Treatise of Miscellaneous Questions, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
That the primitive Apostolicall pattern holdeth forth unto us for our imitation, a Presbyterie. i. e. an Assembly of Elders, having power of Ordination, with laying on of hands.
THis I gather from 1. Tim: 4. 14. neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesie, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie, I have already evinced from this Text, the necessity of Ordination. Let us now see, whether it doth not also shew us the right hands, unto which Christ hath committed this power. It is a Text most miserably darkened and obscured by controversall Glosses, put upon it by Popish and Prelaticall writers: Some would have foreign here to bee a company of Bishops, who were both Elders, and more then Elders as they hold. This Interpretation had so little probability of reason to strengthen it, that it was abandoned by some of the ablest friends of Episcopacy; Camero: praelect: in Mat: 18. 17. Dr. Forbesse Irenic: lib. 2. cap: 11. pag: 161. And why should wee understand by Presbyterie, a company of Bishops, when it is yeelded even by writers of that side, that in these Cities where the Apostles planted the Gospel, there was Collegium Presbyterorum, a Colledge or company of Presbyters. So Mr. Thorndike, of the government of Churches, cap. 3. The author of the History of Episcopacy, part: 2. pag: 28. &c. Both of them in this following Hooker. It was also acknowledged by them, that this Colledge of Presbyters did together with the Apostles lay on hands in Ordination, thereby contributing their blessing and assisting with their prayers, Whence (as was alledged) came the custome of the Presbyters, their laying on of hands in the Ordination, together with the Bishop, conc: Carthag: 4. can: 3. so that even themselves say as much as may make us understand by foreign in this Text, Concessus Presbyterorum as Camero cals it. The footsteps of Ordination by Presbyteries might be seen, not onelyonly in that Canon of Carthage, but in the Canon law it self, which appointeth the same thing, Dist: 23. cap: 8. Both Ambrose in Ephes: 4. and Augustine in quaest: ex utroque Test▪ 4. 101. bear witnesse that Presbyters did ordaine in Egypt, when a Bishop was not present, Dr. Forbesse Irenie: lib: 2. pag. 177. citeth out of Panormitan, Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam & ordinabant sacerdotes.
There is another Glosse which the Erastians (who love not the name of Presbytery, with any power at all jure divino) are glad to take hold off. 'Tis that which Bilson, Stutlivius and other Episcopall writers made use of, distrusting (as it should seeme) that other Interpretation last mentioned: And they had it from Bellarmine, and some Popish expositors. See Gorranus upon the place: I confesse it was also one of Calvins few (for they were but very few) mistakes, and 'tis diligently catcht at by those who set at nought Calvins judgement in other things. But quandoque dormitat Homerus.
I think it worth the while to examine this Glosse. And I shall offer these reasons following, to make it appeare that foreign is not here the office of an Elder, but the Assembly of Elders, commonly called the Presbytery. 1. The word foreign is no where used by the holy Ghost, for the office it self, or degree of an Elder: But 'tis used in two other places in the new Testament, for an Assembly or Counsell of Elders, Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. in which places Arias Montanus▪ rendereth it by Senatus. Beza in the first of these places, retaineth the word Presbyterium. In the other place, both his version and the Tigurine hath totus Seniorum ordo. But the old English translation, readeth the company of Elders. However both places are clearly meaned of the company of Elders, not of the office it selfe, for the office of Elders could not meet together, as in that place of Luke: Neither could the office of Elders bear witnesse to Paul, as in that place of the Acts. Mr. Selden in his upon Ebraica, lib: 1. cap: 15. understands the word foreign in both these places to be used by Luke, for the great Sanhedrin, the highest Assembly of Elders. Now then, why shall we not understand the same word, 1 Tim: 4. 14. to be the Assembly, not the office it selfe of Elders. And I shall aske those who think the Apostle means the office of Elders, upon what imaginable ground can they conceave that this is the Apostles meaning, or how come they to divine this thing, or how could the Apostles words be understood in that sense? The holy Gh…st never useth the word in that sence. The Septuagint never use the word in that sense, for they use it not at all. No Greek Author that lived before Paul, can be found to have used the word in that sense, for the word it self is not found in heathen writers. I finde onelyonly one place where the word foreign is conceaved to be used for the office of an Elder. And that is in the Apocrypha story of Susanna vers: 50. But H: Stephanus, tom: 3. pag: 545. makes a doubt whether it should not bee written in that signification foreign, and suppose it be to be read there foreign, yet that Geek is not so old as Paul, for it is ascribed to Theodotio, as Mr. Seldon tells us in that place last cited out of him. Yea, the Jesuits of the English Colledge of Doway in their Bible acknowledge, that this story is translated out of Theodotions edition, and this is the oldest Originall which they can alledge for it. And besides this it may be understood of the Assembly of Elders, when the Elders say to Daniel, foreign, which those Jesuits of Doway render thus, because God hath given thee the honour of old age. Others the honour of an Elder, or an ancient. But I know no reason why the word may not here signifie there Assembly of Elders. God hath given thee the Assembly of Elders, that is, God hath given thee thy petition, and thy desire, which was the meeting again of the Assembly of Elders, as is plaine by the verses preceeding: Even as God gave to his praying children this present Parliament,
2. If the Apostle had meant to expresse the dignity or degree of an Elder, hee would rather have used the word foreign or foreign, which Greek writers use pro senum honore vel dignitate, then foreign, which is not used in that sence.
