declared in a Letter he wrote to St. John's Colledge where he had been Fellow in behalf of a Kinsman of his Mr. Low for whom he desired a Fellowship that he was an adversary to his Kinsman if he refused it His words are these But if this young man be averse to that posture of Bowing himself towards the Lords Table he shall have me much his Elder altogether his Enemy And although our Church in her Canons doth but commend this and leaves the practice of it perfectly indifferent yet nothing of this nature claims a greater Antiquity For Clemens Alexandrinus tells us That by the Christians Prayers were made towards the East And Tertullian sayes That the Heathens suspected the Christians worshipped the Sun and that their suspicion arose because Christians prayed towards the East And St. Augustin who lived at the end of the 4 th Century is very express in this custom and withall gives this reason of it When saith he we stand to Prayer we are turned to the East whence the Sun ariseth not as if that was God's proper place and that he hath deserted the other parts of the World who is every-where present not by extension of places but Majesty of power but that our mind might be admonished to convert it self to the more excellent nature that is to the Lord. And in that discourse which goes under the name of Justin Martyr though not so antient as St. Justin yet as old as Theodoret if we believe Rivet we are told That this custom speaking before of Praying towards the East the Church received from the holy Apostles For the Church received the place where to Pray from whom they received the command to Pray And a few lines before he tells us That â—o Pray to the East doth not contradict either the Prophets or Apostles As if he should argue We have no command in the Scripture to the contrary this hath been the custom and practice of the Church of which we have no beginning therefore 't is Apostolical But whether this custom be from the Apostles or no this we are sure on Bodily adoration is that we owe to God and if that be his due and our duty certainly the custom of the Church is of more than sufficient authority to determine to what place that Act of Worship is most decent to be directed unto I must not omit another Information I haâ—â— of this good Bishop before I come to speak of this Work I now publish and that is He was in his younger dayes nay when he came to be a Bishop earnest in those Controversies which commonly go under Calvin's name insomuch that when he was Bishop of Lichfield he set upon to Answer Arminius and morâ— particularly that Tract of his Intituled Examen Praedestinationis Perkinsianae and after a moneths consideration anâ— making several Observations on thaâ— Discourse he laid it aside saying thesâ— words If thou wilt not be Answered lie thee there And after that he greâ— very moderate if he did not incline tâ— the contrary opinion though he did not love to discourse of that Subject or to hear Ministers in their Pulpits to meddle with that which is most proper for the Scholes Now though this Controversie about the time of the Synod of Dort was by many good men looked on under a severe character yet now we find the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas incline much to it As in the French Church Amiraldus and Mr. Daillee who hath a particular tract de Gratia Universali do sufficiently assure us and for the Dutch Churches the Remonstrant party is so much increased in power that they possess most of the great places both in Church and State But some men are strangely mistaken when they would father the Calvinian Doctrin on the Church of England in her Articles who hath most wisely left it undetermined knowing that both learned and good men may differ in these Sublime Points and that the Churches peace ought not to he disturbed with such unnecessary determinations 'T is true I have read that in the Parliament of 1 Caroli Mr. Pym moved in the House of Commons That Arminianisme might be condemned by a Vote of that House as if the Infallibility pretended to attend St. Peter's Chair at Rome was removed to the Speaker's at Westminster But yet I find not that grave Assembly did any thing in it As for those Articles composed at Lambeth by Archbishop Whitgift and those Assistants he called to him they were so far from being received as a Doctrin of our Church that if we believe a very diligent Historian Queen Elizabeth totally disliked them and the manner of making of them and had like to have questioned the Archbishop about them And when by Dr. John Reynolds at the Conference at Hampton Court they were desired to be inserted into the Articles of the Church of England the motion was rejected by King James who told them That the quietest determinations of such Questions were fit for the University and not to stuff our Articles with all Theological conclusions But this by the way I have before told you how great service this worthy Prelate did in his Controversies against the Papists This was not all the work that lay on his shoulders for he no sooner came to the Office of a Bishop but he met with another sort of Adversary who began then to question the Authority of the Church in her ordaining decent Ceremonies in her service And when he found that a private Conference with these sort of men did little prevail he then published his Defence of the Three Innocent Ceremonies a discourse so solid that it must satisfie any person that is governed by reason and not by phansie and affection But as these men began then to undermine the Out-works as I may so call them of Episcopal Jurisdiction so this great man lived to see the whole Hierarchy by them destroyed voted down Root and Branch and that as Popish and Antichristian to the amazement of all Mankind the Wonder of the Reformed Church and the publique Triumph of the Roman Conclave And were it not that those years so late past were perfectly a time of Paradoxes what wise man could imagine that they and their Order should be counted Popish who were the greatest opposers of it who had writ so many unanswerable Volumns against it and who had by divers of their Martyrdom in Queen Mary's days asserted the Reformed Catholick Doctrine against the Corruptions and Novelties of the Roman Church This was the occasion which put this Learned Bishop to write this ensuing Tract which when he had first done he communicated it to the Most Reverend Father in God James Usher Lord Archbishop of Armagh and it did so satisfie that Learned Primate that he put it forth with some Discourses of his own without our Bishops Name or Knowledge though in the Codicel annexed to our Bishops Will
