into Swords and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency of all the Divisions of Ministers those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification But that which administers just cause of Sorrow is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers if they are but meer Lay-men their Baptism is no Baptism and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism On the other hand some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls the Lord Jesus and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest if not the best part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid but they look upon them as Schismatical where Bishops may be had We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters but about the Charge of Schism which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches who have no Bishops but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities where Bishops may be had as in England Our present Controversie is with these For the stating of the Point in difference we 'l consider 1. Wherein we are agreed 2. Wherein the real difference lies Our Agreement We agree 1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane but of Divine Original It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House 2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time Matth. 28.19 20. 3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word without a lawful Calling or Mission Rom. 10.14 15. Ier. 14.14 Heb. 5.4 4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.21 22. 5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office 6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands and Prayer with Fasting Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22 7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities according to the Rules of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6 7 8 9. In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry whatever more we are fully agreed The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining We say Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is That they are no true Ministers of Christ but Intruders and false Prophets And why so Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities exemplary Conversations and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard who seek not their own things but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers Where lies the defect then why in this they are not Ordained by Bishops They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that have not the Ordaining Power and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself Our Case then in short is this Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's without Diocesan Bishops be valid The Question needs but little Explanation By Ordination I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry By Presbyters I understand Gospel Ministers who are called to the Oversight of Souls and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church By valid I mean not what the Old Canons make so but what the Scriptures determine to be so Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising are the Foundation of our Faith and the infallible Standard by which Truth and Errour must be tried The Question being thus explained I affirm That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters are regularly Ordained and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments CHAP. II Presbyters have power to Ordain because they are Scripture Bishops The Syriac Translation useth not different Names If there be a difference the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians as he doth in other Epistles 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor though he were present 6. He did not reside at Ephesus 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church but a Parochial or Congregational The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches from
Tyconius in Austin Contents of our authoriz'd Bibles and acceptation of Angel in the Jewish Church THAT Ordination which hath all the Scripture requisits is valid but Ordination by Presbyters hath all the Scripture requisits Therefore The Major is undeniable to Persons that own the inspired Writings to be a perfect Rule The Minor I thus prove The Scripture requisits of Ordination are some in the Ordainers some in the Ordained some in the Circumstances of Ordination As to the Ordained they must have such Qualifications as the Scripture requires 1 Tim. 3 .... These we are willing to be tried by As to the Circumstances there must be Examination Approbation publick and solemn setting apart by imposition of Hands with Fasting and Prayer As to the Ordainers 't is enough that they were Presbyters and as such had an inherent Power to Ordain for according to Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same not only in Name but in Office The Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus are call'd Bishops of Ephesus to whom the sole over-sight of that Church did belong Acts 20. 17 28. The Presbyters of the Jewish Diaspora to whom St. Peter wrote are requir'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed or rule the Flock and to perform the office and work of Bishops among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule They are called Rulers and Governours ... Iustin Martyr calls the chief Minister of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul's ruling Presbyter is Iustin's ruling Bishop Bishops and Presbyters have one and the same Qualifications Tit. 1. 5 7. After he had given the Character of Persons to be Ordain'd Presbyters v. 5 6. he adds a reason v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There would be no force in the Apostles reasoning if Bishops were of a superior Order to Presbyters The Scriptures own but two Orders of ordinary Church Officers Bishops and Deacons and of these Bishops there were more then one in every Church So there was at Philippi and at Ephesus To be sure then they were not Bishops of the English Species i. e. sole Governors of many Churches but Presbyters in a proper sence many of which were Ordain'd in every Church Antioch it self not excepted The Apostles gave that Church no Primacy above Lystra and Iconium but settled the same sort of Officers in all Though afterward it overtopt it's Neighbours and became a Metropolitical Church But from the beginning 't was not so The Syriac Translation which is so very ancient that it comes nearest in time to the Original useth not two words one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters Tit. 1. 