CHAP. XXVI.

Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that the action may not in any case be performed by non-officers, but must be performed onely by Presbyters; and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Pres∣byters, and do not as well exclude the Presbyters from medling therein, as exclude the People.

THere is onely one place more where I finde Mr. Rutherford excepting a∣gainst the answer; and that is in his pag. 497. where alledging the an∣swer pag. 59. which I conceive is misprinted for pag. 49. He sets down these words as ours, viz. If people may not meddle with ordination, because it is proper to Timothy and Titus, this may prove that they were Bishops who did ordaine Elders there alone, which Ministers may not doe there, for these Epistles are not written to them as Bishops alone, nor as Elders alone, but as to a mixt state including the People.

Answ. The order of the dispute is this: Reverend Mr. Herle arguing for ordina∣tion of officers by a consociated Eldership, and not by a single Congregation with or without a Pastor, brings this reason for his judgement, viz. Rules of direction how to proceed in ordination, and the Epistles where those rules are laid down, are not written to the Churches or Congregations, but to Timothy and Titus. In answer whereunto we spoke to this purpose, that if this be a sufficient reason to prove that the people may not in any case meddle with Ordination, then by as good reason it will follow, that Ordination belongs not to the Presbytery or Synod, but onely to one man, as the Prelates would have it; the reason we give is, because Timothy and Titus were each of them but onely one man. And we there further say, that we doe approve the answer given to this kinde of reasoning by the refuter of Dr. Down••s sermon, at L••beth, who shews that what was written in those Epistles, was not onely written for Timothy and Titus, but for other Ministers also, and also in some sort for all the Saints, and that therefore there is no more reason to appropriate those rules, onely to the use of Presbyteries and Sy∣nods, then only to the use of Prelates.

Now what saith Mr. Rutherford to this?

Some parcell of these 〈◊〉 are written, saith he, to Timothy and Titus as Evange∣li•ts. Somethings are written to them as Christians; and finaditer & objective all is writ∣ten Page  109 for the Churches good, but the bulk of the Epistles is written to them as Elders, and espe∣cially. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. for these and the like they were to doe with the Pres∣bytery as is cleare, 1 Tim. 4. 14.

Answ. This Scripture 1 Tim. 4. doth shew that Timothy had a gift given him by Prophesie with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; but how doth it hence appear, that not only Timothy but Titus also was to dothings with the Presbytery? Titus is not at all mentioned in that Scripture. And as for Timothy, Scripture tells what the Presby∣tery did to him, but what he must doe with the Presbytery it tells us nothing at all. A∣gain, if the bulk of the Epistles be written to them as Elders, and the Churches be no otherwise concerned therein, but only finaliter and objectively, the Epistles being written for their good, then what shall be the meaning and reason of these words in the conclusion of the Epistle to Titus, and of the latter to Timothy, where it is said, grace be with you, and grace be with you all? doth it not plainly appear hereby, that more then Elders, even all the Saints in those places are written unto in those Epistles? Thirdly if there be rules in the Epistles that doe belong to Elders alone, yet sith it is confessed, and may not be denyed, that other things therein doe concern all Christians, how shall we be assured that such passages, as concern •aying on of hands are of the former sort, and not of the latter? For to say it is so, and it is clear, we think doth not clear it at all, unlesse some further proofe be added. Lastly, if all this were granted, which here is said by Mr. Rutherford, yet for ought I see, our answer is not removed thereby, but still stands fair and good: For in that place of the answer alledged, we say two things, 1. That these rules about ordination in Timothy and Titus may with as fair a colour be appropriated to one man, as to Presbyteries and Synods. 2. That the Epistles and the rules therein are not to be appropriated to Bishops alone or Ministers alone, but are indeed of generall concernment for all the Christians. Now neither of these two is discovered by Mr. Rutherford. For as for the former of them, he saith nothing thereto at all; and the latter he doth in a manner grant, not only by saying that all here is writ∣ten for the Churches good, but also by saying that somethings are written to Ti∣mothy and Titus as Christians which is in effect the same that we had said before. And how our answer can be disproved or satisfied, either by saying nothing at all thereto, or by saying the same that we had said before, I leave it to the Judicious reader to con∣sider.