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
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
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
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
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
workers together with God 2 Cor. 6. 1. and is an Ordainer more then this As to Baptism It 's a solemn dedication of a Person to God Ordination is no more only the former is to Christianity as such the latter to a particular work In this Baptism hath the preference for it is a Sacramental Dedication which Ordination is not In the Lord's Supper the Minister sets apart Bread and Wine as Symbolical Representations of Jesus Christ who is exhibited with all his Benefits to worthy Receivers Ierom saith of Presbyters Ad quorum preces Corpus Sanguis Christi conficitur Now which is greater to impose Hands or to make the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ If they have power to consecrate holy Things why not holy Persons also 2. It will appear from Scripture that the Ministerial Acts now mentioned are not inferiour to Ordination When St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 1. 17. That Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel surely he means one of the highest Ministerial Acts else he would have said Christ sent me neither to baptize nor to preach but to ordain Ministers I would fain know whether Christ did not mention the chiefest parts of a Ministers work in the Commission given in Matth. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. If Ordination had been the main and chiefest part he would have said Go ordain Ministers preach and baptize Christ's not mentioning it is an Argument that it is not the principal part of a Minister's Office but rather subordinate to preaching and baptizing and therefore included here as the lesser in the greater though not expressed A Commission usually specifies the Principal Acts which a Person is impower'd to do when others of an inferiour Nature may be implied Commissions do dot run à minori ad majus a superiour Office may include the Duties of an Inferiour but not on the contrary It is the rather to be presumed Christ would have mentioned the Ordaining Power in the Ministers Commission if it had been superiour to Preaching and Baptizing because the Commission was immediately directed to the Apostles whose Successors Diocesan Bishops pretend to be and from whom they derive the Ordaining Power as proper to themselves It may be it will be said That administring the Lord's Supper is not mentioned in their Commission though it be not inferiour to Preaching and Baptizing True but the not mentioning of it is an Argument it is not a greater Ministerial Act then those that are mentioned and that it is not to be Administred by Officers superiour to those that Preach and Baptize but that the same Persons may Preach Baptize and Administer the Lord's Supper The same I say of Ordination it 's not being expressed here is a sign it is not greater then those Ministerial Acts that are mentioned and that they that have power to Preach and Baptize have also to Ordain Though this Objection be grounded on a Mistake of the Text for the Lord's Supper is mentioned in the following words of the Commission Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you among which the Lord's Supper is one Matth. 26. 26 27. 3. The Ancients argued from Baptism to Ordination as is observed by the Master of the Sentences Object Some may say The Power of Ordination is denied to Presbyters not because Ordination is greater then other Ministerial Acts but because the Apostles thought fit to reserve it to themselves and proper Successors who are Diocesan Bishops Answ. This is to beg the Question We have proved already that the Apostles reserved not the Power of Ordination to themselves but joyned the Presbyters with them Nor are the Bishops the Apostles Successors as such for the Apostles had their Call immediately from Heaven Gal. 1. 1. had extraordinary qualifications could confer the Holy Ghost were infallibly assisted in their Ministerial Conduct and were Universal Officers none of which can belong to Diocesan Bishops The Apostles were not tied to any one Nation Province or City they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations but they ordained Presbyters or Bishops in every Church Acts 14. 23. or City Tit. 1. 5. to whom they committed the ordinary Government of the Church These were not sent to preach the Gospel to all NaNations but to feed the particular Flock over which the Holy Ghost made them Bishops Acts 20. 28. Now these stated particular and fixed Church-Officers vastly differ from universal unlimited and unfixed Officers You may as well say that a petty Constable whose power is confined to the narrow limits of a little Village succeeds the King who governs a whole Kingdom When I see Bishops immediately sent of God infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost travelling to the remotest Kingdoms to preach the Gospel in their own Language to the Infidel Nations and confirming their Doctrine by undoubted Miracles I shall believe them to be the Apostles true Successors in the Apostolical Office Our Learned Writers against the Papists do unanimously deny the Apostles as such to have any Successors Nemo sanè nisi planè sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolatum cum Episcopatu confuderit saith the Noble and Learned Sadeel Dr. Barrow of Supremacy p. 120 121. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the instruction and government of the whole World Episcopacy is an ordinary standing Charge affixed to one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well to so general a Charge A disparagement to the Apostolical Ministry for him Peter to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras He saith a little before St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastors and Teachers wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon To the same purpose-speaks Dr. Lightfoot who proves by several Arguments That Apostles were an Order unimitable in the Church Object The Ordainers gave not the Ordaining Power to Presbyters therefore it belongs not to them Answ. They are Ordained to the Offfice of the Ministry of which the Ordaining Power is a Branch It 's not the intention of the Ordainer but the Office as constituted by Christ that â—s the measure of the Power The Ordaining Power is not mentioned in the Apostles Commission Matth. 28. 20. yet it is included in it If Presbyters are sent to Preach and Baptize in the words of Christ's Commission to them they are sent also to Ordain as opportunities are offered to
perform that Ministerial Act in a regular manner for it 's included in their Commission Popish Ordainers did not intentionally give the Reforming Power to the first Reformers yet no Protestant will question but it was annext to their Office as Ministers Now the Office of the Ministry being from Christ and not from Man we must not go to the words of the Ordainer but to the instituting Law of Christ to know what the Office is As if the City and Recorder should chuse and invest a Lord Mayor and tell him you shall not have all the Power given by the King's Charter it 's a Nullity he shall have all the Power that the Charter giveth him by virtue of his Office CHAP. V. The Ordinations of the greater part of the Reformed Churches are by Presbyters Their not having superiour Bishops cannot unchurch them nor is it a Case of Necessity as is pretended by some For 1. They might have Bishops if they would 2. Some of them refused them when offered 3. Their Learned Writers assert an inherent Power in Presbyters to Ordain and never use this Plea of Necessity 4. Their Confessions make all Ministers equal THAT Ordination which is the same with the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches beyond Sea is valid but such is Ordination by meer Presbyters Therefore If theirs be null and the Roman or Popish Ordinations valid then it 's better be of the Roman Popish Church then of the Reformed but the Consequence is absurd I know but two things can be replied to this Argument 1. That the Reformed Churches have no true Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination Thus Mr. Dodwel and others who would have us believe the Romish Church to be a true Church and receive the Pope as the Patriarch of the West These Gentlemen have cast off their Vizard and give us to know what they would be at They condemn the forreign Reformed Churches as no Churches their Sacraments as no Sacraments and consequently no Salvation to be had in their Communion Like the Donatists of old they confine Salvation to their own Party and Way It 's unaccountable that any who call themselves Protestants should unchurch the greatest and purest part of Reform'd Christians in favour of a Despotick Prelacy which hath no foundation in Scripture or the best Antiquity The being of Ministry and Churches must depend upon a few Men who look more like State-Ministers then Ministers of Christ and are generally more busie in managing Intrigues of Government then in preaching the word in season and out of season Can any imagine that such Pastors as rarely preach the Gospel as not above once in three years visit their Flock that have many thousands of Souls under their charge whose Faces they never saw that assume to themselves a Grandeur more agreeable to the Princes of the World then to the Simplicity and Humility required in the Ministers of the Gospel that entangle themselves with the Affairs of this Life contrary to the Scriptures and the Old Canons I say can any imagine such Pastors to be so necessary to the Church that there must be neither Ministry nor Sacraments nor Worship of God nor Salvation without them O happy Rome O miserable Reformed Churches if the Case be thus 2. Others that are more moderate say The Case of the Reformed Churches is a Case of Necessity they have no Bishops nor can have them Ordinations by meer Presbyters may be lawful where Bishops cannot be had I answer 1 The Case of the forreign Churches is no Case of Necessity for if they have a mind of Bishops what hinders their having of them Is it the Magistrates It cannot be said of Holland Switzerland Geneva c. where they have Magistrates of their own Suppose France and some other places would not have admitted of it that should have been no bar to the Order if they had been desirous of it The primitive Christians were under Heathen Magistrates for three hundred years who were generally professed Enemies to the Ministry and Churches yet they wanted no Ministerial Order of Christ's appointment