't is owned by him for his But afterwards when the Covenant was hotly pressed and a compliance to forein Reformed Churches pretended our Bishop renewed his former Discourse made several additions to it and where he found it necessary took occasion to answer both Salmasius and Blondel and so it swelled to the Volume it now is This was by his Lordship committed to my charge either to publish or not as I thought fit And truly I had once determined still to have kept it by me hoping that the wonderful Restauration both of our King and Church would have made all Disourses of this Nature unnecessary but since it hath pleased Almighty God to suffer these Troublers of Israel still to continue amongst us their disturbances and separations I thought it a duâ—â— I owed to the Memory of this Blessed Bishop to publish this Discourse which I did not doubt but might do God and his Church some service But before I would attempt so great a Work I communicated both my Design and Book to the Most Reverend Father in God Gilbert Lord Archbishop of Canterbury who was pleased not only to approve the Work but command the speedy publishing of it This immediately put me upon the Examination of the several Quotations I found in it having most of the Authors by me fearing that either through the mistake of his Lordships hand which was not very easie to be read or the negligence of the Transcribers some Errours might creep in the places cited and I dare assure the Reader that for all the Works which I have by me and I want but few they are exactly true The Method used in this Discourse is a way our Bishop had been very successful against the Papists and I hope may prove so against our Adversaries of another kind which is the Testimony of Reformed Divines in the Churches beyond the Seas to our Episcopal Government which they do not only commend but admire and wish for Nay divers ef them expound those very Texts of Scripture which are urged for Bishops as we do so that if our Dissenters will believe any sort of men but themselves they must be convinced with this kind of Argument It seems to me I confess extreamly strange that in these last and worst times some men should so applaud themselves and their own phansies as to condemn what went before them even in the most pure Primitive Church I find not in all my little reading any that set himself against that Sacred Order till Aerius who lived about the middle of the fourth Century And Epiphanius says who gives us the most ample Relation of him this his Errour arose out of Emulation that Eustathius was preferred to a Bishoprick before him who most of all desired it And truly I could wish secular Interest such as want of a Bishoprick Applause with a Party self-justification in former mistakes and an unwillingness to let the world know they were formerly deceived did not with-hold many amongst us from doing that which I doubt not they are more than sufficiently convinced they ought to do And I do heartily wish since Conscience is the thing pretended that they gave some assurance 't was Conscience and not Interest prevailed with them by their peaceable Passive Obedience to our Laws and not to fill our streets with their unreasonable complaints against our Government and Governours and still to seduce a sort of empty people of great Faith and little Sense who are in the right only because they are sure they are in the right And although 1600 years possession is more than a sufficient lawful Title for any to plead A thing so unquestionable that no man hath yet produced any sufficient Authority to the contrary Yet there are two learned Pens Salmasius and Blondel who have attempted rather to shew their Wits and Reading than their Reason in this Controvesie The first of these when he undertook the task wrote not under his own Name as if it was what he was commanded to write a thing frequent to the Professors of Leyden than what he himself either believed or would perswade others to do And in all his Discourse he is in that violent heat that he hardly gives Dionysius Petavius that learned Jesuite any other Name than Inepte Fatue He answers the Greek Fathers who affirm that in the Apostles time a Bishop was superiour to a Presbyter that it is a ly and upon no other account but because he expounds the Apostles words after a different manner than what Antiquity did And in any Controversie that concerns the Church he continues this temper For to the Learned Doctor Hammond who calmly defended the Churches Power of the Keys against some of his Objections he gives no other Title but Nebulo in Anglia shewing neither respect to the Learning nor to the quality of the Doctor who as he confessed was Chaplain to his late Majesty And yet this great Magisterial man with the same confidence as he denied the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he doth the Authority of the 2d Epistle of St. Peter affirming the first only for genuine and truly I wonder not much at it for certainly he who shakes the Authority of the Tradition of the universal Church takes away the only Argument to prove any Book to be Canonical when any Sect or Heresie shall question it But I the more willingly pass this over since in his own Name in his Defensio Regia he seems to alter his Opinion For D. Blondel He who shall look into his Discourse will find it to be a great Collection of Various Readings and if Fame be true collected at first to be the Materials of a Discourse he intended for Episcopacy But the misfortune of our Church turned his weapon another way But after all he only affirms that Bishops and Presbyters were equal in degree till the 136. of Christ which if you consider is a very small time after the Apostles For St. John died as both Eusebius and St. Hierome tells us in the 102. of Christ so then according to him their was but 34 years distance But to me truly he proves not that For he who will consider the Epistle before his Book will find all he affirms is that in that short time the Senior Presbyter in the Colledge was their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Praesident and that when he died the next in Age succeeded him What then I pray doth this make to his purpose If he had given us any Testimony that though this Office fell to him by his Age he immediately entred upon it without any Consecration by the Imposition of Episcopal hands he had done something but of this not one word He only tells us this course was altered over the whole world velut Conspiratione factâ as if done by a Conspiracy And what was this Alteration This he tells us out of Hilary's Comments on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians which commonly
