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-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
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
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
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
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
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
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
continued till the end of all things It is also ascertained that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state or Church organical as some express it consisting of a part governing and a part governed always continued somewhere upon earth For Christs promise is to be with his Apostles in the executing of their Ministry always to the end of the world and it must be understood of them not barely considered as persons but as his commissioned Officers including their successors not in the Apostolical and Temporary but in the ordinary and perpetual Authority which they had in common with Pastors Bishops or Presbyters And Eph. 4.11 shews that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated But the promise doth not import that any particular Church or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Ecclesiastical Polity how ample or illustrious soever shall be perpetuated by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state or from Christianity it self If any particular church or any one larger part of the Catholick church hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now when others have been extinct it is by the good pleasure of God whose ways and counsels are wise and holy yet unsearchable and past finding out Nor doth the promise import that the true church shall be perpetually conspicuous tho it be perpetually visible for in some Ages it may be more obscure in others more apparent It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church as a city on a hill That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned Now in such a state it may be said to be tho not absolutely yet comparatively invisible that is being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Visible Nor doth it import that any particular church or any most ample and illustrious part of the Catholick church shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine worship and government but that it may depart from it and fall into most enormous errors and practises in the said points and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine and church-state The Scripture foretels of a great falling away and a lasting defection in the Christian church and a long continued predominancy of an Antichristian state therein Nay for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise the said defection might have been so universal as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party by a different external church-polity but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame and keep themselves from being destroyed by it some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise and others that are infected with it holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection nor incorporate with the antichristian state but were by themselves in a severed church-state yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine Worship and Government also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said apostacy separated from it and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity § 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom Family Flock Spouse and Body to Christ as its only King Master Shepherd Husband and Head so we find particular churches as so many political societies distinct from each other yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample Society the Catholick church as the church at Antioch Acts 13.1 the church at Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Acts 15.4 the church at Cesarea Acts 18.22 the church at Cenchrea Rom. 10.1 the church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 the church of the Thessalonians 1 Thes 1.1 the church at Babylon 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia Apoc. 1. 2. viz. of Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatyra Sardis Thiladelphia and Laodicea We likewise find that the Christians of a city o◠lesser precinct made one church as the church at Corinth the church at Cenchrea c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit made many churches as the churches of Asia the churches of Galatiae We find also that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing and a part governed and consequently were political Societies Every church had their proper Elder or Elders Acts. 4.23 which Elders were the same with Bishops Acts 20.28 Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches considered as Political Societies We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally superintend or oversee all the Flock or every member of the church over which they did preside Acts 20 28 29. 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 This appears further by their particular work expresly mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes 5.12 13. to admonish all that were unruly and to rebuke them openly 1 Tim. 5.20 Tit. 1.10 to visit and pray with the sick and all the sick were to send for them to that end James 5.14 and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or Delegates can be found § 14. The Form of a particular Church considered FROM the premises it is evident That all particular churches mentioned in the New Testament were so constituted as that all the members thereof were capable of personal communion in worshipping God if not always at once together yet by turns at least and of living under the present personal superintendency of their proper Elder or Elders Bishop or Bishops Whether to be embodied or associated for personal communion in worship and for personal superintendency of the Pastors over all the members be the true formal or essential constitution of particular churches by divine right I leave to consideration But this is evident that all those churches that the Scripture takes notice of were so constituted and that
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
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
