, not in villages, because of the persecution; and it is to be remembered, that in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other cities inhabited by Christians, there were more pastors than one. The Apostle called unto him the elders (not elder) of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17; he writeth to the bishops (not bishop) of the church at Philippi, Phil. i. 1; he biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among them, 2 Thess. v. 12. Now that number of pastors or bishops which was in one city, did in common govern all the churches within the city, and there was not any one pastor who, by himself, governed a certain part of the city particularly a.s.signed to his charge, to which purpose the Apostle exhorteth the elders of the church at Ephesus, to take heed to all the flock, pa?t? t? p????, Acts xx. 28. And to the same purpose it is said by Jerome,(1033) that before schemes and divisions were, by the devil's instigation, made in religion, _communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur_.

This number of preaching elders in one city, together with those elders which, in the same city, laboured for discipline only, made up that company which the Apostle,(1034) 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a presbytery, and which gave ordination to the ministers of the church. To the whole presbytery, made up of those two sorts of elders, belonged the act of ordination, which is mission, howbeit the right,(1035) which was imposition of hands, belonged to those elders alone which laboured in the word and doctrine. And so we are to understand that which the Apostle there saith of the presbytery's laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for Dr Downame's(1036) two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from Bellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our argument, we thank Dr Forbesse(1037) for confuting them. _Quod autem_, &c.: "But whereas (saith he) some have expounded the presbytery in this place to be a company of bishops, except by bishops thou would understand presbyteries, it is a violent interpretation, and an insolent meaning, and whereas others have understood the degree itself of eldership, this cannot stand, for the degree hath not hands, but hands are men's." Wherefore the Doctor himself, by the presbytery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth (as we do) _confessus presbyterorum_.

But since we cannot find, in the apostles' times, any other presbytery or a.s.sembly of elders beside that which hath been spoken of, how cometh it, nay, some say that the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches, did appoint two sorts of presbyterial a.s.semblies, one (which here we call sessions) wherein the pastor of the parish, together with those elders within the same, whom the Apostle calleth governments and presidents, put order to the government of that congregation, another (which here we presbyteries) wherein the pastors of sundry churches, lying near together, do a.s.semble themselves? Which difficulty yet more increaseth, if it be objected that neither of these two doth in all points answer or conform itself unto that primitive form of presbytery whereof we speak. _Ans._ The division and multiplication of parishes, and the appointment of particular pastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flocks, together with the plantation of churches in villages as well as in cities, hath made it impossible for us to be served with that only one form of presbytery which was const.i.tute in the apostles' times. But this difference of the times being (as it ought to be) admitted, for an inevitable cause of the differences of the former, both those two forms of presbyterial meetings appointed by the church of Scotland do not only necessarily result from that one apostolic form, but likewise (the actions of them both being laid together) do accomplish all these ordinary ecclesiastical functions which were by it performed.

And first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the pastors and those elders who a.s.sist them in the governing of their flocks must, as well conjunctly as severally, as well publicly as privately, govern, admonish, rebuke, censure, &c. As for presbyteries, because the parishes being divided in most places, there is but one pastor in a parish, except there should be a meeting of a number of pastors out of divers parishes, neither could trial be well had of the growth or decay of the gifts, graces, and utterance of every pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the First book of Discipline appointed the ministers of adjacent churches to meet together at convenient times, in towns and public places, for the exercise of prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that form commended to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. For yet could the churches be governed by the common council and advice of presbyteries, which being necessary by apostolic inst.i.tution, and being the foundation and ground of our presbyteries, it maketh them necessary too.

3. After the golden age of the apostles was spent and away, presbyteries, finding themselves disturbed with emulations, contentions, and factions, for unity's sake, chose one of their number to preside among them, and to confer, in name of the rest, the rite and sign of initiation (which was imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained ministers. This honour did the presbyters yield to him who was specially and peculiarly called bishop, _jure humano_; yet the act of ordination they still reserved in their own power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remain in the power of the whole presbytery, the conferring of the outward sign or rite by one in the name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seen in Beza, Didoclavius, and Gersom Bucer. Neither is there any more meant by Jerome(1038) when he saith, "What doth a bishop (ordination being excepted) which a presbyter may not do?" For, 1. He speaketh not of the act of ordination, which remained in the power of the presbytery, but of the outward sign or rite, which synedochically he calls ordination.(1039) 2. He speaketh only of the custom of that time, and not of any divine inst.i.tution; for that the imposition of hands pertained to the bishop alone, not by divine inst.i.tution, but only by ecclesiastical custom, Junius proveth(1040) out of Tertullian, Jerome and Ambrose.