3. And if he had meant to stirre up Timothy from the honour or dignity of that office and degree, which was conferred upon him he had rather mentioned the degree of an Evangelist, than of an Elder. Even as he saith to him else where, doe the work of an Evangelist.
4. The very Popish Interpreters are forced to confesse that the Apostle means an Assembly of Elders, Plurium Presbyterorum, saith Mariana: caetus Presbyterorum, saith Salmeron▪ Esthius upon the place noteth, that imposition of hands, was à pluribus adhibita, according to that Canon of Carthage. Hugo Cardinalis, noteth here the great honour of Presbyters, that three of them at least, laid on hands in Ordination.
Wherefore I can see no sense which can agree to the Text, but that which is the ordinary and known sense of the word; foreign, that is an Assembly of Elders. In which sense it is also frequently used by ancient writers, whereof, he that will, may read good store of examples in D. Blondelli Apollogia pro sententia Hieronymi. pag: 89 90.
It hath been objected by some, that 1 Tim: 4. 14. holds forth no president for ordinary Presbyteries, because 1. Here is mention of prophesie which was an extraordinary thing, 2. Timothy, was ordained by the laying on of the Apostle Paul his hands, 2. Tim: 1. 6. Lastly Timothy was an Evangelist, and how could a Presbyter ordain an Evangelist?
Answ: 1. Those very things which are objected, to depresse the Presbyterie, doe put upon it so much the more aboundant honour. Altho prophesies had gone before concerning Timothy, and some extraordinar predictions, 1 Tim: 1. 18. Altho likewise the Apostle Paul himself is supposed to have been present, and to have laid on hands at the sametime, yet neither the extraordinary prophesies, nor the laying on of the hands of an Apostle, did swallow up, take away or hinder the ordinary power and right of the Presbyterie, to be acted and put forth in the ordaining of Timothy, or did exempt Timothy from entring by that ordinary doore, and passage, through those ordinary hands of the Presbytery.
2. 'Tis not certaine, that either the propheticall predictions concerning Timothy, (which the Apostle calls foreign, praegress as, or quae praecesserunt) or the laying on of Pauls hands, was at the same time with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie. But whether these things were done together, or at severall times, 'tis very observable, that to these the Apostle prefixeth foreign by, but to the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie, foreign with, 1 Tim: 1. 6. that thou stirre up the gift which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. 1 Tim: 4. 14. the gift which was given thee by prophesie: then he addeth with (not by) the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie: By this change of the phrase on purpose intimating, that the prophesie and laying on of Pauls hands, were things extraordinary, because by these the gift, aptitude, and ability of parts, or the foreign was given to Timothy, but the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie, was according to the ordinary rule then and there setled, being a rite used in Ordination, so that Timothy had not by the act of the Presbyterie, any gift or foreign, but the foreign or a potestative, authoritative Ministeriall Mission (for to what other use or end could there bee a laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie?) Therefore Athanasius in apologia ad Imper: Constantium citing this Text, and applying it to ordinary Ministers, he lives out that part concerning prophesie, and the rest of the Text he applies thus, foreign. The Apostle Paul hath commanded each one of us in his disciple, saying, neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given unto thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.