heart-subjection prayer comprehending confession of our sin and misery petition for all needful grace and mercy and praise with thanksgiving self-resignation to God and covenanting with him making vows to him swearing by his name and devoting any thing to his immediate Service All these are expressions of divine honour Of all these there may be certain external forms of positive institution and so as to those forms they may be called instituted worship Moreover the thing vowed may be instituted and ceremonial tho the vow of it self be Moral Worship The end of an Oath may be the confirmation of the truth unto men and the nearest end of a Vow to God may be some benefit to men and the matter of a Vow may be some common thing yet the Vow as to its essential form is divine Worship in a direct engagement made to God for his honour and an oath as to its essential form is divine worship in a direct acknowledging of Gods Omnipotence Omniscience infinite Holiness and taking him to witness to the truth which we attest with a voluntary subjection to his righteous judgment And the internal end of both Vow and Oath is the glorifying of God as our Supreme Lord and Judg. The external part of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament is instituted ceremonial worship but the internal part which is the soul and spirit thereof being our solemn receiving of the grace of the Covenant given us of God in Christ and our solemn engaging to God according to the tenor of that Covenant is a most important and main part of divine service and is worship Moral Natural § 10. Of particular acts which are Natural Ceremonial Worship KNeeling bowing of the body prostration lifting up of the hands and eyes to heaven in worshipping God are in one respect worship it self and in another respect but circumstances of Worship They are acts of external Worship as they are natural expressions of the internal And they may be accounted and called circumstances of Worship being considered as subservient appurtenances to the more substantial parts of Worship to which they are sometimes necessarily conjoined and from which remaining intire and compleat notwithstanding they may at other times be spared These things being naturally laudable but not naturally necessary are necessary to be used when conveniently they may and not otherwise Some have called the aforesaid and such like external acts natural Ceremonies and they are called Natural because Nature it self teacheth men to use them without any Divine or Humane institution and a rational man by the meer light of Nature is directed to use them yet men are by nature directed to things not without government of counsel and discretion For in these things Nature is in part determined and limited by the custom of several Ages and Countreys and by the difference of several cases The posture of Standing in the acts of solemn professions and engagements made to God as in declaring our assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith and consent to the Covenant of Grace also in acts of solemn Praise and Thanksgiving as in the repeating of Laudatory Hymns is such an outward expression of our internal devotion as is very consentaneous to Nature and so an outward act of Worship § 11. Of External acts which by custom of the Age or Countrey express devotion in Worship MEN say That Custom is a second Nature And some external acts that are grounded on Custom are as significant and expressive at least before men as those that are natural and the neglect of them would be very incongruous and scandalous Of this kind is the uncovering of the head in the Male Sex by putting off the Hat c. and in the Worship of God it is an act or part of worship for it is done directly to his honour and is immediately expressive of heart reverence towards him Yet I grant that all reverential acts about Gods Worship are not acts of worship but some are only adjuncts thereof as shall be shewed No Ceremonial act either natural or customary is necessary to be observed where natural infirmity or other necessity makes it inconvenient § 12. Of External acts which by divine Institution or the general custom of Nations express Divine Honour THE erecting of Altars offering of Sacrifice and burning of incense are by the custom of mankind accounted Divine Honours And they were such acknowledgments as God did in the Law appropriate to himself Therefore these acts are properly divine worship to whatsoever object they are directed Yea tho there be not an intention of acknowledging a Deity in the object or person to whom they are directed yet they are external Divine Worship or a giving of that external honour which is appropriated to the Deity The dedicating of Temples and consecrating of places to any being may be of ambiguous interpretation First it may betoken the setting apart a place as sacred to that being to which it is set apart and the place of its worship and special residence and benign influence upon mortals and in this sense it is an act of divine worship and in this sense I suppose the Papists have dedicated Churches and Chappels and other places to Saints and Angels 2. It may betoken only the setting apart of a place or house in memorial only of the created person Saint or Angel but to the honour and service of God And in this later sense the dedicating of a Church or other place to a created being is not a deferring of divine honour thereunto In like manner the dedicating of days and times to any person for invocation or any service which is usually rendred to God to be performed to that person is a giving of divine worship to him But the dedicating of days and times in memorial of some blessed person to the honour and service of God alone is no giving of divine worship to that person § 13. Of fasting wearing of Sackcloth or other vile apparel lying in ashes being barefoot and the like austerities used in Gods Worship 1. THese acts are evident expressions of Humiliation and Self-abasement and some of them are fit expressions thereof in all places and times as fasting and wearing of mean apparel and some of them but in some Ages and Countries because tho they are apt in nature to express the same yet therein nature is subject to some variety according to the different customs of times and places 2ly They are fit means of mortification some of them in all times and places as fasting some of them only in some times and places according to custom 3ly Consequently they are fit adjuncts of Divine Worship in special seasons and occasions of solemn Humiliation But 4ly These acts may become also acts of Divine Worship whether they be lawful acts thereof is another Question being used as direct means of honouring and pleasing God in abasing and displeasing self For so they are done before his Foot-stool to the exalting