Christ never appointed an Order of Ministers in his Church which may not be had in the most difficult times It 's true if the Civil Magistrate be against Bishops it may eclipse their Lordly greatness but it need not prejudice their Ius Divinum if they have any Why cannot the Apostles Successors subsist with as little dependance upon Authority as the Apostles themselves did Do Spiritual Men need Carnal Weapons to defend their Order yet it cannot be denied but that even in France the Protestants had their Immunities and a Polity of their own by virtue of the Edict of Nants which enabled them had they pleas'd to get Diocesan Bishops They had their Synods for Church Government and Moderators to preside in them and why not Bishops also had they judged them necessary Nor is it to be supposed that their French Masters would have liked them the worse for conforming to their own Ecclesiastical Government Thuanus a moderate Papist thinks it was an Errour in their Constitution that they neglected the superiour Order of Bishops in their first Reformation for the supporting of their interest The want of them did not prejudice their Constancy to the Truth as appears by their late Sufferings 2. Time hath been when the French Churches were earnestly sollicited particularly by Bishop Morton to receive a Clergy by the Ordination of the English Bishops which they refused Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bp. of Winchester excusing himself for not making the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment he pleads That if he had laid the difference on that foundation the French Churches would have silenced him 3. How come the Learned Wriâ—te of the forreign Churches that vindicate their Ordinations against the Papists to forget this Plea of Necessity They never say They would have Bishops but cannot have them but they justifie their Ordinations as according to Scripture and assert an inherent Power in Presbyters as such to Ordain This is undeniable to any body that reads their Dicourses upon this Subject See Daillé Moulin Bucer Voetius Sadeel c. that professedly write of Ordination against the Papists besides the vast numbers that treat occasionly of this Subject in their Common Places and other Writings such as Melancthon Musculus Zanchy Ravanel the Leyden Professors c. who all insist upon the Right of Presbyters to Ordain It 's true of late years some Arts have been used to proâ—ure Letters from some eminent forâ—eign Divines to condemn the Nonconâ—ormists here without an impartial hearâ—ng of our Case That we have been misrepresented to them is evident by Dr. Morley's Letter to the famous Bochart who vindicates us from the Doctor 's Calumny Some also have oâ— late submitted to Re-ordination who are more to be pitied then censured foâ— they wanted Bread and could have noâ— Relief without Conforming to
dedicated The whole Church dedicates him to God by Prayer and yet don't lay on Hands so that meer dedication to God in the Learned Bishop's sense as distinct from Ordination cannot be the meaning of this Ceremony But I pray what is Ordination it self but a dedication of the Person to God for the Ministry what more doth the Bishop do in conferring the Ministry He cannot confer it by a meer Physical Contact if so every touch of his Hand on the Head of a Man Woman or Child would make them Ministers It must be therefore by a Moral Act that he doth it i. e. by laying on Hands on a fit Person according to the appointment of God to dedicate him to God for the Ministry The power is immediately from Christ and not from the Bishop Men do but open the door or determine the Person that from Christ shall receive the power and then put him solemnly into possession Acts 20.28 The moderate asserters of Episcopacy do acknowledge that the Presbyters lay on Hands as Ordainers Imponunt manus Presbyteri ... tanquam Ordinantes seu ordinem Conferentes ex potestate ordinandi divinitus accepta gratiam ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes With whom agrees the Arch-bishop of Spalato Dr. Fulk speaks to the same purpose in his Anti-Rhemish Annotations Object Where do you read that Presbyters did ordain without a Bishop Answ. This Objection grants my Argument that Presbyters have power of Ordination but not to be put forth without the Bishop Admit they have an inherent Power and it 's all I plead for I am sure no Law of God restrains the Exercise of it while it is managed regularly for the Edification of the Church We oppose not any Rules of Order while the main End is promoted The old Canons restrain the Bishop that he must not Ordain without his Presbyters we may say as well then that Bishops have no power to Ordain because they were not ordinarily to do it without their Presbyters All the Ordinations of Presbyters in the Apostles time and in the three first Centuries were done by Presbyters without Bishops of the present Species i. e. the sole Governours of 100 or 200 Churches for there were no such Bishops in the Primitive Church as hath been proved by several hands The very Office is humane and new The primitive Bishop was but the chief Presbyter who was President for orders sake but pretended not to be of a superior Order Bishop Vsher answered this Objection from the Example of the Church of Alexandria as Mr. B. affirms which shall be consider'd anon when