3. If it be said that the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery was onelyonly to shew their consent, and joyning in prayer, and hearty wishes with the Apostle for Timothy: The answer is ready; let these who alledge this shew us from Scripture, where laying on of hands was ever used, for a bare testimony of consent, or of joynt prayers and wishes. I know imposition of hands hath been used in prayers, of blessing, or benediction by such as had a speciall power, authority and priviledge, as Gen: 48. Iacob when hee blessed the sonnes of Ioseph, laid his hands upon them, but we read not that Ioseph, or any other, whose heart joyned in prayer and hearty wishes for them, did therefore lay on hands together with Iacob, Mat. 19. 15. Mark: 10. 16. When Christ blessed the little children, he laid his hands upon them: But will any man imagine, that they who brought the children to be blessed by him, did together with him lay their hands upon them? And generally if we consider the use of laying on hands in Scripture, wee must conclude that the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, was an authoritative act, not a testimony of consenting and joyning onelyonly.
4. 'Tis thought by some Episcopall writers, that Timothy was twise ordained, first to be a Presbyter, and after to bee a Bishop. See the history of Episcopacy, pag, 117. I should rather say, peradventure he was first ordained a Presbyter, by the Presbyterie. And after ordained an Evangelist by the Apostle Paul. However the Presbyteries act needs to be extended no further, but to the ordaining him a Presbyter, what was more, (viz. Ordination to the office of an Evangelist,) might proceed from the Apostle: I mean, suppose he was ordained once, both Presbyter and Evangelist, and that both the Apostle, and Presbyter did lay on their hands together, in this mixed action, we may very well distinguish what was ordinary, what was extraordinary, ascribing that to the Presbytery, this to the Apostle.
5. And if the Presbyterie had ordained, and sent forth Timothy as an Evangelist, what inconsistency, or absurdity had been in it? You will object the lesse is blessed of the greater, and not the greater of the lesse, Heb: 7. 7. I answer, although Timothy as an Evangelist, was greater then a single Presbyter, yet that proves not, that he was (even in that capacity,) greater then the whole presbytery, one of the house of Lords, is greater then one of the house of Commons, but he is not therefore greater then the house of Commons. When a King and his people is compared together, we use to say, that he is major singulis, minor universis. Moreover, he that blesseth, is not every way greater then he who is blessed, but he is greater qua talis, in so far as he blesseth. And why might not the Presbytery be greater then an Evangelist, not simply and absolutly, but in so farre as they blessed and ordained him. So Ananias put his hands upon Paul, Acts 9. 17. and afterwards certain Prophets and Teachers at Anti…ch laid hands on him, and Barnabas, Acts 13. 1, 3. And in so farre there was a majority and preeminence in those who laid on their hands though simply and absolutly they were the greater, on whom the hands were laid.
This takes off some of the chief exceptions brought by the Author of the Queries concerning Ordination, quest: 19. which done, his other exceptions are the more easily mastered. He himself passeth from one of …hem, as not being very considerable, viz. that Presbyterie there is used to signifie not a company of Elders, but the Ordinance or office it self. Of which before. There are but two other answers of his. One is that Timothy being an Evangelist had no need to passe through the common door of Ordination. Of which hereafter.
The other is a conjecture of his own, which if it be a light, I confesse it is a new light. It seemes more probable (saith he) be farre that when Paul laid his hands on …imothy, 2 Tim: 1. 6. there were some other Apostles, or Apostles fellowes that joyned with him in that action. And that Apostles should be called Presb…ters or Elders, and a company of them a Presbytery or Eldership, is an expression consonant to other Scriptures where the appellation of Elder is attributed unto them, 1 Pet: 5 1. 2. Epist: Ioh: 1. &c. 3 Epist: 1. Ans: 1 In the last two Scriptures which he citeth, the word Elder is a name of age not of office, and we are to understand, foreign in those places to be only a degree more then foreign: Epist, to Philemon. v. 9. Paul the aged, So Iohn the elder. i. e. now full of yeares and very old. For which reason also some have noted that frequently in his first Epistle he useth this compellation, my li…le children. 2. Peter indeed speaketh of himself as one of the Elders by office, wherein we ought rath…r to observe his humility, condescension, and prudent insinuation, then make any such use of it as this Querist doth. It had been more for his purpose if another had said it of Peter, and not he of himself. For as O…cumenius upon the place te…s us, Peter cals himself so for modesties cause, and the better to enforce the following exhortation, that the Elders should not lift up themselves above others, as he did not lift up himself above them. Sure Apostles and Elders were ordinarly distinguishing names, as it is manifest from Act. 15. 