after the Prophesie above-mentioned addeth concerning the Apostles as followeth They saith he having a perfect foreknowledge constituted the aforesaid persons and left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a description of Officers and Ministers in their course that so after that they themselves should fall asleep other Godly men might succeed and exercise their Function Which what it meaneth the forenamed worthy and judicious Publisher of this Epistle of Clement hath delivered in his Commentary thereupon observing from Clement his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Description that it is no other then the Census in Tertullian by which it appears saith the worthy Publisher to have been a Custom in the Apostolical Churches to write a Roll for this word he holds not unfit of the Order of Bishops in their Successions to bring them from their Originals as Tertullian speaketh Polycarpus was from John the Apostle in the Church of Smyrna and Clemens in the Church of Rome from Peter and others speaking often of this Clement whom the Apostles constituted Bishops from whom others might deduce their traductions and off-springs So this singularly learned Gentleman Therefore by occasion of this Objection Bishops have gained the Patronage of Clemens then whose writings to use the Smectymnians our Opposites own Encomium There is no piece of Antiquity of more esteem May it therefore please our Reader to observe with us the unluckiness of our Opposites who have objected against Episcopacy no Testimony of any antient Father who hath not in effect plainly discovered their ignorance or else their wilful boldness as of men that in fighting do wound themselves with their own Weapons We are now to inquire into the Judgment of Antiquity which is of two Classes of Fathers some more immediate unto the Apostles and some more remote We begin with the latter SECT VI. The justification of Episcopal Prelacy by the Universal practice of the Church Christian in times approaching towards Primitive Antiquity First By condemning Aerius the only famous Adversary against Episcopal Prelacy in those times 1 EPiphanius and Augustine declare the Schismatical behaviour of this Aerius which was because Eustathius was elected Bishop and he himself received the repulse therefore he set abroach new Doctrines and amongst others as Augustine relateth That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Which word Ought is that which is derogatory to the Judgment of the two foresaid Fathers and of the then Church Catholick The two learned men Walo and Blondellus being as it were the late professed Advocates for Presbyters may give them satisfaction in this point by their confessions The one acknowledging Hierome to have taught that men should not adhere unto Aerius because of the use of Episcopal Govornment for avoiding of Schisme The other more generally That Hierome and other Antients were most against the Sacrilegious and Schismatical practice of Aerius So he Another learned Divine at this day censuring the Schisme made in the Church because of Episcopacy to be Sacrilegious as some other Protestants have done by their approbation of Episcopacy to whom may be joyned in a greater speciality two other lights of God's Church Mr. Beza in the first place plainly discovering the said Opinion of Aerius If there be any saith he as I think there be none who altogether reject Episcopal Order God forbid that any of sound brain should ever assent to their furies So he professing furthermore his acknowledged observance and reverence to all Bishops Reformed Accordingly Mr. Moulin roundly attesteth himself To have detested the Opinion of Aerius So he And so peradventure would our Opposites have said if they had not falne into these dayes of contradiction who whether they look East West North or South to any Climate Christian cannot find in the Church Catholick any other famous Presbyter who for the space of Fifteen Hundred years held an unlawfulness of Episcopal Government This is not all SECT VII That in the time of the foresaid Fathers the whole Church of Christ held the Derogation from Episcopal Prelacy to be Sacrilegious WE call that the Judgment of the whole Church of Christ which is the Decree and Determination of a General and Unquestionable Council representing the whole Church Christian such was the Council of Calcedon concluding by a Canon That to depress a Bishop down to the degree of a Presbyter it is Sacriledge So they But what say our Antiprelatical Opposites We may not conceal it This say they was but a Stirrop for Antichrist to mount into the Pontifical Saddle Wittily we see but yet scurrilously withal we do not desire to contend with them at this Weapon but give our indifferent Reader to understand that this was a Council for Antiquity one of the four General Councils for number of Fathers above six hundred for Universality of Approbation Representative of all Christendom for belief of the Doctrine thereof in our Church Authorized by Act of Parliament touching at least the Doctrine of Faith and for Opposition to Romish Popedom decreeing on equality of Priviledges of the Bishops of Constantinople and the Bishops of Rome upon this especial ground that the then Primacy of the Romish Pope over others was but an Humane Ordination which was indeed to pull both Stirrop and Saddle from under Antichrist so that at that time he could not mount up Somewhat would be heard of the Ages succeeding after the time aforesaid SECT VIII That the immediate Succession of Bishops from the days of the Apostles is liberally Confirmed unto us by Learned Protestant Divines albeit sufficiently Presbyterial IT was laid down as a Rule Infallible by Augustine in the days of Primitive Antiquity That whatsoever the Universal Church held and was not instituted by Councils but always retained that was most rightly believed to proceed from no other than Apostolical Authority This Pâ—â—â—e as it was often repeated so was it never contradicted by any Judicious Author yea it is plainly asserted by as Learned a Doctor as any their Presbyterian Church hath afforded of later times If no instance saith Scultetus can be given between the days of the Apostles and the times succeeding of a nâ—â— Episcopal Government then must Episcopacy be thought to have proceedeâ— from the Apostles So he Accordingly Calvin in another case against them that deny the Baptism of Infants saith That Irenaeus and Origen being tâ— write against the Prodigâ—ous Errors of Anabaptistical Revelations refuteâ— them very easily from the testimonies of those who being then alive had been Disciples of the Apostles and had iâ— memory what had been delivered bâ— them So he Applying the same to his purpose as we also do to ours SECT IX That there was an immediate Succession of Bishops from the Apostles times proved first because no time can be assigned wherein it was not in use COncerning the immediate Succession of Bishops from the dayâ—
