no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natural convenience of it But if any where a greater inconvenience comes or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches than the convenience of it can countervail there the partition must be made as it may be that is as the state of things will admit It is supposed by some learned men that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors as one of the circumcision another of the uncircumcision within the same local precincts And if there were not so de facto I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient § 18. Of the power of a particular Church THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors the nature whereof shall be opened when I come to speak of the nature of the pastoral office It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture that they all had the government within themselves Every stated church had its proper pastor or pastors having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral government within them and such as have it not be asserted it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ and in his name it must be granted as far as I can see that it hath in it its Ruler also for ruling is but by teaching and guiding The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres that is it hath the same power intensively tho not extensively Indeed the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn August and Venerable § 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind considered TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches there be three parts of the enquiry 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs 2. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof and being in a state of greater sublimity and amplitude 3. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches taken distributively to an association or collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bodies conjunct with it or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs and whose officers are of the same holy order such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another and as congregational Churches are to each other and as Diocesan Churches are to each other if de jure there be such Churches Now as touching subordination in this kind what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore is not here examined but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in relation to other churches either because they have issued from it as swarms from a hive or because they have received the Christian faith from it or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reverential regard and observance to the first which is called the Mother-Church is not to be doubted and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Ample Illustrious or Renowned But that the said Mother Church can by divine right or warrant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issued from it or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer I do not find any proof but I judg the contrary because notwithstanding the aforesaid diversity or disparity of condition they all rest upon the same Basi◠Christs Charter by which they are constituted which is the same to all and alike immediately given to all So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level and are equal Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that wherein they are both equal § 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds considered AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan Provincial National Church be it first observed that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral nor any one parcular Church besides the Parochial Churches nor is it materially divers from them jointly taken nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches nor the national church from the provincial churches jointly taken But in their several ranks they differ formally as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them And let what was before observed be here reminded that each congregational or parochial church having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys is a political church or such as hath its government within it self And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution was called in question and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians Of what authority that Postscript is I know not but this is certain that where there were Christians there were to be churches in every city of Crete and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the
more prevalently in their judgment and practice in their hearts and lives than the superadded errors and corruptions and are ready to Renounce those errors and corruptions if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials are true Christians otherwise they are not such The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects or formal considerations In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith Worship and Ministry it may be a true church and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denominated it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church OF THE MINISTRY § 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in general THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edifying of the church So that whosoever is in a holy order or office is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appropriated to a holy order is really in or of that order altho men may not give him the name thereof Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person is not here considered but if it were granted that they may they would essentially differ from each other For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority that the one is directive and the other imperative I take not this to be a competent distinction for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey is properly imperative and the ministerial authority doth so as the Scripture speaks expresly Heb. 13.17 Paul was no Magistrate but as a Minister he speaks 2 Cor. 10.6 Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience and he expresly declares his ministerial authority to be imperative Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience I wrote unto thee Now they had rightly distinguished if instead of imperative they had put coercive coactive or imperial For all directive authority by special office is imperative Whosoever doth by special office direct unto duty in the name of his King and according to his will as a Minister doth in the name of Christ doth therein command But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such The Magistrate rules by the Sword and the Minister by the Word § 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either