we come to Instances of Ordaining Presbyters in Antiquity CHAP. VII Among the Iews any one that was Ordained himself might Ordain another prov'd from Dr. Lightfoot Mr. Selden P. Cuneus IF among the Jews any one that was Ordain'd himself might Ordain another then may Presbyters Ordain Presbyters But the former is true Therefore c. The Consequence of the Major is founded upon that which is acknowledg'd by most Learned Men that the Government of the Christian Church was formed after the Jewish Pattern The Minor I prove from Dr. Lightfoot Thus he Before they had restrained themselves of their own Liberties then the general Rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Ben Maimon affirms Mr. Selden gives many Instances to this purpose out of Gemar Babylon de Synedr lib. 2. c. 7. § 1. But in the time of Hiâ—lel they were restâ—ain'd from 〈◊〉 former Liberty whether out of Vâ—â—â—â—ration to his House or whether from the inconveniency of such common Ordinations is not certain and so it was resolved that none might Ordain without the presence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a License from him Per insigne est saith P. Cunoeus quod R. Maimonides tradidit in Salach Sanhed c. 4. Cum enim olim solennem hunc actum pro arbitrio suo omnes celebrarent quibus imposita semel manus fuerat coarctatum esse id jus à sapientibus constitutúmque ut deinceps nemo illud usurparet nisi cui id concessisset divinus senex R. Hillel Selden saith that St. Paul's creating of Presbyters was according to the Custom of creating Elders Paul being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel as his Disciple This Gamaliel was Nephew or Grandchild of Hillel and Prince of the Sanhedrin at that time and therefore no doubt but he had created his Scholar Paul a Jewish Elder before he was a Christian by virtue of which Ordination in all likelyhood the Jews admitted him to preach in their Synagogues Acts 9. 20. Now when Paul became an Apostle he knew himself and other Apostles to be free from the new Law of not makeing Elders without the licence of the Prince of the Sanhedrin which was not to be expected in their Case for this R. Gamaliel though otherwise a fair Man had an inveterate prejudice against the Christians and authorized a Prayer against them under the notion of Hereticks commanding its constant use in the Synagogues as Lightfoot observes out of Maimonides which Prayer is used among the Jews to this day containing bitter Curses and Execrations against the Christians as Buxtorf notes Dr. Hammond himself granteth that the Government of the Church was formed after the Jewish manner though he reckoneth up many Inconveniencies which would follow promiscuous Ordinations The Analogy between the Government of the Jewish Synagogues and the Christian Church seems very evident in the Case of Deacons who succeed the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parnasâ—n of which there were two or three in every Synagogue to take care of the Poor Vide Lightf Harm on Act. 6. 7. To sum up this Argument the Case of Presbyters in point of Ordination is the same with that of Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Elders Every one that was Ordained himself had originally the Power of Ordaining others the Exercise of which Power was afterwards restrained by a Canon of that Church So in the Christian Church at first in Scripture times Presbyters had a common power of Ordination but afterwards ut schismatum semina evellerentur the power was by degrees devolved upon a few chief Presbyters whom we call Bishops and the ordinary Presbyters were restrained by common consent as Ierom observes in Tit. 1. and Panormitan after him How well the new Order of superiour Bishops hath cured the World of Schism the Distractions and Confusions of the Church occasioned by the Pride and Grandeur of that Order for above a thousand years together are Instances to palpable to be deny'd CHAP. VIII Ordination an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys acknowledged by Cornelius à Lapide Chamier Camero c. The Keys of Iurisdiction and Order given to Presbyters and consequently Power of Ordination THAT Ordination which is performed
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops They maintain all Ministers to be in a state of parity and their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination These were the Fathers and famous Predecessors of the Protestants who bore the heat of the day They had the honour to be first Witnesses against Antichrist and are to this day as the Bishop of Salisbury calls them The purest Remains of primitive Christianity From them the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers for they sent Michael Zambergius and two more for Ordination to the poor Waldenses who never had a Bishop among them but in Title only In compliance with their desires two of their Titular Bishops with some Presbyters that had not so much as the Titles of Bishops made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops giving them power of Ordination We dislike not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be ordinarily restrained to the graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to themselves by a Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions XII Wickliffs followers here in England held and practised