5. Constitueres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seniores in qualibet Civitate v. 7 debet enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior esse irreprehensibilis I have left thee in Creet to ordain Elders in every City for an Elder we say Bishop must be blameless So in 1 Tim. 3. 1. The Office of a Bishop as we render it out of the Greek The Syriac reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Office of a Presbyter Instead of Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1. 1. the Syriac reads it Presbyters and Deacons This is a strong proof that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for it useth not so much as different Names Of the Antiquity of the Syriac Version vide Walt. If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter the preheminence must be given by the Scripture to the Presbyters for as our Bishops say their Office distinct from Presbyters is to Rule and Govern and the Office of a Presbyter is to Preach and Administer the Sacraments Now the Administration of the Sacraments and Preaching are more excellent Works then Ruling and Governing The Apostle saith expresly that they that labour in the Word and Doctrine deserve more honour then they that rule well Moreover the Apostles stile themselves Presbyters but never Bishops St. Peter calls himself Presbyter but never calls himself a Bishop And therefore it 's a wonder the Pope his pretended Successor and those that derive their Canonical Succession from his Holiness should call themselves Bishops unless it be by the Divine Disposal to shew the fallibility of their Foundations The Papists who therein are imitated by some of our Adversaries do say That the Names are common but the Offices are distinct Thus Spensoeus a Sorbonist objects Nominum quidem esse sed non munerum confusionem The Instances mentioned above do clearly Evince an Indentity of Offices When the Apostle bids the Presbyters of Ephesus take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops he doth not speak of the Name but the Office And 't is evident that St. Peter speaks of the Office when he Exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock and to perform the Office of Bishops among them so that there were as many Bishops as there were Presbyters in Churches of the Apostles planting How comes it to pass when the Apostle reckons up the several sorts of Ministers which Christ had appointed in his Church that he makes no mention of Superior Bishops if they be so necessary as some would have us believe He mentions Pastors and Teachers The Patrons of Episcopacy will not say Bishops are meant by Teachers their proper work being Ruling nor can they be meant by Pastors for Presbyters are Pastors and exhorted to feed the Flock Our Learned Writers against Popery think it a good Argument to disprove the Pope's Headship that he is not mention'd in the List of Church Officers reckoned up in the New Testament no more is a Bishop superior to Presbyters so much as nam'd in those places If any say 't is omitted because he was to succeed the Apostles he hath the Pope ready to joyn with him in the same Plea for his Office Object Timothy and Titus were Scripture Bishops superior to Presbyters Answ. 1. The Papists urge this Objection against the Protestants So doth Turrianus the Jesuit so doth Bellarmine Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one Argument for it's Defence but what will indifferently serve the Popish Prelacy The Bishops best Weapons have been Consecrated in the Jesuits School and have been dext'rously manag'd against the whole Reformation II. But I pray where doth the Scripture give Timothy and Titus the Title of Bishops The Postscripts to the Epistles directed to them are confessedly no part of Scripture nor are they very ancient The Postscripts to the Syriac makes no mention of their being Bishops nor can it be gathered from the Body of the Epistles that they were Bishops When the second Epistle to Timothy was written he was an Evangelist and therefore no Bishop He is exhorted to do
Quia Concilii Nicaeni Operâ quod celebrandum curaverat Ecclesiae pacem restituerat Arrianorum impias controversias compescuerat Constantius added one more and there were but five Temples in that great City that was little inferior to Rome in the days of Iustinian See Gentiletus his Exam. Concil Trid. lib. 5. sect 48. Some of our greater Parishes have as many Chappels or Places of Publick Worship as there were Temples in Constantinople which are but a small part of an English Diocess But the Learned Mr. Baxter and Mr. Clarkson have so fully proved the English Species of Episcopacy to be destructive of the Scripture and Primitive Form that until they be solidly answered we will take it for granted that it is a Humane Creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did and owes it's being to the meer favour of Secular Powers who can as easily reduce it to it 's primitive Nothing Some have pretended to make Bishops of the seven Asian Angels when they have proved their power of Jurisdiction and the extent of their Diocesses to be the same with ours they shall be heard The state of Ephesus one of the seven Asian Churches we have seen already by which we may guess at the rest The Church of Smyrna another of the seven Churches of Asia consisted of a single Congregation that ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all follow the Bishop as Iesus Christ doth the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as God's Commandment Let none mannage any Church matters without the Bishop And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Bishop is there