2. 4. 6. 22: 23. Why then would the Querist leave the ordinary Scripture notion of the word, Elder, and ground his own interpretation of the word Presbyterie, upon Peters calling himself an Elder: he might als well argue, that the believing Romans who are called the servants of God, Rom: 6. 22. or these believing Strangers who have the same name, 1 Pet: 2. 16. were Apostles, and that we are to understand by the servants of God in these Texts, Apostles, because Tit: 1. 1. The Apostle Paul calleth himself a servant of God. By the like Logick he may argue that the ordaining of Elders, Act: 14. 23. Tit: 1 5. is meant of ordaining Apostles, because the Scripture calls the Apostles Elders. 3. Peter calls not himselfe foreign, an Elder, but foreign. The sense of the word is explained two wayes, both are mentioned by H. Stephanus in Thes: ling: Gr: Tom: 3, pag: 545. and both of them make against that which this Querist drives at. First the sense is conceived to be this, qui sum & ipse Presbyter: so the Tigurine, who am also an Elder so the English …ranslators. Now the Text running thus, The Elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, i. e. I who give this exhortation unto you Elders, as I am an Apostle, so my Apostleship doth not exclude me from being one of you, for I am also an Elder: Thus (I say) this very Text makes against the Querist, for even here we see that they who were commonly called Elders, were not Apostles. But there is a second sense, which maks yet more against the Querist: For H. Stephanus expresseth the sense of foreign thus, qu… & ipse è seniorum & Presbyterorum Collegio est, he who is of the Assembly or Colledge of Elders commonly called the Presbytery: Hierome did happily intend the same thing by the word Compresbyter. And likewise Beza by his rendering ego una Presbyter, i. e. I who am together with you a Presbyter, or you and I being Presbyters all of us together. And so the Text may be red thus, The Elders who are among you I exhort, who am also of your Presbyteries. There were Presbyteries among them, or Assemblies of Elders properly so called, and of these Presbyteries Peter was also a member, and when he was present in any of the Presbyteries in Pontus, Gallacia, Capadocia, Asia, a…d …ythinia, he joyned and acted as an Elder, and as in a Presbytery. This sense I preferre to the other. For if he had intended no more but to tell them that he also was an Elder, I should think he wold have chosen another & plainer expression as foreign. The Elders who are among you I exhort, for I also am an Elder. or thus, foreign The Elders who are among you I exhort, as being my self also an Elder. Or thus, foreign; The Elders who are among you I exhort, I my self also being an Elder. But now when he purposely chooseth the word foreign, he intimateth somewhat more then that he was an Elder. viz: that he was Presbyterated together with them, as being also of their Presbyteries, or Assemblies of Elders. Words of the like composition in the Greek tongue, may help to give us light in this particular, foreign, which Pollux useth for contubernalis, is not simply, he who is also a guest, or who is also a companion but he who is a guest in the same Inne, or a chamber fellow; foreign is not any who ever he be, that doth also lodge, live, & eat, but he who liveth together & eateth together: foreign, or foreign, may not be rendered, he who is also an Ambassadour, but he who is a collegue in the same Embassy, …ollega in legatione. foreign is not simply he who also is a witnes (for then he who is a thousand miles off being witnes in another cause is foreign) but he who bears witnesse together in the same thing, or he who joyneth in the same testimony, as Rom: 8 16. Pollux hath also, foreign, qui est ejus dē decuriae, not he who is also of a band or company, but he who is of the same band or company, foreign, is not he who is also a Disciple, (for then a Scholler among our Antipodes is foreign) but a condisciple in the same schoole. And if we speak properly we will not call every Minister of holy things, foreign, Symmista, but he who is our collegue, or associat or a Minister of our owne company. So foreign H. Stephanus well explaineth complures simul collecti, non sigillarim, foreign is not used for a counsell which is also taken, but for a counsel taken joyntly or together. Many like instances might be given both in the Greek, foreign, or foreign, or foreign, and such like; and likewise in the Latine, compotator, compransor, combennones, commolitor, commurmuratio, compatior, competitor, compingo, comp…icatio, comploratio, compossessor, compromitto, comprovincialis, concivis, concriminatio, concolor condiscipulus, confabulatio, confaederatio, congener, congerminalis, congenitus, c…ngerminasco, conjubilatio, conjurati, connutritus, conservus, consedeo, consocer, consorbio, conterraneus, contemporaneus, contribulis, convelificor, converberatus, conviv…, convictus, and I know not how many more of that kinde, in which words the preposition cannot be rendered by also, but by together in the same thing joyntly or of the same: And now I hope it may appear that the Scripture, objected by the Querist doth not hurt but help the Presbytery 4. Suppose the Presbytery, 1 Tim: 4. 