Ordination by meer Presbyters and least any should think they did so of necessity for want of Bishops it 's to be noted that they did it upon this Principle that all Ministers of Christ have equal power as the Popish Historian saith who complains how all parts of England were full of those People and that the Prelates knew of these things but none were forward to prosecute the Guilty except the Bishop of Norwich XIII In the Island of Taprobane or Zeilan as 't is now call'd there was a Church of Christians govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon without any Superiour Bishop to which he or his Flock was subject This Island is above two thousand Miles in compass a Province big enough for a Bishop yet had none in Iustin the Emperour's time which was about the Year 520 but was under the Jurisdiction of a Presbyter Ordain'd in Persia who in all likelyhood Ordain'd his Successor and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries By this Passage it appears that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches no not in the sixth Age and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction and consequently of Ordination The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage A. D. 428. did observe that until that time some Dioceses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Iure Divino CHAP. XI Objections against Ordinations by Presbyters answered 1. That it is against the Canons So is Episcopal Ordination 2. It destroys the Line of Succession answered in Seven Particulars 3. The Case of Ischyras consider'd A Passage in Jerom explained I Will briefly reflect upon the most material Objections that are made against the Ordination I plead for Object 1. Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is condemned by the Old Canons Answ. 1. Many things are reserv'd to the Bishops by the Old Canons meerly to support their Grandeur For this reason the Consecration of Churches the Erecting of Altars the making of Chrysm the Reconciling of Penitents the Vailing of Nuns c. were appropriated to the Bishops All this is ingeniously acknowledged by the Council of Hispalis Let the Presbyters know that the power of Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See by virtue of novel Ecclesiastical Constitutions They add that this was done to bear up the dignity of the Bishops For the same reason the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops were restrained from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch For the same reason 't was decreed in the Council of Sardis A. D. 347. That no Village or lesser Town must have a Bishop nè vilescat nomen Episcopi 2. Episcopal Ordinations also as they are now managed will prove Nullities by the Old Canons The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at Constantinople do depose all Bishops that are chosen by the Civil Magistrate Can. 29. If any Bishop obtains a Church by means of the Secular Powers let him be deposed and separated from Communion with all his Adherents This Canon is revived by the second Council of Nice which the Greeks call the Seventh General Council All our English Bishops are chosen by the Magistrate and not by other Bishops or the Presbyters and People of their Diocess The King 's Writ of Conge d'Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to choose their Bishop is only matter of form for the King chooseth properly and the Dean and Chapter cannot reject the Person whom he recommends nor are they the just Representatives of the Clergy and People of the Diocess whose Suffrages were required of old in the designation of a Bishop Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermeddle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion Let not a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon assume worldly Cares and if he doth let him be deposed Bishops at this time were not Judges in Civil Matters nor Ministers of State as being a thing inconsistent with their Office 2 Tim. 2.4 Can. 80. adds A Bishop must not engage in Publick Administrations that he may give himself to the Work of the Ministry Let him resolvedly decline these or be Deposed for no Man can serve two Masters The Church of England doth not observe the Canons of the first General Councils which some would have us believe are the measures of her Reformation next the Scripture The fourth Canon of the Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Bishop to be by all the Bishops of the Province at least by three with the Consent of the absent Bishops expressed in writing I never knew the Consent of all the Bishops of the Province required much less expressed in Writing before the Consecration of English Bishops Can. 5. Requires Provincial Councils twice a year This is not observed Can. 6. and 7th establish the Rights and Priviledges of Metropolitans Quaere Whether Austin the Monk whom the Pope made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did not wrongfully invade the Rights of the Brittish Bishops over whom Pope Gregory could give him no just Power notwithstanding his pretended Grant mentioned by Bede which are not restored to this day and if so whether this doth not make a Canonical Nullity in the whole Succession of English Bishops who derive their Line from that usurping Prelate Can. 15 and 16th forbids Ministers to remove from the Church in which they were Ordained I might mention several other Canons in this Council which are not observed as the third the eleventh the fourteenth which in the Greek is the eighteenth the nineteenth and twentieth which forbids kneeling upon the Lord's days No more are the Canons of the Great
