EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED BY CHRIST And confirmed by cleere evidence of Scripture and invincible Reason Collected by the pains of R. R. Preacher of the Gospell DEVT. 42. Yee shall not adde unto the Word which I command you neither shall yee diminish ought from it that yee may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you REVEL 22.18 19 For I testifie unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecie of this booke if any man shal add unto these things God shal add unto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecie God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy City and from the things that are written in this book LONDON Printed Anno Domini 1641. Episcopall Government instituted by Christ The first Argument THat whatsoever degrees of Church Governours as God established under the Law that Christ and his Apostles continued under the Gospel and that hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles They are and must be of Divine Ordination But God established three degrees of Church Governours under the Law Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell and three degrees hath governed the Christian Church since the days of Christ and his Apostles And therefore three degrees of Church Governours are and must be of Divine Ordination The proposition I will take for granted for I know no man will deny it The assumption I must prove which hath three branches The first is That God established three degrees under the Law the High Priest inferiour Priests and Levits the High Priest to be in the first order Inferiour Priests in the second and Levits in the third and this I hope will be granted The second branch of the Proposition that Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospell I prove thus Christ chose Apostles for one order and Evangelists for another called at the first the seventy Disciples to distinguish them from the other twelve who were also called Disciples as long as Christ lived for they were seldome before Christ his Resurrection distinguished by their proper names and Christ filled the room of the high Priest himself as long as he served in the Ministery of the Gospell And after his Ascention immediatly the Apostles by the direction of the Spirit made choice of a third Order of Churchmen whom they called by the name of Deacons Act. 6. so that the Apostles were appointed to be of the first Order after Christ his Resurrection at which time they were only endued with stolicall authoritie being before Christs death in the order and rank of Evangelists and the Evangelists inferiour to them for the twelve were ever distinguished from the seventy both in Place Estimation as any man may perceive that can read the Scriptures but when Christ was to asâ—end up unto the Father he made the Apostles chiefe Governours of the Church and put them in his own place and said to them He that heareth you heareth mee and he that despiseth you despiseth mee after which time they were called by the name of Apostles ordinarily and the other seventy got the name of Evangelists and were the second order of Church Governours at all times remembred in the second place howsoever the twelve Disciples were called Apostles as chiefly sent of God although the other seventy were sent too as wee read Luke 10. yet they were not consecrate with so great solemnitie as the other twelve nor got not so strict a charge nor so great authoritie and power conferred upon them the truth of all this you will finde in the last Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel and the first of the Acts so that since the twelve Disciples are thus advanced and not the seventie it is more then evident that Christ would have the Seventie to be still inferiour to the Twelve And this also appears by the election of Matthias who was taken out of the number of the seventie and advanced to the Apostolicall charge if the twelve had not been in degree above the seventy to what end should this distinction have been made no man will say I hope that the Twelve would have advanced themselves above the Seventy if Christ himselfe had made no difference before for Christ no question if they had beene wrong would have reproved their arrogancie but on the contrary Christ gives testimonie of his approbation of that which they did by consenting to Matthias election yea it appeares that they had a commandement so to do for Peter saith Acts 1.22 that one must be ordained to be a witnesse with us of the Resurrection the word 〈◊〉 in the 21 Verse is very emphaticall so that it would seeme that it was not left arbitrary to them to doe it or not to do it at their plâ—asure but of necessitie it behoved to be done as being commanded by Christ their Master Moreover it is evident by the words of the 25 Verse where the Apostle makes a cleer distinction between Apostles and Evangelists That he may take part saith he of this Ministery and Apostleship now the Apostle could not call it this Ministery except it had bin distinct from that which Matthias had before hee was one of the Seventy Disciples before and had power to preach the Gospell of Christ so that it is most sure if the calling of the twelve had not beene particularly differenced by Christ from the calling of the seventy the Apostles would never have put a distinction between the one Ministerie and the other But the Apostle Peter adds yet a cleerer distinction and hee cals the Ministery whereunto Matthias was advanced Apostleship this Ministery and Apostleship saith he now the Ministerie of the seventy Disciples was never called Apostleship unto this day as all men know Further this distinction appeareth that the Apostle with the consent of the rest of the twelve would have the number made up before the comming of the Holy Ghost for the Holy Ghost did not visibly descend upon any but upon the twelve well they did always attend his comming they could not tell how soon and therefore they thought it necessary that Matthias should be elected withall expedition so that any man may conceive if there had not been a wide difference between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples the Apostle would never have made such haste By the former doctrine we finde that our Saviour differenced the 12 from the seventy thrice in the time of his life once for by taking the twelve to be of his counsell as it were and guard of his bodie he made a manifest distinction Luke 6.13 Next after his Resurrection hee put a difference between them in that hee enstalled them solemnly in their Apostolicall charge which hee did not unto the seventy and thirdly after his Ascention he sent the Holy Ghost
grace That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors first by Scripture and next by demonstrative Reasons Beside many other places of Scripture read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23 where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished I intreat you to see the places and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles but that all Divines ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in degree to the Apostles but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles My first Reason I will form thus They that were inferiour in degree to the apostles were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apostles And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree The Proposition I take for granted for I hope no man will deny it I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World next by the cleer evidence of Scripture throughout all the book of God where the Apostles who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distinguished from inferiour Bishops who only have the oversight of the people as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. My second Reason I will form thus If Elders be the Apostles Successors then that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is committed to them by the Apostles as amply as they themselves had it But that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is not committed unto Elders as amply as the Apostles themselves had it And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles If any man deny the Proposition I will aske him how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie Truly it is beyond my