let the Multitude be even as where Christ is there the Catholick Church is it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize or to make Love-feasts Here it is evident 1. That the Multitude which were the Bishops Flock ordinarily worshipped God together 2. That they did this under the conduct of their respective Bishop who was ordinarily present with every Church Assembly 3. That he was the ordinary Administrator of Baptism to his Flock which he could not do had it been as large as our present Dioceses 4. That the same Assemblies had a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons For the same Multitude is to follow the same Bishop Presbyters and Deacons and how could one Parish follow all the Presbyters of all other Parish Churches of a Diocess whom they never knew Ignatius's Epistle to Polycarp who was then Bishop of Smyrna makes it more evident that he was Bishop of a single Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keep frequent Congregations inquire after all by name despise not Men-servants and Maid servants I leave it to such as are willing to understand the Truth to consider how great Polycarp's Church then was when the Bishop himself was to look after every one by name even the Men-servants and the Maids We find by Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelphians another of these Churches that the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia had no larger a Diocess then those of Ephesus and Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Study therefore to use one Eucharist or Eucharistical Communion for there is one Flesh or Body of our Lord Iesus Christ which is represented in the Sacramental Bread and one Cup which is Sacramentally given into the union of his Blood one Altar one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants Nothing can be more full than this Testimony They are all to joyn in one Assembly for the Eucharist and there must be but one Altar for this Communion and one Bishop and one Presbytery with the Deacons with him and such a Bishop is a Parish Minister or Rector assisted by his Curates and Deacons the latter of which were originally instituted to serve Tables Acts 6. II. Tyconius's old Exposition mentioned by Austin hath not been yet disproved which is this That by the Angels are meant the whole Churches and not any single Persons Aug. lib. 3. 30. de Doctr. Christian. The whole style of the Text countenances this Exposition for as every Message begins with To the Angel so it endeth with To the Churches III. In the Contents of our authorized Bibles they are expounded Ministers By which we may understand the sense of the Old Church of England agreeable to many of the Ancients such as Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Bede Haymo and many more Scripture is it 's own best Interpreter we find there that the Church of Ephesus over which one of these Angels presided had several Bishops in it and all the other Churches had several Ministers in them as will be acknowledg'd by our Antagonists Now these other Ministers are included either under the name of Candlesticks and so reckoned among the People which is absurd or under the name of Stars and Angels Many may be intended by one Angel as afterward by one Beast cap. 13. and one Head cap. 17. It 's remarkable that it is spoken of the Candlesticks the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches but of the Stars it 's said indefinitely the seven Stars are the Angels not seven Angels of the seven Churches IV. Angel is a name of Office and not of Order as is agreed by the Learned it is a strange Consequence To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus therefore the Angel was a Bishop and had Authority over other Ministers St. Iohn placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ himself and the Angels further off at a greater distance shall we therefore say that the Presbyters are more honourable then the Bishops the Inference is much more natural then the other if Angels be Bishops as our Adversaries affirm St. Paul prefers the preaching before the ruling Presbyter V. It 's observed by many Chronologers that Timothy was alive when the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was written and shall we think that he had left his first love whom Paul so often commends for his Zeal and Diligence in the Work of God VI. To put this matter out of doubt St. Iohn a Jew calls the Ministers of Particular or Parochial Churches the Angels of the Churches in the style of the Jewish Church who call'd the Publick Minister of every Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church They call'd him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop of the Congregation Every Synagogue or Congregation had its Bishop or Angel of the Church Now the Service and Worship of the Temple being abolished as being Ceremonial God transplanted the Worship and Publick Adoration used in the Synagogues which was Moral into the Christian Church to wit the Publick Ministry Publick Prayers reading God's Word and Preaching c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same the Angel of the Church and the Bishop which belong'd to the Ministers in the Synagogues We love
the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said Do the work of a Bishop would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power Who could do the Work of a Bishop but a Bishop In like manner we say None can do the work of an Evangelist but an Evangelist Evangelists were extraordinary Officers above Pastors and Teachers The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Eusebius They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word of Faith they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures or dain'd Pastors committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church and they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass over unto other Countries and Nations With whom agrees Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Learned Prelate of the Church of England conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists and if so