whether Peter Euodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one and the other Paul At Alexandria where the Succession seems to run clearest the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution as we observed already 7. If there were any certainty in this Succession the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bishops Ignatius saith concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles Irenaeus affirms the same Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Though the truth is when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons but principally of the Succession of Doctrine which the first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable as received from the Apostles Otherwise the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine is no note of a true Church as among the Arians where they had a Succession of Bishops and yet no true Church Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet Atque haec quidem nomen illa vero rem ipsam veritatem habet successionis Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple Object 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy p. 91 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government cap. 13. Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter as he had been formerly Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons it was sine titulo extra fines and nulli vicinorum nota all which Circumstances make it uncanonical Dr. Field saith That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void it 's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age which appears saith he by this that Ordinations sine Titulo were null Conc. Chalc. Can. 6. The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras I am sorry saith he so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Niâ—e made a Canon wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent their Ordination should be null You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter therefore the irregular Bishop and the irregular Presbyter are of the same Order of the same Authority neither able to Ordain Object 4. It is objected out of Ierom Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints and not of Scriptural for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it he confirms it by asking this Question What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour Order the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same As if he would say The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion they are Ambassadors for Christ to preach the Gospel they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper and what doth a Bishop more then these except Ordination which being no Sacrament is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power FINIS Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica England Sicily Malta Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those and divers other Earthquakes by Iohn Shower Earthquakes explained and Practically improved occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea by Tho. Doolittle M.A. The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God and the Prosperity of their Souls by T. Cruso The Christian Laver or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ by T. Cruso Four Sermons on several Occasions by T. Cruso Barbarian Cruelty being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco c. by Francis Brooks The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon by Robert Flemming V. D. M. * Perrin's Hist. p. 53 62. Hist. of the Vaudois c. 3 * Contra Waldens cap. 4. Walsing Hist. p. 339. * Dr. Stillingfl Iren. p. 393. †Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. * CommuniÌ„ Concitio Presbyterorum gubernabatur Ecclesia Hieron ubi supra ad Evagr. ‖ See La Rocque's Conform of Dâ—scipline cap. 1. art 3. Isa. 53. 12. Rom. 8. 36 37. Eph. 4. 11 14. Arg. 1. * 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †Rev. 2. 27 ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 1 Tim 3. Phil. 1. 1. †Acts 20. 17 28. ‖ Acts 14. 21 22 23. * Walt. Praef. de Edit Bib. Polygl p. 30 40. ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17. †1 Pet. 5. 1. Object * Spens contra Bucer Answ. †Acts 20. 28. ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Eph. 4. 11. * Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Object Answ. 1. ‖ Vid. Turr. Sophis inter Sadeel Op. p. 598. * Eph. 4. 11 ‖ Euseb. Hist. 111. 34. * In Eph 4. †1 Tim. 5. 22. ‖ 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. * 1 Tim. 4. 14. †Acts 14. 23. ‖ 1 Tim. 1. 3. 4. 13 14. * 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. †Whitt contr 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16. ‖ Cypr. Ep. 64 68. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. 4. 13. †1 Tim. 5. 13. ‖ 1 Pet. 4. 15. * 2 Tim 4. 9 10 11. †Heb. 13. 23. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * Acts 20. 4 5 6 7 13 14. * Ib. v. 25. †1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1.