towards believers or the unbelieving towards the church jointly or toward particular persons severally so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same And seeing Christ hath already appointed all the ministerial works and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name than what he hath appointed But the circumstances and accidental modes and subservient offices about the work of the ministry are of that nature as that they well may be appointed by men and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in regard of the great diversity of occasion cannot well be pre-defined The holy ministry and power belonging to it is conferred neither by Magistrate nor by Prelate nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof but by Christ alone And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men yet not by them as giving the office power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person therein as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture Neither Magistrate nor Prelate nor any spiritual officer or officers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office whereof they are not the authors nor in proper sence the givers Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that import the lessening thereof in its essential state they are void and null as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife that addition is a nullity § 3. Of the Office of a Bishop Elder or Pastor THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary as that of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists also if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles or ordinary and perpetual as that of Pastors and Teachers The words Elder Bishop Pastor are names of the same Sacred Office as appears Acts 20.17 28. where their Ministry towards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship had also the ordinary Office of Bishops pastors and Elders or to speak peradventure more properly they had these ordinary offices included in their Apostleship Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep And Peter calls himself an Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And John in his second and third Epistles so calls himself And indeed if it were not so they could have no successors or partakers Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pastors to particular Churches As for the meaning of these names the word Bishop imports an Overseer Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age and applied to a Ruling-officer The word Pastor is metaphorical signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep to feed them This feeding consists in teaching and ruling so that every Pastor is in the nature of his office a Teacher and he feeds by doctrine And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
teaching so that every authoritative Church-teacher is a Pastor for the Pastor rules only by the spiritual sword which is the word of God and the discipline which he exercises is no more than than the personal application of Christs word in his name to judg the impenitent and absolve the penitent And every authoritative Teacher in Christs name hath power to make such personal application of the word The Pastoral Office hath its work not only towards those that are within but towards those also that are without to bring them into the Fold As Christ the Prince of Pastors or chief Shepherd doth by virtue of that office not only feed the sheep that are gathered to him but goes out also into the wilderness to seek the lost sheep even so the Ministerial pastors or bishops are by virtue of their office under Christ to seek those that are as yet going astray and to bring them to Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls Thus the name Pastor doth very congruously denote the Ministerial Authority towards the unbelieving and unconverted as well as towards believers and converts Moreover the said Officers are stiled Preachers of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 Stewards of the Mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 Ambassadors of Christ that have the Ministry of Reconciliation committed to them 2 Cor. 5.18 20. And these Titles infer an Office and Ministry relating as well to those that are without and to be brought into the Fold as to those that are within and to be kept there and in reference to both sorts it is for the edifying or building of the Church In short the Pastoral Office is a state of Authority and obligation to dispence the Word and Sacraments and disciplinary censures of Christ the Mediator in his name The Ministerial dispensation of the Word differs quoad formale from spiritual instruction reproof exhortation given in a common way of Christian charity or in a special way of Oeconomical or civil Authority being performed by Christs commissioned Officers and Stewards in holy things and separated or devoted thereunto And herein the Ministers as Ambassadors or Heralds according to the tenor of the Gospel do publish and offer the mercies of Christ upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of Christ to those that refuse his Mercies The Sacraments being seals annexed by Christ to the word of his grace and a visible word are also to be dispenced by them to whom the dispensation of the word is committed The disciplinary censures of Authoritative Reproof Suspension and Excommunication of persons convicted of ungodliness and impenitency being a particular and personal application of the threatnings of the Gospel and a declaring and judging of the persons unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church are likewise to be administred by the same Officers § 4. The nature of the Spiritual Power residing in the Pastors THE Spiritual Power of Pastors Bishops or Elders is expressed by the Author and Giver of it in these terms viz. The keys of the kingdom of heaven binding and loosing remitting and retaining sins To understand the true import of these terms is to understand the Power enquired of The keys of the kingdom of Heaven signifie the Stewardship of Christs Gospel to dispence to every one a due portion thereof according to his command Binding and loosing is a Ministerial Authority of holding impenitent sinners under the curse and absolving the penitent from it only by the word of Christ generally or personally applied and it may further signifie a Ministerial prohibiting of that which is unlawful and allowing of that which is lawful by the doctrine of Christ And the power of remitting and retaining sins as granted to Ministers is only that of meer Stewards or Dispensers of the Blessing or the Curse that hath proceeded out of the mouth of Christ their Lord and there appears no grant from Christ to his Ministers of other power