the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it whose Successors they are If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him Lâ—y hands on no man suddenly Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him It may as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word If it be said Preaching is common to Presbyters but so is not Ordination it 's gratis dictum and a begging of the Question Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands but takes the Presbytery with him He joyned Barnabas with him if not others in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there but besought him to abide there till he came which he intended shortly to do The Apostle sent him to Corinth Philippi Thessalonica furnished without doubt with the same powers which he had at Ephesus otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches and was he Bishop of these places also Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation c. which Dr. Whittaker Divinity Professor in Cambridge undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters his words are these Ex Apostoli mente According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Which not only Superiors but Equals yea and Inferiors also may do The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop are they therefore Superior to him Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the People of Assura not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols III. When Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus where we find several Presbyter-Bishops before what became of them were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters that they must no more Ordain or Govern but be subject to Timothy 'T was thought no small punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form and 't was for some notorious Crime What Crime were these guilty of IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor and so not subject to him any more how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself What had Paul to do in Ephesus now if he had settled a Successor there and had no power over him or his Church He forbids others to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 busie bodies in other mens matters and would he himself be such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are condemned and shall we make Paul of this number It 's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians long after the first Epistle to Timothy and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches except that to the Galatians It 's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there nor Resident there We find him long after this at Rome and invited by the Apostle thither that he might be helpful to him in the Ministry from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also The truth is he was no fixed Officer in any one place but went up and down sometimes as Paul's Companion sometimes as his Messenger to settle the Churches as other Evangelists did If Non-residency hath such a Patron and Timothy hath taught Men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him he was none at all for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there He commits to them the oversight of the Church as the proper Bishops of it without the least mention of Timothy though he was then present The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters befor their supposed Bishop's face or if he had not been there at that time how comes Paul to be so regardless when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more as not to name his Successor was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy If he had not been qualified for this Office now he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus How then comes the Apostle to over-look him and to fix the Government in the Presbyters of that Church He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus that he had not spar'd to declare unto them
all the Counsel of God How can this be when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Successor If Ministry and Churches depend upon this Succession 't was no small part of the Counsel of God to be declar'd unto them He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more Whether he did see them again or no is not material to the point 'T is certain he thought he should not how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd to defend them against those Wolves that should enter after his departure The reason is obvious he thought the Presbyters of Ephesus fit for this undertaking without a superior Bishop Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Successor but the first Epistle to Timothy upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built was written before this time therefore no power given him in that Epistle can prove him to be a Bishop That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome when he went to Macedonia is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall though he was a zealous Defender of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy Of this Opinion is Athanasius Theodoret Baronius Ludov. Capellus Grotius Hammond Lightfoot Cary c. VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him how comes he to be absent from Ephesus when Paul writ the second Epistle to him was Timothy a Non-resident Bishop Paul sends Tychicus to Ephesus with an Epistle to the Church there but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord Eph. 6. 