delivered the contrary But yet our Opposites have given as it were defiance not only to the manifold and manifest Testimonies both of Antiquity together with the most famous Protestant Divines who have already justified the distinction of Episcopacâ— as superior to Presbytery here by them called a Corruption as instituted for the Best But also against the Universal Church Christian which held and continued the same Appropriation for Fourteen Hundred years compleat This is not all for the time and reason of the same alteration will justifie it to the full The time is thus acknowledged by the foresaid Dr. Reynolds The Presbyters saith he in the Apostles times chose one among them to be President c. And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop So he The reason is plain for if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Superintendent or President was by the Fathers of the Primitive Churches appropriated to him that had indeed the Presidentship over Presbyters How then should this be called a Corruption and not rather a just Congruity and Consideration namely that the Title Superintendent should be gâ—ven to the Person and Function which is indeed Superintendent Accordingly Vedelius an exquisite searcher into Antiquities hath testified That this different Appropriation of the Word Bishop to one was common in the dayes of Ignatius who was so antient us to be a Disciple of the Apostles themselves for saith he this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was used in the Church very early in the Apostles times presently after it began to be said I am of Paul I of Apollo I of Cephas So he With whom agreeth the learned Professor of Divinity in the University of Hiedelburgh Scaltetus who from the words of Hierome shewing the occasion Why one of the Presbyters was set over the rest as Bishop was because of Schism among the People some saying they were of Paul some of Apollos some of Cephas From hence saith he I collect That Bishops were instituted in the Apostles times because that then it was said among the People I am of Paul c. As saith he besides others of St. Paul ' s Epistles the former to the Corinthians doth undoubtedly assure us And that the end of this Institution was Ut Schismatum semina tollerentur To take away the seeds of Schisme are the express words of Hierome so that if either the seasons of the Primitive times be had in consideration or the wisdom of the Church Universal or the reason now given of attributing the word of Superiority to any superiour degree of Dignity one would think they may very well perswade that this objection out of Hierome ought to have been put to silence before it had been published We are not ignorant how urgent many of our Opposites have been to prove from Antiquity That the Primitive Fathers sometimes gave the Title of Presbyters unto Bishops as did Irenaeus to the Predecessors of Victor Bishop of Rome and have concluded thereupon an equality of Functions This is a thrice wandring from the sense of those Fathers who were Predecessors to Victor First By not considering that a Bishop by calling Bishops Presbyters might understand it either properly as Seniors unto him because Predecessors before him or if in consideration of their inferiour degree by way of accommodation to the joynt Functions of Bishops and Presbyters Secondly By concealing from their Reader that although they have but a few examples of the name Presbyter applyed to Bishops yet of calling Presbyters expressly Bishops not one the reason is plain by that which goeth under the name of Ambrose because according to the proper signification of names every Bishop is a Presbyter but not every Presbyter a Bishop Lastly Those stand confuted by the universally confessed preeminence of Victor and other his Predecessors Bishops of Rome over Presbyters in those Primitive times as also of the Episcopacy and Superiority of Irenaeus over the Presbyters under him SECT V. The last Objection 3 John 9. THat Objection which one hath made is usual with others viz. St. John reprehended Diotrephes for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to desire a Superiority over his Brethren Presbyters therefore there was not any degree of Superiority over them in those dayes We say that the consequent of this Argument is very lavish and loose because St. John doth not except against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or degree of Superiority but against the Usurpation of Superiour degree that was and his insolent abuse thereof in contemning his Brethren and peremptorily casting them out of the Church for it is incredible that any one Presbyter could create and assume the degree of a Superintendent or Bishop that had no being at all Ergo say we The degree of Prelacy was in being before it could be ambitiously affected CAP. IV. Our Propositions grounded upon the Word of God Our first Evidence out of the Epistles of St. Paul SECT I. That the Presbyterial Order was alwayes substitute to an higher Government as first to the Jurisdiction Apostolical HOw Commandatory the Apostolical Authority was is best discernable by the Apostles Mandates unto the Churches upon several occasions as to the Thessalonians We command the Brethren And again As we commanded you Next by word of Censuring If any obey not our Word c. The same Apostle commanded the Ephesians to assemble themselves before him at Miletus But most especially was he occasioned to express his Jurisdiction Apostolical over the Corinthians regulating and silencing Women in the Congregation touching the ordering of Wives So ordain I saith he in all Churches and also concerning other matters saying The rest will I set in order when I come Thus by his commanding and as effectually by his censuring in shaking of his Rod of Excommunication over them saying Shall I come unto you with a Rod Peter likewise did not conceal the Apostolical Authority in general over the dispersed Members of the Churches of Pontus Asia Cappadocia Galatia and Bithynia when he put them in minde of as he saith The Commandements given by us the Apostles of our Saviour We should have been larger in this proof if we could think that any of our Opposites were of a contrary judgment or had not known that their own Author Walo had by his ingenious confession given them a Supersedeas in this point For the Apostles saith he as long as they lived governed the Church with great Authority and could more easily continue them in their duties lest that any divisions might burst out upon the occasions aforesaid to the destruction of unity in the Churches sâ—ch as was reprehended by St. Paul in the Church of Corinth So he Wherefore to the confutation of Walo himself I do necessarily inferr That there being at all times the same if not more possibilities of Schisms and Rents in the Church than could