than what is here expressed or what is implyed in it or by necessary consequence follows from it In reference to the ministerial power a great Scholar distinguisheth between a Vicar and a mere Minister and saith a Vicar doth produce actions of the same kind with him whose Vicar he is his words are actiones congeneres tho less perfectly but a mere minister doth not produce such actions but only such as are serviceable to the action of the principal cause Therefore the name of the same action is properly yet analogically attributed to the Vicar as to the principal as for example to pass sentence but to the minister only tropically as remitting and retaining of sins Indeed the sentence of a vicarious Judg whether just or unjust is decisive or definitive and valid as to matter of legal right till it be reversed by the principal but the action of a Minister for the remitting and retaining of sin is of no force no not for a moment if it be unjust or done as the common expression is errante clave Hereupon it follows that the ministerial power of remitting and retaining sins and of binding and loosing at least as to the conscience is merely declarative that is it hath its force and vertue as it is a true declaration of the mind of Christ in that particular otherwise it is void and of no effect The power of Pastors in the acts aforesaid is but the power of Heralds or Ambassadors and therefore only declarative God and Christ doth by the law of grace absolve or justifie the penitent constitutivè Even before the Pastor pronounceth absolution every penitent is by the covenant of grace justifyed or made righteous Therefore the Pastor doth absolve or justifie him only declarativè For when a man is justified by the law of grace and consequently so esteemed and judged of God what hath his officer or minister afterwards to do in his name but to declare what is already done in law As for the saying of Dominus expectat servum that is before God justifies the penitent believer who is ready to submit to all his terms he stays for the sentence of absolution to be pronounced by the Minister I confess I understand not its consistence with the Covenant of Grace Wherefore the pastoral sentence of absolution doth confer no new right nor doth it perfect the right already given by the law of Christ but it doth authoritatively declare that right and strengthen the assurance and comfort the conscience of the penitent The pastoral binding of the impenitent is not the adding of a further curse or obligation to divine vengeance but merely a solemn declaration of the curse already past upon the sinner by the law of Christ But as the solemn declaration of the Kings pardon to repenting rebels and the denunciation of vengeance to the obstinate by an authorized officer according to the law doth strengthen the assurance of the conditional mercy and increase the guilt of continuing in rebellion and more forcibly press to obedience so the like declarative acts
of Christs Ministers have the same force towards his subjects That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein I yet discern not For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed yet the erring keys have no effect and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person that hath not given just scandal or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion but they are still to receive him as a brother Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof as coming to the Church-Assembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow But this obligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence but from the duty of preserving peace and order The distinction of the power of Order and the power of jurisdiction is vain For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder but a part only or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys the one whereof belongs only to one superior kinâ— of spiritual officers and the other is common to all â—piritual â—astors let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God § 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject to another who is not the ordinary subject thereof and who hath right to exercise it merely as authorized by the ordinary subject thereof as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him who is no Bishop and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation The office of a Bishop Pastor or Elder is a trust and that of the greatest consequence in the world and a trust may not be delegated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver No subordinate officer can make a legal deputy unless he be authorized thereunto by law or in his commission or Charter from the supream power And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust nor given authority to his Ministers to make such Delegation That Princes and Soveraign Powers bâ—ing Gods Trustees do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like For first Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors Heralds and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him as the supream Magistrates are Civil Soveraigns under God 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of civil power and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men but the spiritual power is specified by Christ and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates namely to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self For it is the power of the keys or of stewarship in Christs house of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name by special authority from him And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized exert such power Besides if one part of the bishops proper work viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government may be delegated to one that is no bishop why may not any other part of his work be so delegated as the ordaining of ministers And if it be replied ad ordinem pertinet ordinare by as good reason it may be said that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs institution to exercise Christs Discipline as to ordain Ministers Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order may so exert the said power in the place of another as that his act is valid But it may well be questioned whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person Col. 1.7 And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order But I do not question but a bishop may have an assistant or assistants of his own order either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do And then the said assistants are not his Vicars but collegues performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ § 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices Howbeit I do not merely insist on the names as indifferently used but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is not to be found in Scripture Tit. 1.5 7. shews not only an identity of name but of office To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified because a Bishop must be so qualified is not rational if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter and superior to him Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine 1 Pet. 5.12 The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them and to take the oversight thereof and under the force of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bishops claim their whole power of government 1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presbyter below a Bishop and above a Deacon And neither this nor any other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualification or ordination or any sacred