21 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him when he is supposed to be Bishop there even when the second Epistle was written to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say it was to receive his dying words must prove it The Apostle gives another reason 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. that he had only Luke with him of all his Companions and therefore desires him to come to him and to bring Mark with him as being profitable to him for the Ministry He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. from his supposed Bishoprick of Creet and was he to receive his dying words there also about fourteen years before his death for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf harm Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay how comes the Apostle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also I question whether Non-residency was allowed of much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be It is true some of the Fathers say they were Bishops of those places But it 's considerable that Eusebius saith no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus He doth not affirm it Theodoret calls him ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet few will take them for real Apostles They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome yet many of our Protestant Writers deny it so doth Reynolds against Hart and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy The Fathers and Councils speak of the Officers of former times according to the style of their own To conclude If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species then there were no such in the Apostles times That Timothy was not such we have proved and if Timothy was not no more was Titus whose power and work was the same with Timothy's If the power of Ordination invested in Timothy at Ephesus doth not prove him Bishop there no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there VII But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet it will be no Argument for Diocesan Bishops except the Church of Ephesus and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches which can never be proved Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes or particular Congregations under the conduct of their proper Presbyters which were all subject to Timothy as their Bishop This must be proved or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be impertinent to the present Case Nay there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place That Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily received the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time which was many years after Timothy's death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God and for praise for when you often come into one place the powers of Satan are destroyed c. I render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place as our English Translators do Acts 2. 1. He saith also ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that cometh not to the same place is proud and condemneth himself In his Epistle to the Magnesians he mentions one Altar which further explains his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all of you come together as into the Temple of God as unto one Altar The meaning of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare To be intra Altare is to be in Church Communion to be extra Altare is to be without The Bishop of Salisbury doth acknowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church his words are these By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles especially that to Smyrna it would appear that there was but one Church at least but one place where there was but one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes which was the Bishops whole Charge And if so then the Church of Ephesus to whom he directed one of his Epistles was of no larger extent except we imagine it was decreased in Ignatius's time from what it was in Timothy's days which is absurd The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age then they were in the Apostles time And yet we find in the beginning of the fourth Century the Believers in greater Cities then Ephesus were no more then could meet in one place or in two at the most For Constantine the Great thought two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople the one he called the Temple of the Apostles Vt doceret Scripturas Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum in Templis praedicandas esse the other he called the Temple of Peace
Bishops so well that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are Parishes in England as the Jewish Synagogues had to which St. Iohn alludes when he calls them Angels of the Churches In sum If Presbyters be Scripture Bishops as we have proved and Diocesan Bishops have no footing there as hath been evinced then our Ordinations are Iure Divino and therefore valid CHAP. III. Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in Scripture St. Paul and Barnabas Ordain'd by Presbyters Their Ordination a Pattern to the Gentile Churches Acts 13.1 2 3. vindicated Turrianus's Evasion confuted Timothy Ordained by Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 explained The Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously THAT Ordination of which we have Scripture Examples is valid but of Ordination by Presbyters we have Scripture Examples therefore Ordination by Presbyters is valid The Major I hope will not be denied it carries its own Evidence with it to such as are willing to be guided by the practise of Apostolical Churches which is the first and best Antiquity The Minor I thus prove St. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained by Presbyters Acts 13.1 2 3. so was Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 These two Instances deserve a more particular consideration Concerning the first in Acts 13. these two things are evident 1. That Luke speaks of Ordination he mentions the separating of Paul and Barnabas to a Ministerial Work by Fasting and Prayer with the Laying on of Hands and what more can be done in Ordination It 's true they had an extraordinary Call before Gal. 1.1 yet being now to plant the Gospel among the Gentiles they enter upon their Work at the ordinary Door of Ordination Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was for this reason That the Lord hereby might set down a Plat-form of Ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles to future times 2. The Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2. Now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers both in 1 Cor. 12.28 and in Eph. 4.12 Every Presbyter is a Teacher by Office Turrianus the Jesuit thinks to