be in the Apostles times there cannot but be the like if not a greater necessity of a Superintendency over Presbyterial parity the rather if we duly consider our next Proposition SECT II. That divers of the Apostolical Disciples were even in their times both in Dignity and Authority Superintendents over Presbyters HEre again our Opposites authentick Author Walo after much discussion of this point is ready to teach them being inforced thereunto by Scripture That those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Assistants unto them in founding the Churches ordaining of Ministers in every City and watering the Church which they had instructed These he confesseth were so in Superiority above Presbyters as that the Apostles themselves did not forbear to term them Apostles and so predominant in Authority as Although absent from the Churches yet to instruct them by their Epistles and wheresoever any Schism arose either in Clergy or People still to rebuke them even as if they had been of their own Flock Upon these premisses thus granted we are sufficiently warranted to conclude not only that the Presbytery were continually under subjection both to the Apostolical Government but likewise to other eminent Disciples of the Apostles The same Author sticketh not to give a List of such Prelates and Superintendents as Mark Clement Titus Timothy Epaphroditus and saith he many others This being so pregnant a truth how is it that our Opposites should pretend an Eccesiastical Presbyterial Government no way Subordinate That which is objected by them is most vain and frivolous whereunto we occur as now followeth SECT III. That the aforesaid Apostolical Disciples were as Bishops over the Presbyters Among whom were Timothy and Titus by evidence from Scripture THE Texts of Scripture for proof of their Superiority and Authority are so plain that they need no Commentary And our witnesses are so impartial as not to admit of any exception For in the Text we read of an Apostolical Ordinance to Timothy and Titus respectively To set in order the things that were wanting To inhibit Heterodox Preachers To receive accusations against criminous Elders To excommunicate Hereticks To Ordain Elders yet so As to lay hands on no man suddainly Each of these and the like Apostolical Injunctions do fully express an Episcopal Function and Authority in both of these respectively over Presbyters and the whole Churches under them And though this hath been stuck at by divers of our Opposites lest that hereby Timothy and Titus might appear to be Bishops distinct from Presbyters yet now at last their chief and greatest Advocate for Presbyterial Government confesseth the Authority which these held and exercised over Presbyters yet so that Bishops as he thinks shall take no advantage thereby if they who are Pleaders may also be admitted as our Judges We proceed citing the same witness Walo Messalinus confessing That Timothy and Titus had almost equal Authority with the Apostles of Christ by whom they were ordained to govern whole Churches as Directors and Judges Of which sort besides Timothy and Tituâ— he there sets down Mark Clemens Epapâ—roditus and all those who were Assistants and fellow Labourers with the Apostles whereof we have spoken already Thus by the premises it sufficiently appeareth that there was a double Superintendency over Presbyters yet we enquire furthermore concerning Timothy and Titus whether or no they were at this time whereof we now speak distinctly Bishops In discussing whereof we shall according to our usual method first remove their Objections which are against their Episcopacy that done we shall make good the contrary by due proofs SECT IV. That Timothy and Titus were properly and distinctly Bishops notwithstanding their Title of Evangelists as is confessed by Protestant Divines of remote Churches BUt here their Walo will needs interpose seeking by an Objection as with a Spunge to wipe out all opinion of Episcopacy either in Timothy or Titus because forsooth Called Evangelists who had no peculiar Residence in any Church but general in all Churches whereas they who are by the Apostle called Bishops had a singular charge of the Church wherein they were and there were they to reside and remain for the governing thereof So he And from him our home Opposites chanting and rechanting and making it their undersong to say again and again That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists so as not to be held that which we call Bishop and they name this Assertion The hinge of the Controversie But this Objection say we hath often been taken off the hinge and laid flat on the floor by divers solid and satisfactory Answers We say not of Bishops or their Chaplains but of other Protestant Divines even of Presbyterial Churches cited here in the Margent First The Theological Professor of Hiedelberg answers That when these Epistles weâ—e written to Timothy and Titus they were exercised not as Evangelists in assisting the Apostles in the collecting of Churches but as Bishops in governing them which had been collected as saith he the general Praecepis given to them do prove which could not refer to the Temporary power of Evangelists but to them and their Successors as Bishops From whence we conclude what that learned Doctor doth there declare That the name Evangelist did belong unto them in the large sense as it signifieth a Preacher of the Gospel Tolossanus agreeth in the same answer namely that Timothy and Titus who had been Companions with Paul in his travails was afterward made Bishop of Crete Dr. Gerard answereth by way of distinction That the word Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 is not there specially taken for a particular degree in the Church but generally as signifying a Preacher of the Gospel and so including that Order which Timothy now had being a Bishop of Ephesus for now he did no more accompany Paul So he citing Luther also for the like interpretation of that Text. And though he doth acknowledge that both Timothy and Titus had formerly been Evangelists agreeable to the special and proper signification of the word and according hath set down their several travails from place to place yet after those travails were ended which was before these Epistles were written he concludeth both of them to have been Bishops out of several Texts of Scripture Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Creet 6 Zwinglius likewise is downright against the Objectors proving by the example of Timothy out of the 2 Timoth. 4.5 That the Office of Evangelist and Bishop was hâ—re one and the same However our Opposites it may be will allow to Bishops the same liberty of going out of their Dioces which Calvin doth to Presbyters out of their Parishes who are otherwise bound to be Resident in their Charge Concerning whom he saith That they are not strictly tied to their Glebe or Charge but that they may be helpful unto other Churches upon necessary occasions The same admirable Divine will furthermore