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
of the first Ages of Christianity These Sacred Conjurers who take upon them to dispossess Devils are inferiour to the very Deacons that serve Tables and yet equal to the very Apostles were they able to perform what they undertake Though one would wonder why the Bishops the pretended Successors of the Apostles did not reserve to themselves the power of casting out unclean Spirits as well as that of conferring the H. Spirit which as they say none but themselves can do But these Exorcists are Men of that extraordinary power that they out-do the very Apostles for they did not cast out Devils by laying on of Hands as these pretend to do The Bishop tells them that they are Spirituales Imperatores ad abjiciendos Daemones de Corporibus obsessis i. e. they are Spiritual Governours to cast out Devils c. to which purpose he gives them power of laying Hands super Energumenos sive Baptizatos sive Catechumenos .... 4. The next degree is that of the Acolythi whose Office is to be Taper-bearers to light Candles to bring Wine and Water for the Eucharist They who were Spiritual Emperours a little before to conquer Devils are now degraded which yet must be called an advancement to the mean occupation of under-Servitors The badge of their Office is a Candlestick and a Pot which are delivered to them by the Bishop As he delivers the Candlestick he saith Accipite cero-ferarium sciatis vos ad accendenda Ecclesiae lumina mancipari ... And as he delivers the Pot he saith Accipite urceolum ad suggerendum vinum aquam in Eucharistiam Sanguinis Christi .... 5. They climb after this to the degree of Sub-deacons whose business is to prepare Water for the Ministry of the Altar to Minister to the Deacons to wash the Palls of the Corporals to present the Cup and Paten for the use of their abominable Sacrifice The Bishop puts a Garment upon their Heads to signifie the Castigation of the Speech and then puts the Manipulus upon their left Arm to signifie Good Works ib. After this he cloaths them with a Coat to signifie Joy and Gladness ibid. Last of all he delivers to them the Book of Epistles to be read for the Living and the Dead ibid. The Sub-deacons of old were but Letter-Carriers to the Bishops 6. Then they make them Deacons whose Office is to Minister at the Altar to Baptize and Preach after the example of Stephen as is pretended The Bishop pretends to give them the Holy Ghost cloaths them in significant white Garments and delivers to them the Book of the Gospels saying Accipe potestatem i. e. Take power to read the Gospel in the Church both for the living and the dead 7. From Deacons they ascend to the Order of Priesthood The Form of making them is very ridiculous scarce any footsteps of the Apostolical Practice to be found in it The Person to be Ordained presents himself to the Bishop with a multitude of superstitious Rags such as the Alb Cingulum Stola the Manipulus the Planeta c. holding a Candle in his right hand to signifie he must be a shining Light to the People Then the Bishop binds the Stole about his neck to put him in mind of the Yoke of Christ ib. After this the Capsula being folded is put over his Shoulders to denote Charity then the Bishop unfolds it again and cloaths the Priest with it to signifie Innocence ib. The same white Garment signifies Charity when 't is folded up and Innocency when 't is unfolded You must not ask the reason of this different signification for profound Mysteries are wrapt up in all the foldings of this sacred Garment which is apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the remembrance of his duty When they have adorn'd them in this beggarly Garment and made them look partly like those Priests that serv'd the old Tabernacle and partly like those that ministred at Heathen Altars they anoint their Hands with Oyl greasing them with the sign of the Cross and adding these words Consecrentur .... istae manus ... ut quaecunque benedixerint benedicantur The Bishop also shaves their Heads saying Dominus pars haereditatis meae c. Their Learned Authors tell us of unaccountable Mysteries that are contained in this Pagan Ceremony Lombard saith the shaven Crown signifies Kingly Dignity Corona regale decus significat The signification is not very improper for they lord it over God's Heritage and exalt themselves above Kings and Princes The same Author adds That Denudatio Capitis est revelatio mentis Clericus enim secretorum Dei non ignarus esse debet ... And no wonder their shaveling Priests are such great Clerks since shaving the Pate is the mysterious Path to Knowledge He tells us also ob vitae continentiam caput radebant ibid. They shav'd themselves for Chastity's sake The unclean Stories of Monkish Lives are convincing Evidences of their Mortification Optatus reproveth the Donatists for their symbolizing with the silly Custom of the Heathen in shaving the Heads of their Priests Docete ubi vobis mandatum est capita Sacerdotum radere ... cum è contra sint tot Exempla proposita fieri non debere This Ceremony is of an Heathen Original as appears by Minutius Foelix with whom agrees the Council of Eliberis who excommunicated such as did so and after the expiration of two years received them into Communion upon supposition they continued in the Faith The Council of Trent Anathematizes any that will reject or speak against these foolish fopperies How different is this Form of Ordination from the Scripture-Ordinations Ministers in the Apostles times were Ordained by Fasting and Prayer with imposition of Hands without any other Ceremonies that we read of Let the World judge whether our Ordinations which follow the Scripture Pattern or the Romish Ordinations which are a meer Pageantry are the better and if theirs be admitted as valid why should ours be condemned Shall they who pass under such unscriptural Forms and Shapes of Door-keepers Readers Exorcists c. be accounted Ministers of Christ and must those who vary not from the Scriptures in their Ordinations be reckon'd Intruders Can any of the sincere Patrons of the Protestant Interest pass such a partial unjust Censure Are they true Ministers who recede from the Apostles practice as far as the East is from the West and must those be none who make it their Rule Shall those Ordinations which are Humane and Antichristian and therefore laid aside in the Church of England be received and theirs which are Divine and Apostolical be rejected The thing is so very clear to such as are not wilfully blinded with Prejudice and Interest that one may justly wonder how it should ever come into debate III. Our Ordinations are better then the Ordinations of Rome if we consider the Persons ordained That which we have said concerning the want