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
de corona Militis c. 3. saith We take the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the hand of no other than of the President It is to be noted that in those times they received the Sacrament at least every Lords day And it is confessed by Episcopal Divines that this President was the bishop But if any say that he was a meer presbyter they must grant that a presbyter had the name of President and a governing power 7. It is much asserted among the Hierarchical Divines that anciently bishops only were allowed to preach And if this was so it was and could be but one single church that a bishop had as his immediate charge for we cannot imagine that there were churches which ordinarily had no preaching or in which preaching was not ordinarily allowed yea the presbyters might not baptize without the bishops command or consent This shews that each particular church had its proper bishop 8. That church in which divine worship was performed had also discipline exercised in it Tertul. Apol. c. 39. 9. The bishops church was no greater than that all the people could meet together and chuse their bishop In Cyprian's time at the ordaining of a bishop the next bishops came to the people for whom the bishop was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 4. Erasmus Edit to Felix a presbyter Nor let the people flatter themselves as free from the contagion of the sin when they communicate with a priest that is a sinner They ought to separate themselves from him seeing they chiefly have the power either of chusing worthy or refusing unworthy priests Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be made but under the conscience of the assisting people The custom is with us and almost throughout all provinces That to the celebrating of Ordinations all the next bâ—shops of the same province assemble with the people to whom the Praepositus is ordained To the same purpose we find much in very many of his Epistles This was the ordinary course of the first Ages for all the people to chuse their bishops and to be present thereat for which a multitude of testimonies may easily be produced 10. Apost Can. c. 5. shew that the bishop with his presbyters and deacons lived on the gifts of the same altar 'T was the custom of bishops and their presbyters to dwell together and be in common 11. The numerousness of the ancient bishops and their churches shew that those churches were of no large extent In the first council of Carthage it was decreed c. 11. That for examining every ordinary cause of an accused presbyter six bishops out of the neighbouring-places were to hear and determine and for every cause of a deacon three bishops It is reported that Patrick planted in Ireland three hundred sixty five churches and as many bishops In the Vandalick persecution six hundred and sixty bishops fled out of one part of Africa besides all that were murthered imprisoned and tolerated Many proofs hereof might be alledged but in general it sufficeth to note That a great number of bishops could on a sudden meet together in a Provincial Assembly as in the sixth council of Carthage two hundred and seventeen bishops were met And in the times of persecution under the heathen Emperors there were numerous Assemblies of bishops when they went in fear of their lives 12. The paucity of Presbyters in a Bishops Church shews that it was not very large In greater Churches they had a greater number of presbyters but in smaller they had often two sometimes one sometimes none The matter here considered touching the ancient form and state of a bishops Church will be further cleared in the following Sections § 2. Of the place where a Bishops Church anciently was and might be constituted THAT every City which had a competent number of Christians had a bishop with his Church is granted on all sides And that it was not a bishops seat which made that a City which otherwise would not have been so but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a bishop cannot reasonably be denied The Scripture useth the word City for any Town or Burrough Mat. 12.25 Mat. 23.34 Luk. 2.3 Luk. 7.11 Act. 15 21. Crete which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not have a Hundred cities in it unless such as our Burroughs and in every such city the Rule was to ordain elders or bishops Tit. 1.5 What argument from Scripture or reason can be brought why Worcester Glocester Chichester c. should be made Cities and seats of Bishops rather than Shrewsbury Ipswich Blimouth c In the first ages of the Christian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the same capacity of having Churches Theophilus Alexandrius Epist Pascal in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Bishops in very small Cities Zozomen saith that Spiridion was bishop of the Town Trimethus and said to be Keeper of sheep in that Town after he was bishop There is also sufficient proof that bishops were ordained in Villages or in places that were no Cities Majuma was the port of Gaza and because it had many Christians it was honoured by Constantine with the name of a City and a bishop of its own And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City it still kept its own bishop tho it had the same Magistrates and Military Governours with Gaza And when the bishop of Gaza sought to subject the Clergy of Majuma to himself saying 't was unmeet that one City should have two bishops a Councel in Palestine called for that purpose confirmed the priviledges of Majuma Sozomen l. 5. cap. 3. Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth as Pyraeus of Athens yet we find a Church constituted there Rom. 16.1 They who say it was a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having only a presbyter assigned to it are bound to prove it Clemens Apostolical constitutions lib. 7. c. 84. saith that Cenchrea near Corinth had Lucius a bishop Sozomen l. 7. c 19. saith when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one bishop there are other Nations where bishops are ordained in villages as among the Arabians and Cyprians and Phrygian Montanists In the Counccil of Sardica Can. 6. it was decreed that bishops may not be ordained in villages or in small cities where one presbyter will suffice lest the name and authority of a bishop should become vile But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century and the decree implies that till then bishops had been allowed in villages and small Cities The Chorepiscopi were placed in country villages when Christians grew so numerous as to have Churches in them and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compass The Canons made to express this sort of Ministers and to turn them into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem and so to Rome for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome bear either in their inscription or some other passage the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians to the Philippians to the Colossians to the Hebrews and to Philemon Pauls beseeching of Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 2 Tim. 1.3 had been needless if he were then a setled bishop there Besides it is granted that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus when he was with Paul at Miletum yet that Church had then elders which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Therefore it cannot be that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had which nevertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy Spalatensis lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop that is an Apostle tyed to no seat 2. Titus was no fixed Bishop His travels we likewise find upon sacred record Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 An. 43 45. Paul returning to Antioch passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches Acts 15.41 from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having preached the Gospel and planted a Church he left Titus for a while to set in order the things that were left undone Tit. 1.5 An. 46. Paul injoins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3.12 an 51. but changing his purpose he sent for him to Ephesus where his Winter-station was 2 Cor. 1.8 thence he sent him to Corinth to enquire of the state of that Church His return from thence Paul expected at Troas and because there he sound not his expectation answered he was grieved in spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 Thence Paul passed into Macedonia where Titus met him and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7.5 c. an 52. Paul having collected the liberality of the Saints sends Titus an 53. again to the Corinthians to prepare them for that contribution 2 Cor. 8.6 And we do not find that after his first removal from Creet he did ever return thither After this we read that Titus was with Paul at Rome and went thence not to Creet but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 It is to be noted that after the time of Titus his being in Creet was the greatest part of his travels And if Titus did abide some years in Creet that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they resided long in one place according to the work to be done there as Paul abode three years at Ephesus 3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly these following things may be observed In the New Testament there is no instance of a setled Overseer or Pastor whose motion was so planetary as theirs and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet it is granted by the assertors of their supposed Episcopacy that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome Now the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written by Paul before his first going to Rome and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor Eccles p. 66 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops borrow their testimony from Eusebius and all that he saith is only that it is so written and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont and from Egesippus who is not extant It is observed that Eusâ—bius Irenaeus and others delivered what they received too securely 4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles in which they are stiled bishops whether they be canonical or authentick proof let it be considered It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus ordained the first bishop c. Did he know or mind that there would be a second epistle or bishop Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second by these words of distinction The first Epistle to Timothy Beza proves was not written from Laodicea but from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time nor till the more declining time of the Roman Empire In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy these words ordained first bishop c. is not in many ancient Copies saith Beza nor in the Vulgar edition nor in the Syriack Interpreter The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis as the postscript saith for had Paul been there he would have said I have determined here not there to winter And whereas it faith the first bishop did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess who hath some City and not a whole Region for his Sea Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians And the Scripture way of expression would be not the Church but the Churches of the cretians Church being used of a City with its adjacent Villages and Churches of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was Thus there is good ground to think that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles themselves 5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus are either such as concern all presbyters or such as are above the bishop of a particular church 1. Some precepts given them concern all presbyters To be instant in season and out of season belongs to all preachers of the Gospel As a bishop must be able to convince gainsayers so ought all presbyters The stopping of the mouths of subverters is by conviction and extends as well to doctrine as to definitive sentencing Mat. 22.34 and even definitive silencing was anciently by presbyters either alone or in conjunction with their bishops The authority given to Timothy That those who sin be rebuked before all belongs to presbyters and it is that which may be done by equals To lay hands suddenly on no man concerns presbyters to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands Nor doth this precept infer That a bishop hath power to ordain alone and it is granted that one bishop alone may not ordain a bishop Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any And in ancient times if a bishop or presbyter were accused the matter