the defence of his Apoology part 2. cap 9. diviâ— 1. proveth against Harding that Aerius could not be counted an heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure divino and citing for it Hierom Austin Cyhrsostome closeth up for answer with these words All these and many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St. Paul for thus saying must by Hardings advice be held for heretiques 9. Bishop Morton in his Cathol Apology part 1. cap. 33. affirmeth that divers other Divines besides Hierom were of the same opinion with Aerius That there was no difference by divine right between a Bishop a Presbyter For which he also citeth Medina Anselme Sedulius Erasmus and Alphonsus a Castro who saith that Hierome was of this opinion that a Bishop and a Presbyter are ejusdem ordinis et authoritatis of the same Order and the same Authority 10. Bishop Bilson whatsoever he saith to the contrary in his book called the perpetual government of Christs Church in his book against Seminaries lib. 1. pag. 318. affirmeth out of Hierome that the Church at first was governed by the common Councel of Prâ—byters and therefore Bishops must understand that they be greater then Ministers rather by custome then the Lords appointment and the Bishops came in after the Apostles times 11. Dr. Whitakers respon ad Campiani rationes ratio affirmeth That Iure divino a Presbyter and a Bishop are all one And whereas Durans affirmeth with many words that Bishops and Presbyters were Iure Divino divers he telleth him that if he will retain the estimation of a modest Divine he must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to be so evidently false For what is so well known saith he as this which you acknowledge not Hierom plainly writeth that Elders and Bishops are the same and confirmeth it by many places of Scripture 12. Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Oxford at an Act Iuly 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question An Episcopatus sit ordo distinctus a Presbyteratu â—oque superior jure divino and said That the Affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the Doctrine of the Church of England yea the very School-men themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventure c. We might cite divers others as Arch-Bishop Whitguife against Carâ—hright and Dr. Fulk upon Titus the 1. ver 5. and Deane Nowell c. But we forbeare and the rather because we shall have occasion hereafter to touch upon the same Argument Now by all this it appears That by Scripture the judgment of the antient Church and our own Church of England a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one and that therefore they that are made Ministers by Presbyters are made Ministers by Bishops and are lawfully ordained because ordained in a way most agreeable to Scripture pattern CHAP. V. Answering Objections taken from the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus BEfore we leave our Scripture-proofs it will be expected that we should answer to what is brought out of Scripture for for the Ius Divinum of Prelacy and also to what is brought in answer unto our Arguments out of Scripture against it For the first there are two chiefe and principall arguments the one from Timothy and Titus the other from the 7. Asian Angels As for Timothy and Titus It is said that they were constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Creeâ— by the Apostle Paul and did exercise Episcopall power in these places both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and this power was derived by them unto their successors as being necessary to continue in the Church as well as the power of preaching and administring the Sacraments To this we Answer That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sense We deny not but that they did exercise Episcopal power both in Ordination and Jurisdiction and that this power is necessary to be continued in the Church But we say that they did this not as Bishops in a formall sense but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists which were Officers in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers To make this out we will briefly do two things 1. We will prove that Timothy and Titus were not Prelaticall Bishops 2. That they were Evangelists 1. That they were not Prelaticall Bishops This we make out 1. Because the Scripture no where cals them Bishopâ— But in the Postscripts they are called Bishops These Postscripts are no part of Canonicall Scripture The Papists themselves Baronius Serarius and the Rhemists confesse that there is much falsity in them Smectimnuâ—s hath everlastingly blasted the Authority of them The first Epistle is said to be writ from Laodicea whereas Bâ—za in his Annotations proves apparently that it was written from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serarius and Athanasius and Theodoret in his Epistle before his Commentary upon Timothy subscribe It is also called the first Epistle But how was Paul sure that he should live to write a second And it is also said to be written from Laodicea which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Paâ—atiana But as Bâ—za well observes there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana in the writers of those ages sed apud recentiores illos qui Romani â—mperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt The second Epistle iâ— thus subscribed The second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians was written from Rome when Paul was brought c. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop are wanting saith Bâ—za in quibusdam vâ—tâ—stis codicibus in veteri vulgatâ editione apud Syrum interpretem The Syriack Interpreter reads it Here ends the Second Epistle to Timothy written from Rome If St. Paul had written this Postscript he would not have said to Timothy the first Bishop c. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second Neither would it be said when Paul was brought c. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Epistle to Titus is said to be written from Nicopolis whereas it is cleare that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it Titus 3.12 Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis for I have determined there to winter he doth not say here to winter but there where note for the present he was not there and besides it is said that Titus was ordained the first Bishop c. And who was the second or was there ever a second But we forbear transcribing any more c. This is abundantly sufficient to invalidate the authority of the Postscript written ab hominibus vâ—l indoctis vel certe non sâ—tis attentis as Beza saith But some of the Fathers call them Bishops They that call them Bishops borrow their testimonies from Eusebius of whom Scaliger saith and Dr. Râ—ynâ—lds approves of it That he read ancient Histories paruâ— attente which they prove by many instances And all that Eusebius saith is only Sic scribitur It is so
reported But from whence had he thiâ— History Even from Clemens Fabuleus and Hegesippus not extant 2. It is no wonder that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by Eâ—sebius and Theodoret because that the Apostles themselves are called Bishops by the writers of those times who spake of former times according to their own Thus Peter is said to be Bishop of Rome and Iames of Hiâ—rusalem Now it is evident as we shall hereafter prove That the Apostles were not Bishops properly and formally but onely eminently and vertually 3. As they are called Bishops so also they are called Apostles Theodoret calles Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet we believe that there are few of our Episcopal Divines will undertake to prove them to be Veri Nominis Apostolos Some call them Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarches and yet will not be easie to perswade a person disengaged from Prelacy that there were Archbishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles dayes The truth is That which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historians may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. That those things which they received from their Fore-fathers they delivered to their posterity without strict examination and thereby in many things more deceived themselves and were the cause of deceiving others as we shall have occasion to shew afterwards For our parts we answer clearly That the Fathers and Councels speak of the Officers of former times according to the stile of their own times That Timothy had an Office above a Bishop as Wale Messalinus saith though afterwards from the custome of the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively if not abusively and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop And as another faith Timothy and Titus are called Bishops by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of Presidency but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called in Scripture hut as Evangelists which they were and so one of them is called 2 Tim. 4.5 2. The second argument to prove that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops relates especially to Timothy and it is this If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus it must be when the first Epistle was written For it is in that Epistle in which he is said to receive his pretended charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Jurisdiction But now this first Epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia as the learned both new and old Papists and Protestants agree And it was after this when Paul came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy and sends for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus unto him and commends the government of the Church unto these Elders whom he calls Bishops Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their Bishop in the sence of our Adversaries the Apostle would not have called the Elders Bishops before their Bishops face and in stead of giving a charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ he would have given that charge to Timothy and not to them And no doubt he would have given some directions to the Elders how to carry themselves toward their Bishop And because none of these things were done it is a clear demonstration to us that Timothy was not at that time Bishop of Ephesus To avoid the force of this argument there are some that say That Timothy was not made Bishop of Ephesus till after Pauls first being a prisoner at Rome which was after his being at Miletum But these men while they seek to avoid the Scylla of one inconvenience fall into the Carybdis of another as great For if Timothy was not made Bishop till Pauls first being at Rome then he was not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to him which all agree to be written before that time And then it will also follow That all that charge that was laid upon him both of Ordination and jurisdiction and that intreating of him to abide at Ephesus was given to him not as to the Bishop of Ephesus which he was not but as to an extraordinary Officer sent thither upon special occasion with a purpose of returning when his work imposed was finished From both these considerations we may safely conclude That if Timothy were neither constituted Bishop of Ephâ—sus before Pauls first being prisoner at Rome nor after Then he was not constituted Bishop at all But he was neither constituted Bishop before nor after c. Ergo not at all 3. To prove that Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence we argue from the matter contained in these Epistles In the first Epistle wherein all that is alledged for Episcopacy is contained for in the 2 Epistle there is nothing at all said about it Chap. 1. Vers. 3. He beseecheth Timothy to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia which had been a