capacitie to conceive and understand it I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary but in their ordinary power and authoritie and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel they must succeed them and they be their successors I prove the Assumption Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet for Timothy it is cleer 2 Tim. 1.6 any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles and which I think no Divine will deny any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. to Archippus Col. 4.17 who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop and so superiour to an Elder any one of Apostles might Command Rebuke Censure and correct Elders at their own pleasure as is most evident in Scriptures and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles now those things no Elder can do by himself and therefore That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had is not committed to inferiour Bishops but to Superiour Here it may be objected That by this Reason Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops they joyne with them in the Ordination of Ministers so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction Answer There is no warrant for this in the Scripture it is true wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies and also in Ordination so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyterie but there was no direction from Christ for so doing it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence which they needed not to have done and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles and 2 Tim. 1.6 and many other places of Scripture and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles but their own voluntary yielding of their right and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws and Canons of ancient Councels it is as cleer as the Sun That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures what he hath it is but by humane Ordination and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell This is most certaine That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop is not warranted by any example in Scripture nor the Canon of any ancient Councell and so my conclusion stands good That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles My third Reason is this They who were inferiour to those in dignitie and degree who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function The Proposition I know will be granted I prove the assumption That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation Timothy and Titus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation so were all the Evangelists as all Divines acknowledge and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters I shall prove it by and by but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists and this it is briefly Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution But this were absurde to say that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution And therefore it is as absurd to say that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters
company of Presbyters Acts 8.14 and 11.22 and 15.6 7 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Answer These things were done in the infancie of the Church before the Government was established and so can be no rule for after ages some will so answer I answer further there is not a word there that will confirme Presbyteriall government for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power by the power of the Apostles they were convened together by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed by their authoritie all things were concluded they had full and absolute power in their own hands although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order yee will find all that I have said true if yee will be pleased to see the places But most cleerly it appeareth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. where the Apostle by his power and authoritie coÌ„mandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced for thus he speaketh For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alreadie as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion nothing was done but by his speciall appointment Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government there seems something to be in the words for Parochiall If there had been Parishes and Lay-elders in those days and truly if I were not of that judgement That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Successors untill the end of the World I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government but never of Presbyteriall and truly if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures as for Presbyteriall it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God Now follows that I cleere the doubts and first I know it will be objected That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner Ans I condemne not the Churches but the Government Some perhaps may reply That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution I charge them with a very grosse errour I answer Let them see to that I cannot call evill good nor good evill unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced neither will any thing excuse them except necessity for both Gods Law and mans Law doth dispence with it but because there is no necessitie let men beware for Ego liberavi animam meam Furthermore it will be alleaged That Timothy and Titus and the Bishops of old were not like our Bishops They had not that power and authoritie nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now They were not Barons Lords Earles Princes in such kind as they are now They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders as Bishops have now They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall Ans In Episcopall Government there are two things The one is Spirituall and de jure divino by divine right The other is Civill and de dono humano of humane gift and by the donation of Kings and Princes That is their Civill Honour their Civill Power their Temporalities their Revenues as to be Barons in Parliament to judge in causes Temporall to inflict temporall punishment all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen and not without warrant from God neither according to that of the Apostle The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour and in speciall they that labour in the Word Doctrine 1 Tim. 5. And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church-men May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell aswell as they were under the Law As to the first I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please it is their speciall prerogative I make no question of it And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel as they were under the Law it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes for the better correcting of Vice and Sin and for managing all things in the State so that God thereby may be the more glorified and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice It was well said of a Divive That it is well with the Church when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose we should have more Emperours like Theodosius But I would aske any man this question Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell and Assistance of the Governours of the Church now as the Kings of Israel had under the Law and was there ever any religious King among the Iews who had not conâ—inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires was not Aaron next unto Moses was not Eleazar next unto Iosua Had not David Zador and Abiather continually in his company Was not Azariah next unto Salomon and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Iehoida lived and was not Hilkia chief Counsellour to Iosia and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat Truly I hold this for a sure ground That what ever was done under the Law not being commanded by God then it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us and wee need not doubt but it will be as well approved by God now as it was then But which is more yet If any thing be commanded by God under the Law which is not ceremoniall and typicall it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of