avoid the force of this quotation by affirming the Prophets mentioned in this Ordination to have been Bishops and the Teachers to have been meer Presbyters and that these Presbyters were Paul and Barnabas who were now created Bishops But this is a most ridiculous evasion Was St. Paul the chief of Apostles but a meer Presbyter was he inferior to Lucius Niger and Manaen Apostles were superior to Prophets much more to Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. The Prophets here could not be Bishops because they were extraordinary Officers and there were more then one in this Church and in the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 14.29 Neither is there any ground in the Text of this distribution that Teachers should refer to the Ordained and Prophets to the Ordainers This is a meer fiction of the Jesuit to support the Cause of Prelacy If any say This separation of Paul and Barnabas was not to the Office of the Ministry but to a special Exercise of it I answer it doth not alter the Case For here are all the outward Actions of an Ordination properly so called Fasting Prayer with Imposition of Hands to a Ministerial Work Now the Question is Who have power to perform these Actions here the Presbyters do it They to whom all the outward Actions of Ordination belong to them the Ordaining Power belongs as he that hath power to wash a Child with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost hath power to Baptize for what else is baptizing but washing with Water in the Name of the Sacred Trinity for special Dedication to God He that hath power to set apart Bread and Wine for Sacramental use hath power to Administer the Lord's Supper So here they that have power to dedicate Persons to God for the Work of the Ministry by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands have power of Ordination It 's true a Lay-Patron may give one power to exercise his Ministry that cannot give the Office but can he do this by repeating all the solemn Acts of Ordination Can he use the same form of Ordination with the Ordaining Bishop Can he lay hands upon the Person ordained and by Fasting and Prayer devote him to God in the Publick Congregation I think none will affirm it If he cannot invest a Person by repeating the whole form of Ordination because he is a Lay-man and hath not the Ordaining Power therefore they that can use the form of Ordination have power to Ordain The Bishops would not like it if all those that are Ordained by them in Scotland should be declared uncapable of Exercising their Office there until they were admitted by a Classis of Presbyters with solemn Imposition of Hands It would scarce satisfie them to say That the Presbyters imposed Hands only to impower the Person in the Exercise of his Office and not to give the Office it self when they performed all the outward Actions of Ordination which are the ordinary means of conveying the Office I proceed to the second Instance of Ordaining Presbyters mentioned in 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Here Timothy is Ordained by the Presbytery nothing can be more express then this Testimony Two things are usually objected to this Scripture Object 1. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the Office of Presbytery and not the Colledge of Presbyters saith Turrianus the Jesuit who is followed by some Protestants I answer The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in this sense in the New Testament it always signifies a Company of Presbyters see Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 Presbyterium is used by Cyprian for a Consistory of Elders Lib. 2. Ep. 8. 10. Cornelius Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Cyprian saith Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque c. The Office of Presbytery is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. What sence can be made of the Text according to this Interpretation Neglect not the gift given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the office of Presbytery Hands belong to the Persons and not to the Office Nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Genitive Case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neglect not the gift of the office of Presbytery for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come between Thus the Text M 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To refer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would invert the natural order of the words which is not to be done without evident necessity otherwise the Scriptures may be made a Nose of Wax and the clearest Expressions wrested to a contrary sense by such Transpositions and Dislocations 3. But suppose
between God and them as cloathed with the Authority of Ambassadors delegated by Christ thereto and supportted by his Presence and Power in our Administrations The Lord Iesus as Head of the Church promiseth and dispenseth Gifts suitable to the Ministerial Office and renders them so essential thereto as that none can be duly admitted to this Trust who are not in some good degree fit to teach divide the Word aright convince Gain-sayers yea credibly appearing devoted to God and concerned for the Salvation of Men. No Ordainers can dispense with the want of these nor is the Ministerial Office conveighed by the greatest Solemnities to any Man void of these Qualifications though the best accomplished may awfully say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. The same holy Instituter of this Office â—ath wisely provided against Intruders and also for the encouragement of such as are capable by subjecting Probationers ordinarily to the Enquiry and Iudgment of Men fit and authorized to determine of their Call and Endowments and to invest them in the Office of a Presbyter by Fasting and Prayer with imposition of Hands the Authority and Obligations of which Office are in the Scriptures adjusted by Christ and can admit of no Change at the Will of the Ordainers Reason directs that the Ordainers should be fit to judge of the necessary Qualifications of such as are proposed to this Charge The Scriptures determine that the Ordainers