needless importunity as Smecttymnuus well observes if Timothy had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles for then he might have laid as dreadful a charge upon him to abide at Ephesus as he doth afterwards to Preach the Gospel 2 Tim. 4.1 2. And in his Epistle to Titus Chap. 1.5 he saith For this cause left I thee in Creete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting c. In which words the Apostle specifieth the occasional imployment for which he was desired to stay in that place Now as the Reverend Presbyters in their conference at the Isle of Wight have well noted These expressions I besought thâ—e to abide still at Ephesus I left thee in Creete do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call him away again And if we consider his actual revocation of them both of which we shall afterwards speake and the intimation in these texts of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay and of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put fair to prove That the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therfore did not Add to this That when Paul undertook in 1 Tim. 3. to set out the Office of a Bishop he mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter as we have formerly said including it in the Office of a Bishop which certainly he would never have done if he had at the same time made Timothy an HierachicalBishop with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do And in his Epistle to Titus he directly confounds the names and offices of Presbyters and Bishops and makes them one and the same Titus 1.5.6 which he certainly would not have
done if he had made them at that time distinct orderâ— with distinct Offices or if he had made Titus at that time Bishop or as some would have it Arch-Bishop or Primate and Metropolitan of the hundred Cities that were in Creet So much for the proof that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops in a Prelatical sence 2. The second thing we are to prove is That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and not onely so in a general signification as all Preachers of the Gospel may be called Evangelists but in a special and proper sence This will the better appear if we consider what an Evangelist is and the difference between Evangelists and other Officers of the Church Evangelists properly so called were men extraordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a settled residence upon any one charge They were Comites et Vicarii Apostoloâ—um Vice-Apostles who had Curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum as the Apostles had Curam principalem And they did as Ambrose speakes Evangâ—lizare sine Cathedra Bishops or Presbyters were tyed to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers Act. 20.28 But Evangelists were not tyed to reside in one particular place but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place as the necessity of the Churches did require To this agreeth Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy Evangelists saith he were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in Ecclesiastical affaires wheresoever they found need They were extraordinary and temporary Officers as the Apostles and Prophets were and Officers of a Rank higher then Pastors and Teachers and so they are reckoned Ephesians 4.11 Now that Timothy and Titus were such Officers is made evident Not onely because one of them is in direct terms called an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 But also from the perpetual motion of both of them from place to place not onely before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but as much after as before And that they did so move appears from divers Authors who have exactly set down their several peregrinations both before and after We shall not trouble the Reader with their travailes before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but shall onely relate what is said by the Reverend Minsters in their humble answer at the Isle of Wight of their journeyings after their going thither And first of Timothy If Timothy say they was Bishop of Ephesus he must be so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia and he left him there to exercise his Office in regulating ordering that Church and in ordaining but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletum For after Paul had been at Miletum he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with himand those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philâ—mon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus for we find that after all this towards the end of Saint Paulâ— life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand he sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seems that Timothy was not there because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts he saith Tychieus have I sent to Ephesus Now if your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one Totall what is said The severall journeys and stations of Timothy the Order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in several Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like may be said also concerning Titus after he was left at Creet he was sent for by Paul to Nicopolis and after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at Troas and not with Paul in Macedonia whence he is sent againe to Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Creet but unto Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture From all this we gather 3. Conclusions That Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense that is were not fixed Stars in Ephesus or Creet And whereas it is answered that the necessities of those times made even the most fixed Stars planetary calling them frequently from the places of their abode to those services that were of most use for the successe of that great work yet so that after their