instruct us in the particular Instance which we have in hand who although he held it uncertain whether Timothy be here called an Evangelist in the general notion of Preaching the Gospel or for some peculiar Function yet doth he grant that an Evangelist is a middle degree between Apostle and Pastor and upon those words of St. Paul to Timothy Do thy diligence to come speedily unto me he Commenteth telling us That St. Paul called Timothy from the Church over which he was Governour for the space of almost a whole year This is a pregnant testimony to teach us That Timothy had both the Government over Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus and also that it was his peculiar Charge whence except upon great and weighty Cause he was not to depart which is as much as we contend for Before we conclude this Point we make bold to intreat our Opposites to satisfie us in one particular namely seeing that Philip being one of the seaven Deacons is found Preaching the Word in Samaria Act. 8.5 and yet afterwards is called Philip the Evangelist one of the seven viz. Deacons Act. 21.8 Our Quaere hereupon is Why Timothy and Titus might not as well be called Evangelist for Preaching the Word of God being Bishops as Philip was for the same cause named an Evangelist being but a Deacon It may be our Opposites would wish to be satisfied by Reverend Zanchy upon these points whom yet they will find to be chief Opposite to themselves And albeit he will have the Apostles by their Vocation to have been as it were Itinerants for their time For the founding and erecting of Churches Yet he granteth That Churches being once erected the same Apostles set a Pastor or Bishop over them And what he meaneth hereby he sheweth when more distinctly he confesseth That at first indeed Presbyters were ordained in the Churches and after them Bishops as Hierome affirmeth even in the Apostles times So he Where by the judgment of Zanchy First Bishops were ordained by the Apostles as a degree contradistinct from Presbyters Secondly That the Bishops so ordained although they had been Evangelists and fellow Labourers with the Apostles yet when Churches were once erected some of them were placed Residentiaries in the said Churches And lastly That although Presbyters had their Institution void of subjection to Episcopal Authority at the first as Deacons likewise had theirs yet because of the insufficiency of Presbyterial Government the Episcopal was erected as more perfect even in the dayes of the Apostles The next Obstruction is to be removed SECT V. That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus notwithstanding that objected Scripture Act. 20. THere is one Objection for we may not dissemble which the Smectymnians press thrice as being inexpugnable and thereupon call it Lethalis Arundo as that which must strike all opposition quite dead In summe thus Timothy was with Paul at the meeting of Miletum Act. 20.4 Therefore say they if Timothy had been Bishop of Ephesus Paul would there and then have given him a charge of feeding the Flock and not the Elders So they As though Timothy before this had not been sufficiently instructed in this duty both by his long and constant attendance on St. Paul and also by his former Epistle unto him which was written and received before this time as some have probably conjectured or as though Timothy should need a particular Admonition to discharge that duty which was respectively common to him with the rest of the Bishops and Presbyters there assembled For though the Smectymnians tell us It is a poor evasion to say that they who were there assembled were not all of Ephesus but were callâ—d also from other parts because say they these Elders were all of one Church made by good Bishops over one Flock and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Yet we must tell them that Dr. Reynolds whom they and we admire for his exquisite learning speaking of the same meeting at Miletâ—m Act. 20.17 saith notwithstanding all these objected circumstances That though the Church of Ephesus had sundry Pastors and Elders to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one Chief c. The same whom afterwards the Fathers in the Primitive Church called Bishop So he But yet though he or all Protestants should fail us there is a Father Irenaeus by name who was so antient as to be acquainted with the Apostles of the Apostles themselves and him we can produce distinguishing the persons here met at Miletum into Bishops and Presbyters and affirming That they came not only from Ephesus but also from other Cities near adjoyning to it Which makes the Smectimnians Arundo but a bruised Reed Thus have we fully as we hope satisfied the contrary Objections We proceed now to our proof SECT VI. That Timothy and Titus were both of them properly Bishops by the judgment of Antiquity THe greatest Opposite that we can name even Walo Messalinus the very Atlas of Presbyterial Government will spare us the labour of citing the Greek Fathers or Scholiasts for confirmation of this point who confesseth That most of their Commentaries upon Titus record him to have been Bishop of Crete alleadging by name Chrysostom Theophylact Oâ—cumenius Theodoret and others whose Testimonies we shall not need to repeat only we shall add which may serve for a transition to Timothy the testimony of that antient Ecclesiastical Historian Eusebius who speaking of S. Pauls fellow Labourers reckons Timothy amongst them Whom saith he History recordeth to be the first Bishop of Ephesus adding with the same breath and so was Titus Bishop of Crete Thus this famous Author concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy also To whom we may adjoyn as concurring in the same Judgment Epiphanius Chysostomus Theophylact Oecumenius Gregory Ambrose Primasius yea and Hierome himself who hath positively affirmed That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete But the Smectymnians hearing of a Cloud of Witnesses averring Timothy and Titus to have lived and and died Bishops answer That this Cloud will soon blow over and the greatest blast that they give is That the Fathers who were of this judgment borrowed their Testimonies from Eusebius Assuredly this will seem but a poor evasion to any judicious Reader who shall but observe that the Testimonies of these Fathers are in their Commentaries and Collections out of Texts themselves But the best is other Protestant Divines will appear to be more ingenuous SECT VII That Protestant Divines of very great esteem have acknowledged Timothy and Titus to have been properly Bishops WE begin with Luther who amongst other Resolutions setteth down this for one That Episcopacy is of Divine Right which he groundeth upon St. Paul's appointing Titus to Ordain Elders in every City which Elders saith he were Bishops as Hierome and the subsequent Texts do