be such as are invested and exercised in the same holy Office And who so capable to judge or likely to be careful and faithful in their Admissions These are appointed to make a Minister though Churches are to elect who so approved shall be their Minister Pastors invest in the Office though the People do appropriate the more stated and usual Employment of the Officer Confusion and a degenerate Ministry must ensue Mens attempting the Ministry if they get but a good conceit of themselves or that particular Churches assume the sending forth Preachers or making Ministers for themselves unless in Cases very extraordinary The Reverend Author in the following Treatise hath no design to reflect on Episcopal Ordination nor to raise any unseasonable Debates among Protestants But being in a peculiar manner assaulted as an Vsurper of the Ministerial Office because separated thereto by the imposition of no Hands besides those of Presbyters He herein affirms and I think with great Iudgment and Evidence proveth That Presbyters though no Prelates are authorized by the Lord Iesus to Ordain fit Persons to the Office of Presbyters and that the Ordination of such is valid Many have successfully engaged in this Debate heretofore yet thou wilt find some very considerable Addition to what occurs in most other Authors It 's not unworthy the Animadversion of all concerned for the meer being of Religion that there is a general Attempt this day not only against the Exercise of the Ministry in an aptitude to its end but against the very Office of the Ministry many that widely differ in other things do yet center herein The fordwardness of some to nullifie the Mission of their Brethren conduceth as much thereto as any thing except the Personal Faults of Ministers Such decisions of the Subject in debate yields no small Advantage to the Romish Hierarchy whiles most Protestants are unchurched and their Holy Administrations arraigned as Nulâ—ities A Notion that never obtained in the English Church till the Grotian design received Patronage here and that to subserve purposes as little propitious to our Civil Rights as to Religion it self The Increase of Purity Self-denial Light and Love would soon decide Cases more important and render the Vitals of Christianity more secure which are now so variously exposed Octob. 14. 1693. I am thy Servant in our common Lord Daniel Williams ERRATA PAge 65. l. 4. r. Writers ibid. l. 18. r. occasionally p. 91. l. 2. r. excluduntur p. 100. l. 7. r. 100. Through a Mistake of the Printer Chap. VI. Is made Chap. V. and Chap. VII is made Chap. VI. and so unto the end of the Book So Arg. V. is made Arg. IV. and Arg. VI. is made Arg. V. and so forward unto the last A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination c. CHAP. I. The Vse and Efficacy of the Ministry It 's opposed by open Violence false Teachers Divisions the last of which occasioned the present Vndertaking The Case of Ordination by Presbyters stated THE Ministry of Reconciliation is that powerful Engine by which the strong Holds of Satan are demolished the Gates of Hell broken down Sin 's Captives reduced and Trophies erected in honour of the victorious Prince of Peace The Dispensation of the Gospel is the Glory of Nations the Support of Christianity the Shield of Truth and the Triumph of the Cross. By this despised means Christ divides him a portion with the great and shares the spoil with the strong by the foolishness of Preaching he confounds the Wise and by weak earthen Vessels he breaks the Iron-Scepter of the Prince of the Power of the Air. For this reason it is that Gospel Ministers are so much opposed in the world while the Prince of Darkness hath a Kingdom in it he 'l bend all his Forces against them as Invaders of his Dominions and irreconcilable Enemies to his usurped Regiment Many and various are his Serpentine Devices and repeated Stratagems to render their Endeavours of winning Souls ineffectual Sometimes he assaults them by open Violence he pours upon them the strength of Battel to the disgracing of their Persons the spoiling of their Goods the infringing of their Liberties and the sacrificing of their very Lives to the insatiable Rage of unreasonable Men. They are killed all the day long and accounted as sheep for the slaughter and yet in all these things are more then Conquerors through him that loved them and hath promised his Presence with them to the end of Time He holds the Stars in his right Hand guides their Motions and restores a declining World by their powerful Influences Their restless Adversary failing in his former method transforms himself into an Angel of Light that he may more insensibly destroy the Angels of the Churches What he cannot effect by Power he will attempt by Craft He 'l send forth his daring Emissaries to undermine Preaching by Preaching Thus the Adversaries of Iudah offered to build the Temple that they might hinder the building of it St. Paul's Enemies preached Christ of envy and strife that they might obstruct his sincere Preaching The Devil himself turns Preacher in the Pythonic Woman to scandalize the Apostle's Ministry He emits Wolves in Sheeps cloathing to tear and devour the unwary Flock If he be defeated in this Attempt he 'l make trial of skill in as pernicious a way as either of the former to wit by alienating their Affections and imbittering their Spirits towards one another He arms them with Weapons that are forreign to the nature of their warfare he turns their Plow-shares