4. Afterward bishops began to appropriate to themselves that power which pertained unto them _jure devoluto_, as if it had been their own _jure proprio_. Yet so that some vestiges of the ancient order have still remained; for both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words, most plain to this purpose, are cited by Dr Forbesse(1041)) testify that, in their time, in Alexandria and all Egypt, the presbyters gave ordination when a bishop was not present. The canon law(1042) ordaineth that, in giving of ordination, presbyters lay on their hands, together with the bishop's hands. And it is holden by many Papists (of whom Dr Forbesse(1043) allegeth some for the same point) that any simple presbyter (whom they call a priest) may, with the Pope's commandment or concession, give valid ordination. That which maketh them grant so much is, because they dare not deny that presbyters have the power of ordination _jure divino_. Yet saith Panormita.n.u.s,(1044) _Olim presbytery in communi regebant ecclesiam, et ordinabant sacradotes._ The Doctor himself holdeth, that one simple presbyter howsoever having, by virtue of his presbyterial order, power to give ordination, _quod ad actum primum sive apt.i.tudinem_, yet _quo ad exercitium_ cannot validly give ordination without a commission from the bishop or from the presbytery, if either there be no bishop, or else he be a heretic or wolf. But I would learn why may not the presbytery validly ordain, either by themselves, or by any one presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there is a bishop (and he no heretic) who consenteth not thereto; for the Doctor(1045) acknowledgeth, that not only _quo ad apt.i.tudinem_, but even _quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem_, the same power pertaineth to the presbytery _collegialiter_, which he allegeth (but proveth not) that the apostles gave to bishops _personaliter_.

Now from all these things princes may learn how to reform their own and the prelates' usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of ecclesiastical persons unto conformity with the apostolic and primitive pattern, from which if they go on either to enjoin or to permit a departing, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrors.

DIGRESSION II.

OF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.

Touching the convocation of synods, we resolve with the Professors of Leyden,(1046) that if a prince do so much as tolerate the order and regiment of the church to be public, his consent and authority should be craved, and he may also design the time, place, and other circ.u.mstances; but much more,(1047) if he be a Christian and orthodox prince, should his consent, authority, help, protection, and safeguard be sought and granted.

And that according to the example, both of G.o.dly kings in the Old Testament, and of Christian emperors and kings in the New.(1048) Chiefly, then, and justly(1049) the magistrate may and ought to urge and require synods, when they of the ecclesiastical order cease from doing their duty.

_Veruntamen si contra_,(1050) &c. "Nevertheless (say they), if, contrariwise, the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor of the church and of true religion, or cease to do his duty; that is, to wit, in a manifest danger of the church, the church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to herself, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the church, as may be seen, Acts xv."

But that this be not thought a tenet of anti-episcopal writers alone, let us hear what is said by one of our greatest opposites:(1051) _Neque defendimus ita_, &c.: "Neither do we so defend that the right of convocating councils pertaineth to princes, as that the ecclesiastical prelates may no way either a.s.semble themselves together by mutual consent, or be convocated by the authority of the metropolitan, primate, or patriarch. For the apostles did celebrate councils without any convocation of princes. So many councils that were celebrate before the first Nicea, were, without all doubt, gathered together by the means alone of ecclesiastical persons; for to whom directly the church is fully committed, they ought to bear the care of the church. Yet princes in some respect indirectly, for help and aid, chiefly then when the prelates neglect to convocate councils, or are dest.i.tute of power for doing of the same, of duty may, and use to convocate them." Where we see his judgment to be, that the power of convocating councils pertaineth directly to ecclesiastical persons, and to princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aid to the convocation of the same, especially when churchmen either will not or cannot a.s.semble themselves together. His reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgment are two, and those strong ones.