errands fully done they returned to their own charge and that therefore they might be Bishops notwithstanding their severall journeys We challenge any of them to shew in all the New Testament any one that was appointed Overseer of a particucular Church whose motion was as Planetary as we have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have been or if that fail to shew that after Timothy and Titus went abroad upon the service of the Churches they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Creet and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment But we are fully assured that they can shew neither the one nor the other and therefore we may safely conclude that they were not Bishops in our Brethrens sense That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and Evangelists in a proper sense and Officers distinct from Pastors and Teachers and Officers of an higher Rank and Order That they were not onely Evangelists before they were sent to Ephesus and Creet but afterwards also as hath been abundantly proved And the truth is If they were Evangelists at any time we cannot conceive how they can come to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense For we thus argue They that were made Evangelists in a proper sense by the Apostles were never afterwards made Bishops in our Brethrens sense by the Apostles For this had been to degrade them from a superiour Office to an inferiour And if according to the Councell of Chalcedon it be not onely incongruous but sacrilegious to bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter If it be an eternall reproach
and shame to a Bishop to be degraded from a Bishop to a Presbyter much more reproach and shame it must needs be for an Evangelist to be brought down unto the Office of a Bishop But Timothy and Titus were once made Evangelists by the Apostles when they were chosen to travell up and downe with them as their companions and before they were setled as our Brethren suppose the one at Ephesus the other at Creet This is confessed by Bishop Hall Bishop Downham and all Episcopall men that we have read of this subject And the great debate between them and us is not whether they were once Evangelists and Vice-Apostles or no but how long they continued so and whether ever they were made Bishops in our Brethrens sense And therefore we may undoubtedly conclude That because they were once Evangelists therefore they were never Bishops neither before they were sent to Ephesus and Creâ—â— nor afterwards Before we leave our discourse concerning Timothy and Titus we must of necessity answer one Objection It is said that the work imposed upon Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Creet both of Ordination and Jurisdiction is as necessary to be continued in the Church as the work of preaching and adminstring the Sacrament and that after their deaths those that did succeed them did the same work and were called Bishops by the ancient Fathers And that therefore Timothy himselfe was a Bishop because his Successors in the same place were called so Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and therefore temporary and extraordinary Officers and therefore could not have any Successors in Office Indeed the power they did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was necessary for the Church of Christ and there were some that succeeded them in that work but none in the Office the Apostles and Evangelists had some that came after them and did the same work that they did in governing ordaining and preaching but they had no Successors in Office for then they had not been extraordinary And as one wel saith when the Apostles and Evangelists dyed their Offices ceased what parts of their Office were of perpetuall use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the Keyes were left to those Ordinary Officers called Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 The distinction made afterward between a pastor-Pastor-Bishop and a Pastor-Presbyter was but an humane invention for order and to avoid accidental inconveniencies of which we shall speake more hereafter In a word the successors of Timothy and Titus were Presbyters who by common consent govern the Church and ordain Elders and did the same work as ordinary standing Officers which Timothy and Titus did as extraordinary and temporary Officers c. So it was at first till afterwards for avoiding ofSchisme as Hierom saith one was chosen from amongst the Presbyters and called a Bishop But whether this invention were of God and whether it were hurtfull or profitable for the Church we shall God willing shew at large when we come to speak of the practise of Antiquity in point of Episcopacy So much for Timothy and Titus CHAP. VI. Answering Objections from the pretended Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels THe second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine right of Prelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they were seven single persons And as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blinde or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy age that men should still continue blinde and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine right upon It is further added That some of the ancient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when Iohn writ his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus Others say that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plausibilitie that the Angels of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops For answer to those things we must of necessity referre the Reader to what is said in the bookes quoted in the margent wherein they are fully clearly and as we conceive satisfactorily handled we shall crave leave to borrow a few things out of them adding something of our own In answer therefore to this Scripture we do desire those things may be considered 1. That St. Iohn the Pen-man of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the name Bishop he names the name Presbyter frequently especially in the Revelation yea when he would set out the Office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church Revel 4. He cals himselfe a Presbyter Epist. 