yet the Apostles who were guided by an Infallible Spirit setled Episcopacy in them all There was not in a Monarchy Episcopacy and in a Republick Presbytery but one and the same in both And this is matter of Fact and hath greater Authority to attest it than any humane story of that Antiquity which all mankind admits for Truth And for to affirm that though this be true this Government is alterable if the Magistrate judg it not so conducing to Piety as another he sets up What is it but to say that God did not foresee what contingencies would fall out in succeeding Ages and that the Apostles did not know what would advance true Religion and Piety in succeeding Ages so well as Magistrates that follow who are easily blinded and deceived when it conduceth to their Temporal Interest But if we must fansy nothing to have a lasting Reason but what we judg to have so I doubt this Atheistical Age will quickly lay aside all Institutions of Christ by judging them as some openly do of all Religion not to be of a lasting necessity Besides he that shall affirm that nothing can be a Medium to bind the Consciences of men as of Divine right unalterably but what is founded on Divine Testimony in some sense speaks true but if this be included in the assertion that this must be obvious to every capacity that is obliged to obey this divine Right 't is false For upon that account the Scripture it self should not bind those who have not understanding enough to know how they are admitted as such For to say the Scripture is the word of God because my Conscience which in plain English is nothing but my Opinion tells me so is no better an Argument than every Turc hath for his Alcoran But if there is a necessity to prove the Scripture to be Divine viz. the Reception of these books by the Catholick Church then he who hath not sense nor Learning enough to find out the truth of this must either admit the Scripture of divine Authority when the reason why it is so is not obvious to his understanding or else all illiterate people are not obliged to believe the truth of its Doctrine and obey it Now let us apply this to Church-Government If the same Authority which tells us these books are Canonical Scripture tells us withall that the very Apostles the Penmen of the New Testament did settle such a Government and if we find the following Age practiced it allow it to be dubious in Scripture which certainly it is not yet is not there as sufficient assurance that that Government was settled by the Apostles and so in some sense of Divine Right and so unalterable as we have to admit for Scripture the Revelation or any other book that ever was questioned Now for to affirm that Antiquity is not a sufficient ground for our assent unless we have a full assurance that the succeeding Ages did not vary from what the Apostles delivered or that they could not mistake in the delivery What is it but to say we must have greater Authority for matter of Fact than what a fact can have and doth not this Opinion destroy the Authority of Scripture totally For if the Churches delivery of such books as the writings of the Apostles be not sufficient for a rational man to ground his assent that these books were their writings and so Divine unless we have assurance that she could not mistake in the delivery of those books we must either believe the Church incapable of Errour in the delivery of Scripture or else we have no assurance to ground our Assent Now to believe a Church incapable of Errour savours little of Reason and to believe her only incapable in the delivery of Scripture savours much of Partiality But if we must understand the Church for by Church here I mean the Governours of it to be a wise sober body of pious and rational men and so by consequence that they would receive no books as the writings of inspired men but such of whose Authentickness they had rational Grounds as perhaps the very authentique Letters under the Apostles own hands which Tertullian mentions or some other good Authority And if this be sufficient reason to gain our assent Why is not the same Reason as sufficient for the Apostolical Government as for the Apostolical writings I confess 't is beyond my reach But if the Apostolical practice be sufficiently attested then to affirm 't is not enough to bind continually unless it be known to be God's mind it should do so is either to say the Apostles knew not the mind of God or else would not reveal it For certainly we have much more reason to say their practice binds unalterably than any one can have to say it doth not For we have much more reason to demand of these men some mind of God why we should change Apostolical Practice than they have of us why we constantly practice what the inspired Apostles did Neither do I understand how an Argument from Apostolical practice must suppose a different State of things than what they were when the Apostles established Governours over Churches For why should not we imagine the Apostles did constitute what they practiced And certainly he must be as infallible as the Pope pretends too that is sure any Exposition of Scripture that contradicts or concurs not with Apostolical practice is true if there can be any rational Exposition of those Scriptures which concurs with that practice And he who shall not believe there are such Expositions and though not infallible yet sober and I dare say much surer than any to the contrary must condemn all the Antient Fathers of the Church as ignorant and irrational men and believe some new fancies of men of Yesterday and the dotings of some idle Haereticks of greater Authority than those great lights of the Catholick Church And now to argue from some few practices in the Apostles times which were laid aside such as the Holy kiss c. that therefore any Constitution may is just such an Argument that if a circumstance a Ceremony may be changed the whole Substance may too unless a man will affirm there is no more need of a standing succession of Church-Governours than there is of the most minute practice in those daies But here I expect it should be said What necessity is there of a Succession of Ministers A ministry is necessary but to think that every Minister must as some in derision say draw his Pedegree from the Apostles that is a narrow principle and fit only for Bigots to believe and such as are easily deceived with the Great names of Antiquity and Catholique Tradition I confess I was sorry when I considered this Opinion to find that the French Ministers when they maintained their vocation to be lawful unto which Cardinal Perron made his Reply lay this down for their first Argument That if there was no other