to the Protestants Doctrine is the giving of Divine Honour to a morsel of Bread and therefore a most stupid and stupendious kind of Idolatry Some of the Protestant Profession have gone about to Extenuate the same saying That it is material but not formal Idolatry in the Papists For that the Consecrated Bread is taken to be very Christ who is very God and therefore though the thing Worshipped be not God yet it is Believed to be the True God by those Worshippers and Worshipped as such Nevertheless it hath been granted by some of the Popish Writers That if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be an Error they are guilty of the most abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host and they could not find out the aforesaid extenuation of it in case of such Error by distinguishing between Material and Formal Idolatry And some Romanists do say That these words This is my body may bear a Figurative sence as those Words That Christ was a Rock and that if there were no other Evidence for Transubstantiation but what the Scripture gives there were no reason to make it an Article of Faith Bellarmine saith These words necessarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread as the Catholicks hold or a Metaphorical as the Calvinists hold but by no means admit the Lutheran sence And he concludes That though there be some obscurity and ambiguity in the Words yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers The Persians in old Gentilism Worshipped the Sun for the Supreme God and their Idolatry was not the less abominable for their Error about that Object of Worship And surely it was Formal Idolatry that is There was in it the formalis ratio or true nature and reason of that Sin Nay I think it more Sacrilegious and Blasphemous against the True God to take any Creature to be he and to worship it accordingly than to give Divine Worship to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God but some inferior deity St. Austin speaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Psal 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun and said That it was Jesus Christ Now divine honour given to the Sun under such a mistake is horrid Idolatry and why not also divine honour given to a morsel of Bread by the same mistake The Lutherans Doctrine of Consubstantiation doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored They believe indeed That Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament but they do not believe That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ nor adore it as such But that the Papists condition in respect of this sottish Superstition of Bread-worship being so bad may not be made worse than it is it may be considered That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity nor to be he that is God save onely according to his Human Body into which they believe the Bread is changed and so worship it as our Lords Body or to express it in the most favourable sence they worship him as there present in his proper Body and withal worship the bread supposed to be that Body §. 6. Of the Popish Invocation of Angels and Saints departed THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture Invocation on God alone is according to Scripture Christ teacheth to pray Our Father in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer We are taught to Invocate him on whom we believe Rom. 10.14 which is God alone As Incense the Type so Prayer the thing typified is to be offered to God alone Prayer is an Act of such Worship as Papists call latria It supposeth the Being to whom it is directed to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for And so they that are prayed to are invocated in Gods stead And whereas some say That the Saints are to be invocated not as Authors of Divine benefits it is apparent that Papists invocate them as Authors directly and without ambages praying to them for health and deliverance from danger yea for the highest benefits as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them They direct their prayers to them as to those that can dispence the Grace of God to men at their pleasure Also prayer implies a prostration of the whole Soul and Spirit and Body to the person that is invocated by Acts of Subjection Devotion Dependence Reverence and all higest Observance Experience shews the fond ravishments of Soul in the superstitions towards those to whom more especially they are devoted ordinarily making no inferior Expressions of their Devotion towards them than toward God and Christ Yea they are so intercepted and taken up by this Dotage as to forget God If Saints are invocated as Mediators they are invocated in Christs stead Christ is our Intercessor in Heaven as our Redeemer 1 John 2.1 And therefore they that are not our Redeemers cannot be our intercessors in Heaven Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but such as we know both can and will represent them to God The Popish Invocation of Saints and Angels is an ascribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers of hearts and perceptive of all the cases and concernments of those that invocate them and an Omniscience and Omnipresence if not absolute yet at least reâ—â—â—ctive to this lower World the Habitation of us Mortals is ascribed to them thereby To excuse this Sacriledg and Idolatry that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things in speculo Trinitatis is but a sorry shift Such Omniscience the Manhood of Christ hypostatically united to the Godhead did not pretend unto And the devising of it is a transcendent presumption of mans wit for the invading of Gods right The truth is the Worship of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church in parity of reason answers the Pagans Worshipping of Daemons being either Souls of Men departed or other Invisible Powers whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities subordinate and ministring to the Supreme God And after the manner of the Heathens the Papists have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces Cities Artificers living Creatures c. When we desire holy persons on Earth to pray for us we feek not to them as Patrons or Intercessors in the vertue of their Merits but as Brethren at the same distance from God with us And the help is mutual according to the Communion of Saints and for which we have Promise Precept and Example § 7. Of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations to any besides God THose external Acts that by Nature or Custome or Divine Institution are or were appropriated Expressions of that internal honour or observance that is due to God alone are Divine Worship And such are the Acts of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations and burning Incense and making Vows and dedicating Temples and ordaining Festivals The Erecting of Altars either for Sacrifice or other Oblations to any being imports either an