Council of Chalcedon observed Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships and to intermeddle with Secular Affairs Can. 7. is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs or receiving Secular Honours upon pain of Excommunication Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age. One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of them That Politick Enemy of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and Dominion would be with that humble Mortification and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires He that had been a READER in the Church before he came to the Empire could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Saviour to his Apostles Matth. 20. 25 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them but it shall not be so among you Can. 10. Deposeth all obstinate Pluralists This Canon if executed would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists that heap Pelion upon Ossa Steeple upon Steeple as if they would mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions I only produce these Canons ad hominem to shew how unreasonable 't is to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations We judge it more ingenuous to disown their Authority over us as being made by such as had no power to give Universal Laws to the Church then pretend Submission to them as they do who act in open Contradiction to them If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone Object 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Argument of the Papists against the first Reformers They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations because they wanted this Succession It is urged by Bellarmine De Sacram. Ordinis cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther Ep. Dedic praefix Operibus ejus The same Argument is used by Parsons the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler p. 274 275. Turrian the Jesuite writ a great Book de Ordinationibus Ministrorum Ecclesiae against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches The Sum of all his Arguments is this of the Succession which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordinary Succession of Bishops under the Roman Pontiff the visible Head of the whole Church but no Protestant Ordinations are such therefore no Protestant Ordinations are lawful but they are void null and meerly Laic This Argument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations but with this Addition That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession which adds no great Reputation to it 2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers Sadeel calls it praecipuum adversariorum Argumentum he challenges them to produce some Scripture to confirm it by Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him that the Succession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine and not of Persons which Succession of Doctrine failing in the Romish Church the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Generation of immortal Successors He further proves that the Ordinary Succession of Ministers may be interrupted by Scripture-Examples as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine Nay Christ himself coming to reform his Church chose unto himself Apostles not from the Priests but from other Families He did not observe the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church To which I may add That the Roman Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church without regard to Lineal Succession Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church it must be in the Jewish Priesthood which was entailed upon one Family but the Church remained a true Church though the regular Succession was destroyed To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford the Martyr to Dr. Harpsfield You shall not find saith he in all the Scripture this your essential part of Succession of Bishops In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit Dr. Fulk saith If the Truth of Doctrine be necessary to prove a true Church the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point Field of the Church II. 6. III. 39. Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a threefold Succession The first of Persons and Doctrines in the primitive Church The second of Persons alone among Infidels and Hereticks The third of Doctrine alone And thus our Ministers saith he succeed the Apostles and this is sufficient For this Rule must be remembred that the power of the Keys that of Order and Iurisdiction is tied by God and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine Dr. White largely confutes this pretended Succession in his defence of the way to the true Church So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Thus we see the vanity of this pretended Succession who they be that maintain it and who are the Opposers of it It 's one of the Pillars of the Popish Church which supports that tottering Fabrick The Arguments against our Ordination must needs be very defective when no other can be found but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations It 's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads 3. The violent Assertors and Defendants of this Opinion little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England for it 's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for hath been broken again and again One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain All our Bishops as such derive their Succession from Rome Now if we can find any Interruption in the Succession of Bishops there it Nullifies all the Administrations of those that depend upon them If the Pope succeeds Peter as Darkness doth Light if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar proves to be the Antichrist if many Popes were Hereticks Sodomites Idolaters Conjurers Whoremongers Murderers c. as some of their own Authors affirm if there were two or three Popes at a time and if they were
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