14. to be an Assembly of Apostles, as the Querist would have it, what shall he gaine thereby? For the name Presbyterie being purposely chosen in this Text, which mentions laying on of hands in Ordination, will prove that the Apostles did these as Elders, and as an act of one Assembly of Elders, not as any thing peculiar to the Apostles. For no rationall man will imagine, that the holy Ghost intending to expresse some extraordinary thing, which the Apostles did as Apostles, and which belongs not to ordinary Elders, would in that very thing purposely call them foreign or an Assembly of Elders. 5. That foreign here is not an Assembly of Apostles, but of Elders who were not Apostles may appear plainly by comparing the Text now in controversie with 2 Tim: 1. 6. the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. If an Assembly of Apostles had laid hands on Timothy, and so joyned in that action with Paul, as the Querist supposeth, Paul had not thus distinguished his laying on of hands, from that of his fellow Apostles, as if the gifts of the holy Ghost had been given to Timothy only by the laying of his hands, and not by, but with the laying on of the hands of his fellow Apostles▪ Of this difference of the phrase in the one Text and in the other, I have spoken before, which indeed fitly expresseth the difference betwixt the laying of Pauls hands, and the laying on of the Elders hands, but there could be no such difference among the Apostles themselves, or Apostles fellowes.
But I have not yet done with the vindication and clearing of this Text, which holds forth a president for ordination by a Presbytery. It may bee further objected, 1. If this Text must be understood of Ordination by a Presbytery, then the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is necessary to Ordination; and then, what shall become of th…se who were not ordained by a Pressbytery; and what shall also become of that which so many protestant writers have pleaded against the Popish Sacrament of Orders: viz. that the rite or signe in Ordination, i.e. imposition of hands, is not instituted or commanded by Christ or his Apostles?
To the first I answer, 1. although I hold the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery to be no Sacrament, nor efficacious and operative for giving of the holy Ghost, as the laying on of the Apostles hands was: nor, 2. necessary to Ordination, necessitate medii vel finis, as if Ordination were void and no Ordination without it, or as if they who were not ordained with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, were therefore …o be thought unordained, or unministeriated: Although likewise 3. I do not hold the laying on of hands to be the substantiall part or act of Ordination (which I have before prooved to be essentiall to the calling of a Minister) but only the rituall part in Ordination. And although, 4. I hold the laying on of hands to be such a rite, whereunto we ought to be very sparing to ascribe mysterious significations, wherein some have gone too farre, and taken too much liberty, yet I hold (with the generality of prot…stant writers, and with the best refo…med Churches) that the laying on of hands is to be still retained in Ordination. I hold also that this laying on of hands is an Ordinance of the new Testament (and so do our dissenting Brethren of the Independent way hold also) and that 'tis necessary by the necessity of precept, and Institution, and in point of duety. For although there is no certain precept extant, concerning laying on of hands, yet because we see the Apostles did alwayes use it, their so ac…urat observing of it ought to be unto us in stead of a Precept, …aith Calvin Instit. lib: 4. cap: 31, § 6. For the Examples of the Apostles or Apostolike Churches, in approved things which have a standing reas…n, are binding, and in stead of Institutions. The laying on of the hands of the Apostles in so far as the holy Ghost was given thereby, was extraordinary, and ceased with themselves, yet in so far as the Apostles, yea and the Presbytery too, laid on hands in their ordaining of Ministers, there is a standing reason why we should do in like maner: the laying on of hands being a rite properly belonging to the praying over these whom we blesse in the name of the Lord, with an authoritative benediction, as is manifest by these examples of laying on of hands, in Iacobs blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh. Gen: 48. and in Christs blessing and praying over the little Children, Mat: 19. 15. Mark: 10 16. Looking thus upon laying on of hands; 1. as a rite in blessing and prayer over; 2. as a rite for publik designation and so emne setting apart of such a person; and if you will, 3. as a rite of giving up, dedicating and offering unto the Lord, of which use of laying on hands there are diverse examples in the Books of Moses: In these respects and under these considerations we use laying on of hands in Ordination, and ought to do so in regard of the Primitive pattern. Wallaeus Tom: 1. pag. 473. thinks that the negative precept. 1. Tim: 5. 22. lay hands suddenly …n no man, doth also containe an affirmative, to lay hands upon such as are worthy and approved.