1. The apostolical councils, Acts vi. 2; iv. 16, and so many as were a.s.sembled before the first council of Nice, were not convocated by princes, but by ecclesiastical persons without the leave of princes; therefore, in the like cases, the church ought to use the like liberty, that is, when there is need of synods, either for preventing or reforming some corruptions in the doctrine or policy of the church; and for avoiding such inconveniences as may impede the course of the gospel (princes in the meantime being hostile opposites to the truth of G.o.d and to the purity of religion), then to convocate the same without their authority and leave.

2. The church is fully committed (and that directly) to the ministers whom Christ hath set to rule over the same; therefore they ought to take care and to provide for all her necessities as those who must give account, and be answerable to G.o.d for any hurt which she receiveth in things spiritual or ecclesiastical, for which (when they might) they did not provide a remedy, which being so, it followeth, that when princes will neither convocate synods, nor consent to the convocating of them, yet if the convocating of a synod be a necessary mean for healing of the church's hurt, and ecclesiastical persons be able (through the happy occasion of a fit opportunity) synodically to a.s.semble themselves, in that case they ought by themselves to come together, unless one would say that princes alone, and not pastors, must give account to G.o.d how it hath gone with the church in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical.

If it be objected that our divines maintain against Papists, that the right and power of convocating synods pertaineth to princes: _Ans._, And so say I; but for making the purpose more plain I add three directions: 1.

In ordinary cases, and when princes are not enemies to the truth and purity of the gospel, ecclesiastical persons should not do well to a.s.semble themselves together in a synod, except they be convocate with the authority or consent of princes. Yet, as Junius showeth,(1052) in extraordinary cases, and when the magistrate will not concur nor join with the church, the church may well a.s.semble and come together beside his knowledge, and without his consent, for that extraordinary evils must have extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiastical persons may convocate councils simply, and by a spiritual power and jurisdiction; but to convocate them by a temporal and coactive power, pertaineth to princes only.

"Ecclesiastical power (saith the Archbishop of Spalato(1053)) may appoint and convocate councils; but yet the ecclesiastical power itself cannot, with any effect or working, compel bishops, especially if the bishops of another province, or kingdom, or patriarchship, be to be convocated. For because the church can work by her censures, and deprive them who refuse of her communion, if they come not, yet they shall not therefore come to the council if they contemn the censure; therefore that no man may be able to resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive authority, which can constrain them who gainstand, both with banishments and bodily punishments, and compel the bishops, not only of one province, but also of the whole kingdom or empire, to convene." 3. In the main and substantial respects, the convocations of councils pertaineth to the ministers of the church, that is, as councils are ecclesiastical meetings, for putting order to ecclesiastical matters, they ought to be a.s.sembled by the spiritual power of the ministers, whose part it is to espy and note all the misorders and abuses in the church, which must be righted; but because councils are such meetings as must have a certain place designed for them in the dominions and territories of princes, needing further, for their safe a.s.sembling, a certification of their princely protection; and, finally, it being expedient for the better success of councils, that Christian princes be present therein, either personal or by their commissioners, that they may understand the councils, conclusions, and decrees, and a.s.senting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their regal and royal authority, because of these circ.u.mstances it is, that the consent and authority of Christian princes is, and ought to be, sought and expected for the a.s.sembling of synods.

As for the right of presidency and moderation, we distinguish, with Junius,(1054) two sorts of it, both which have place in councils, viz., the moderation of the ecclesiastical action, and the moderation of the human order; and with him we say, that in councils, the whole ecclesiastical action ought to be moderated by such a president as is elected for the purpose; even as Hosius, bishop of Corduba, was chosen to preside in the first council of Nice: which office agreeth not with princes; for in the point of propounding rightly the state of questions and things to be handled, and of containing the disputation in good order, _certe praesidere debet persona ecclesiastica, in sacris literis erudita_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(1055) The presiding and moderating in the human order, that is, by a coactive power to compa.s.s the turbulent, to avoid all confusion and contention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding and free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to princes, and so did Constantine preside in the same council of Nice.