2. And whereas in St. Iohn's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now both these are found in the writings of St. Iohn And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if we consider that Polycarp as iâ— related was made Bishop by him and no doubt if he had been made Bishop in a Prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe Add to thiâ— 1. That there is not the least intimation in all St. Iohns writngs of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy Consider thirdly That the same Authors that say that St. Iohn made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and that St. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. Iohn himself sate many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certain that the Apostles cannot properly be called Bishops For though they did eminently contain the Episcopall office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their Office ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madness to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom we shal have occasion to cite this purpose hereafter 4. Consider fourthly That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import
themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could lose their Apostleship Had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more parted with their power of Governing then they did in setting up Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the office of teaching c. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commitâ— the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in ordinary in his own hands who took his last farewell of them as never to see them more As the reserving of that part of the power of Governme nt called Legislative in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties judgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops at Ephesus and Creet to whom the Apostle gives rules for ordering and governing the Church So likewise there is no reason why the Apostle reserving of that part of the power of Government called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought m eet should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at first then that they never did There is a third answer given which is quite contrary to the second and that is that these Bishops of Philippi were Bishops in a proper sence and that at that time when the Apostle wrote his Epistle there were no single Presbyters at Philippi 1. This answer is quite contrary to the sence that Hierom Theodoret and Theophylacts and others give of this text 2. This answer supposeth that there were more Bishops then one planted in one City by the Apostles which is quite contrary to the judgment of Episcopall divines and quite destructive of the Episcopal Hierarchy Theodoret sayth that the Apostles by Bishops understands single Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Otherwise it had been impossible for many Bishops to go vern one City And so also Theophylact The Apostle calls Presbyters Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there were not many Bishops in one City And the truth is To affirm That there were many Bishops in one City in the Apostles dayes is in plain English to grant the cause and to say That the Apostolicall Bishops were mere Presbyters 3. Another text brought by us to prove the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter was 1. Tim. 3. where the Apostle reckoning up the qualifications of a Bishop passeth from Bishops unto Deaconâ— leaving out the qualifications of Presbyters there by giving us to understand that Presbyters and Bishops are all one To this it is answered That because Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus who were Bishops therefore there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of officers then such as belonged to their Ordination and inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons onely and no Bishops 1. This answer would have some weight in it if it could be proved That Timothy and Titus were Bishops in a forâ—all sence or if there could be found any rule for the Ordination of an Hierarchicall Bishop or for the qualification of him in some other place of Scripture but we are sure that neither the one nor the other can be made out 2. It is reasonable to think as our Divines at the Isle of Wight say the Apostle when he passeth immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon in the place forementioned would have distinctly exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whether the Bishop over Presbyters or the Presbyter Bishop to have avoided the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the Eschocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house 3. According to the judgement of Episcopal men as our divines do well observe Bishops might then have ordained Bishops like themselves for there was then no Canonâ— forbidding one single Bishop to Ordain another of his own rank and there being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this answer fights against the principle of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops 4. This answer is opposite to all those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been made by the Apostle Arch-Bishops of Ephâ—sus and Crâ—â—tâ— If they were Arch-Bishops then their Office was to constitute Bishops in a proper sence There is one of no little note among our Prelatical Brethren that stoutly maintains this and till our Brethren be reconciled among themselves we need make no other reply to this answer 5. Whereas out of 1 Pet. 5. we proved That the Elderâ— are not onely