be worshipped but to be used in his Worship It is not unlawful to make an image of other things besides God as of some holy man as an object or medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God Query Whether a Crucifix or an Historical image of Christ according to his humane body may not be used in that manner If it be lawful to have such a Picture of Christ why may we not make use of the beholding thereof to excite our devotion to him Nevertheless seeing the Second Commandment forbids the worshipping of God by a representation as a means of worship tho not worshipped I doubt whether lawfully we may have a Picture of Christ who is worshipped indeed in his whole person yet only upon the account of his divine nature as a means of the worship rendered to him Besides there is peril of idolatry and of worshipping the Picture it self For the same cause I think it dangerous to have a Crucifix or other Picture of Christ for a stated or fixed representation of him according to his humane body § 18. Of material Images and Representations not of God but of other things used in Gods Worship and of the Symbols of the Divine Presence of worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar TO make such Images and Representations to be used in Divine Worship is not simply evil as appears by the brazen Serpent a temporary Ordinance for an occasion in the Wilderness and by the Cherubims on the Mercy seat a stated Ordinance for the Mosaical dispensation There were also supernatural unimitable Representations tho not of the Divine nature yet of the Divine presence as the burning bush and the appearances on Mount Sinai Divine Worship directed to such Images or Representations as to a mediate object is idolatry The Ark and the Cherubims and the Temple were not made the object of Worship A learned man writes That incurvation in way of Religion towards any Symbolical presence as to an object is flat idolatry if it be in worship of Saints Angels and Demons it is double idolatry if in the worship of the true God single I suppose it is one thing to make somewhat as for instance the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy-seat and the Temple an object of our consideration in the Worship of God as instructing and exciting therein and another thing to make it the object of worship it self And the said Author saith That to direct our adoration towards a supernatural and unimitable transplendency of the divine presence is not idolatry I suppose he means that the burning bush which Moses saw and the visible glories on the Mount were only media cultus not objects thereof the presence of God shining th ough the same as a bright medium Whether a symbolical presence of God may be erected of mans devising is to be examined I think it high â—resumption and arrogance so to do For it is uncertain at least to men whether God in the times of the Gospel reside in any local limits more especially than elsewhere And from our Saviours words Joh. 4. Neither in Jerusalem nor in this mountain c. the contrary is by many supposed to be evident But if God doth chuse any local limits of his special residence more than others can any besides himself assign the same Gods special residence with his people and yet more special in the time of his worship is of another reason than his residence in certain places And this residence with his people he himself hath testified in his word and the reason of the thing is manifest Therefore to make our Temples or Altars as some call the Communion Tables to be a Shechinah or divine presence I suppose is unwarrantable as also to call the Communion Table as some have Solium Christi The lifting up of eyes and hands to heaven in prayer and praise is warrantable and comely because there God dwells in his greatest visible glory and he hath declared in his word that he hath made the Heaven his throne and the earth his footstool The ancient Churches that worshipped towards the East did not worship the East as a middle term or object and therefore were not guilty of idolatry What they meant by it I understand not any further than a mystical sense in that posture of worship as that Christ is the day spring from on high or the Sun of righteousness arising c. And as to the expediency of that custome I leave it here undetermined I believe that those among us who bow towards the Altar as they call it do not make it an object of worship Some give this account thereoâ— that it is of the same nature with putting off our hats while we are there which putting off the hat surely is no making of the Altar or place where it stands or the Building or any part thereof the object of worship but is an expression of reverence either in the worship of God or to the stated place of his worship Some may make the Altar a symbolical presence or the throne of Christ which I think to be unwarrantaable and therefore bowing towards it upon that account to be culpable Some may have only a mystical signification in it as was in the ancient usage of worshipping towards the East Some may use it only for uniformity's sake that seeing to bow to God in their entrance into the Church and going out of it is fit as they suppose therefore it is also fit to direct it the same way But the expedience of this practice I leave undetermined § 19. Of the Scandalous use of Images IT may be a stumbling-block to have such Images as others among us give unlawful worship to as in Popish Countreys to have the image of a Crucifix and the Virgin Mary and other Saints and of Angels Yea I think it better not to have them at all by reason of the peril of idolatry To place such images in Churches is a publick stumbling-blockâ— for it may be a temptation to some to worship them and to say the least they do more hurt than good The Historical use of such images in divine worship as are wont to be worshipped that is to have them for objects of remembrance and means of exciting devotion is dangerous and more especially such a use of the images of the object then worshipped as a Crucifix or other picture of Christ because it tends to pollute the mind with idolatrous imaginations or by prepossing the mind to hinder the spiritual exercise thereof which is the ordinary effect of images Any images of feigned Deities or of any powers which are a temptation to any to believe in them and worship them are unlawful To set before our own or others eyes the images of the old symbols of divine presence in the time of worship tho as objects only of remembrance and means of exciting our affection to God is dangerous § 20. Of the meer appearance of