rather Apostatical then Apostolical for fifty years together as their own Baronius confesseth what becomes of the pretended Line of Succession If none of these things can infringe it what can We may as rationally affirm that a Dog may generate a Man as that the Man of God may be the Off-spring of the Man of Sin I doubt not but Christ had his Ministers in the darkest Ages of the Church but not by virtue of this Succession in debate 4. Nay this Principle destroys all Churches in the World For there 's no Church this day can produce such a Testimonial of Succession as hath met with no Canonical Interruption They that bid fairest for it are the Greek Churches the Latine and the African Churches and all of them derive the Succession from the same Source making Peter the Head of it The Greeks produce a large Catalogue of Patriarchs proceeding from Peter until the time of Neophytus who not many years ago held the See at Constantinople The Christians of Affrica especially the Habassines who are the most considerable among them derive their Succession from the Patriarch of Alexandria and he from Mark and Peter The Western Churches also derive the Succession from the same Spring Thus we have the most considerable Sects of Christians in the World deriving their Claim from one and the same Apostle All would be reputed the Off-spring of the Chief Apostle and glory in their Relation to him It seems Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles who laboured more abundantly then all the rest either left no Successour behind him or no Body knows what is become of him Sic vos non vobis c. Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision must be the Universal Head of all the Gentile-Churches and Paul with the rest of the Apostles must be written Childless or be the Progenitors of such an Off-spring that is long ago extinct or so very obscure that their Names are written in the Dust. But how comes Peter to Canton his Bishoprick into three Parts and to leave three Successors behind him By the same Rule every Bishop must have more Successors then one three at least and each of them as many and so forward until Bishopricks be crumbled into Parochial Churches and the Patrimony of Peter by an Apostolical Gavel kind be equally divided between his Parochial Successors But the unhappiness of it is the three Patriarchal Successors cannot agree about the divided Inheritance The eldest Brother for so the Pope of Rome reckons himself Condemns the two others as spurious and Claims to himself the Universal Inheritance His Advocate Bellarmine expresly affirms Non posse ostendi in Ecclesiâ Graecâ Successionem He adds We see that the other Apostolick Sees are decay'd and fail'd viz. those of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem wherein after that those places were taken away from the Romans by the Persians and Saracens since which time there are nine hundred years past there hath been no Succession and if there were any the same was very obscure Stapleton also saith of the Greek Church That she hath no Legitimate Succession The Greek Churches on the other hand condemn the Roman Succession Primi qui seriò primatum Romanum Pontificis oppugnarunt videntur fuisse Graeci saith Bellarmine Barlaam the Monk thus attacks the Roman Succession What Law saith he obligeth us to reckon the Bishop of Rome Peter's only Successor that must rule all the rest and why may not the Bishop of Alexandria be accouted Peter's Successor and so challenge the Supremacy for as Clemens was made Bishop of Rome so was Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria He strikes at the Head of the Succession and denies Peter to have been Bishop of Rome as many of our Protestant Writers have done If therefore a Man would know the true Church by Personal Succession 't is difficult to know what part to take especially considering that of all the pretended Successions the Roman from which the English Prelacy derives it self is most suspicious as being often interrupted by Simony Heresie and Schism Pope Eugenius the Fourth was deposed by the General Council of Basil and pronounced Heretick and Schismatick with all his Adherents yet he retains the Papal Authority against the Judgment of that Council Cardinals and Bishops were Instituted by him 5. By this Principle no Man can know himself to be a Minister of Christ. Can any Man know that all the Predecessors of that Bishop that Ordained him were Canonical Bishops that none of them came in by Simony or err'd in the Fundamentals so as to be guilty of Heresie that none of them lost their Authority by involving themselves in Secular and Publick Administrations or by neglecting to instruct their Flocks or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction These things make Canonical Nullities Can any Man know who was the Bishop that was the Root of his Succession A great part of the Christian World is uncertain what Apostles did first Convert their particular Countries which were it known would not yet resolve the Point Conscience will not be satisfied with saying Let others disprove my Succession It must have positive Grounds of Satisfaction that I am a true Minister of Christ. So that this Notion serves only to perplex Ministers and People with insuperable difficulties about their acceptance with God and to leave Christianity it self upon such precarious Foundations as will be in the power of every Critick in Church-History to shake if not to overturn How is it possible That plain illiterate People should know this Succession which is learnt only by reading of the Greek and Latine Fathers the length and obscurity of which wearieth the wisest Men and which oftentimes contradict themselves Ought not the Consciences of the meanest to be satisfied in the Call of their Ministers Must they act in a Matter of so great importance by an Implicit Faith What Rule shall they judge by not by the Line of Succession that will but lead them into an inextricable Labyrinth Our Saviour hath left us a better Rule By their Fruits ye shall know them 6. Let it be further considered That the Catalogues that are brought by some of the Ancients of the Successors of the Apostles were made by Conjecture Nor is this Succession so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing intended A List would be expected of Apostolical Successors not only in the Great Patriarchal Churches but in all others planted by the Apostles as Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the Seven Churches of Asia and not only at Ephesus which has not been yet produced Though in the Patriarchal Churches the beginning of the Line is as obscure as the Head of Nilus At Rome 't is not certain whether Linus Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckon'd first And as for Antioch 't is far from being agreed