reason but this that they had the true and pure Doctrine entire it will suffice to prove also that we have a true vocation on which it depends For he who without partiality considers this Position will find 't is the Foundation of all Fanaticisme and may be as well challenged by the most absurdest of Haereticks as themselves For though the difference here may be that these may have the doctrine entire when other Haereticks have not yet since with the Adversaries they dispute with that is the question it is no more an Argument to justifie their Vocation than for any Haereticks who believes he holds all Doctrine true and entire for his But in answer to this sort of ingenious men of larger Souls and looser principles I demand What Divine Demonstration have they that a man may have a lawful call to the Ministry and not at all derive this power from those unto whom our Saviour first gave the power of constituting Successours Certainly he who goes about to shake a Position that for more than 1500 years all Christians believed had need be as demonstrable in his proofs as Principles in Mathematicks are Nay he had need be infallible in his Expositions of Scripture since he must give a contrary sense to them than all Catholique Writers have done before considering that if he be mistaken he destroys the very Being of a Church and by depriving them of lawful Pastors robbs Christians of Sacraments and all other Spiritual Ordinances But if all Vocation to the Ministry must be either Extraordinary such as the Apostles were or Ordinary such as the Bishops their Successors were it would do well these generous men would shew us by what Title they claim If extraordinary certainly 't is as necessary for them to prove their Mission by miracles as it was for the Apostles nay as it Was for our Saviour who expresly tells us If I had not done amongst them those works which none other man did they had not had Sin If ordinary they would do well to shew us that this their call to the Ministry was that ordinary way by which the Church enjoyed her Pastors For unless they can do that they must believe nay they must tell the World that those Good and Pious men who succeeded the Apostles and who for the defence of the Doctrine of the Gospel resisted unto blood did conspire to cheat Christians of their Liberty and the Soul of Man of those generous principles this liberal age is willing to allow her And it is very frivolous to say that the Successours of the Apostles in those writings we have amongst us do differ in many things and do maintain some things not altogether consonant to truth 'T is true I acknowledge they are but men and therefore subject to frailties and errours as all mankind is but this is so far from weakening their Authority that â—it strengthens it That since they are men and so subject to mistakes and differences amongst themselves it was impossible they should all agree in the Doctrine and practice of Episcopacy unless they were all convinced it was a principle not to be disputed against And let not some say that our Bishops now a daies differ from the Apostolical Bishops 't is possible they may in some external additions which the Piety and Munificence of Christian Princes have annexed unto that Order believing they could not honour those too much who were set apart to serve at the Altar of our Lord. Yet I desire any man to shew me whether the Catholick Church did not at all times believe for 1500 years together that a Bishop was absolutely necessary for Ordination And if Imposition of hands which the Author to the Hebrews reckons as one of the Principles yea one stone of the Foundation of the Doctrine of Christ which since the words are the Doctrine of laying on of hands and Ordination is ever performed with it may amongst others comprehend Ordination then he who shall destroy a lawful Ordination pulls away one of the Foundation Stones of the Christian Aedifice and if he doth not destroy certainly he endangers the Building But why the Scripture should be thought deficient in Necessaries If Episcopal Government being necessary be not determined I understand not for if by not determined by a Law be meant absolutely 't is begging the Question For there is no man but knows 't is the Assertion of all who hold Episcopacy Apostolical that 't is determined there But if by determining by a Law is meant so positive and clear a Determination as is Obvious to every Capacity and can admit of no Cavil then 't is a strange conclusion For I doubt some great Articles of our Faith are not so evidently revealed and so positively determined but may admit of divers câ—vils and those too not from unlearned and irrational men who allow the Scripture as we do to be sole Judg in such Controversies And if this be so then either those great Truths are not necessaria or the Scripture is deficient in necessariis both which are strange Conclusions And now to suppose That Episcopal Government is a matter of Christian Liberty because it is not so clearly determined by a positive Law is to suppose that every thing of which we have not positive and clear Determination in Scripture as will admit of no Dispute is of Christian Liberty and sâ— we must bid adieu to some of the great Doctrines of our Faith because they arâ— not so clearly delivered Now by what is said we may judâ— that that Argument is not cogent whicâ— affirms That nothing can bind as â— Law but what is expressed in direcâ— terms or deduced by evident consequence as of an Universal bindinâ— Nature 'T is true nothing can bind aâ— a Divine Law but what the Scripturâ— teacheth but 't is not necessary this shoulâ— be so evident as to admit of no dispute For since whosoever affirmeth Episcopaâ— Apostolical fixeth the Divine Right oâ— Scripture 't is no more an Argument â—â— say 't is not in Scripture because it â—â— not so express as to be without disputâ—â— than for an Anabaptist to say there â—â— no Obligation from Scripture to Baptizâ— Children because there is no place produced to that purpose but we disputâ—â— against nay 't is no more than for an Atheist to deny the Divinity of our Saviour because there is no place which asserts it in Scripture but the Socinians dispute against But to expect that this also must be express the binding Nature of the Law 't is far more unreasonable For if it be a Law they who alter it ought to produce more evident Authority that they may lawfully do it than those who maintain an Apostolical Constitution to be perpetual to prove express Authority for the continuance For the Infallibility of the first Authors of it is enough to teach it ought to continue unless from as great an Authority the contrary be proved And upon this account those other Arguments