called Bishops but have the whole Episcopal power committed unto them being commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feed and take the Episcopal charge of the flock of God To this it is said That by Elders are meant Bishops in our Brthrens sense Because These Elders are required to feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as being Lords over Gods heritage So it is translated But say some it must be translated Not as being Lords â—ver the Clergy committed to your care which hints unto us say they That these Elders were Bishops over Presbyters and not meer Presbyters This Interpretation is Novel and not to be found for ought we can discern in all Antiquity and we believe our more Moderate Brethren are ashamed of it and therefore we will be very brief in answer to it All that we shall say is 1. That though after the Apostles dayes there came in this Nominal distinction between the people and their Ministers insomuch as the people were called Laici and their Ministrs Clerici yet it is evident that in the Apostles dayes there was no such distinction The people of God are in this very Epistle called an holy Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 and a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 And Deut. 32.9 The Lords portion and the lot of his inheriâ—ance And if the Reader wil be pleased to view al the translations that have been of this text he will never find it translated As being Lords of the Clergy but as being Lords of Gods heritage 2. We answer That the Apostle as if on purpose he had intended to have fore-armed us against this misunderstanding of the words in the latter clause of the verse he sheweth what he maeneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as Lords over Gods heritage but as being ensamples to the flock The latter is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the sense of the whole verse can be no other but this That the Elders be careful not to
themselves as good successe as the best Minister Yea a tyrant robber or murtherer may justifie himself in his wickednesse as being sent by God providentially Then Zimri had as just a warrant to destroy the house of Baasha as Iehu had to destroy the house of Ahab and Iosephs brethren did well in selling him since they did it by special providence Gen. 45. 50.7 3. The Apostle speaks of such a sending as must be acknowledged by all to be of God an authoritative mission such as Embassadours have who are sent with publick Letters of Credence to negotiate the Affairs of those that imploy them For 1. They are called Preachers or Heralds the participle in the original Rom. 10.14 noting the Office as Rom. 12.7 8. 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.17 so in the parallel place Isa. 52.8 they are called Watchmen both which terms connote Authority 2. People are blamed for not hearing them Rom. 10.16 21. but the not hearing of such as are not sent is no fault but a vertue Iohn 10.5 8. Indeed divine truth is ever obligatory who ever brings it but a double tie lies upon people when truth is conveighed by a divine messenger Otherwise any private person had as much power of binding and losing as a Minister There is a wide difference between an arrest or pardon reported by a private person and the same applied under the Broad-Seal by a person delegated from the Supream Magistrate 3. The Socinians reply to the Text and say That a speciall Call was necessary in the Apostles daies because the doctrine by them delivered was new and unheard of but this mission is not necessary in our daies because we preach no new Doctrine but onely that which the Apostles have formerly taught and written Answ. But the Answer is easie For 1. We have already proved That there is a necessity in the Church of Christ of a constant perpetual and ordinary mission 2. It is false that the Apostles and Prophets taught any new Doctrine Act. 24.14 26.22 28.23 they believed and taught nothing but old truths formerly delivered by Moses and the Prophets 1 Iohn 1.7 New indeed they might be in respect of the manner of proposing Joh. 13.34 or the singular ratification thereof by miracles Mark 1.27 or the apprehension of the Auditors Acts 17.19 but not as to the substance of the Doctrine Compare Iohn 13.34 with 2 Epist. of Iohn vers 5. 1 Ioh. 2.7 3. As to the first and third Consideration the Gospel is alwayes new to children ignorant persons or Heathen c. And therefore if Socinians will be true to their own principles they cannot plead against a called Ministry 4. In the dayes of the Apostles the truths of the Gospel were owned by all the Churches and so not new as to their apprehensions yet then came none to the Ministry without a Call Witnesse the Epistles to Timothy and Titus Thus at last we have vindicated this Text from all those mists that are cast upon it to darken it and made it to appear That none ought to take upon them the Office of a Minister unlesse they be lawfully Called and Ordained thereunto Our second Argument is taken from Heb. 5.4 5. And no man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee No man taketh i. e. ought to take Verbs active as our English Annotators upon the place observe in the phrase of Scripture sometime import not the act it self but onely an Office as Gen. 20.9 Levit. 4.12 13. Psa. 32.8 This honour the Priestly Office is not only a bâ—rthen but an honour what ever the carnal world esteem of it The Apostle here makes a general Proposition No man ought to take the ministerial honour upon him unlesse called by God This Proposition is not limited but illustrated First By Aaron who undertook not this Office till called thereunto Exod. 28.1 no more did any other of the Priests in the Old Testament 2 Chron. 29.11 16.16 It cost Câ—rah and his Company dear for doing otherwise The Prophets also make mention of their Commissions in the beginning of their Prophecies The word of the Lord came to Isaiah Ieremiah Hosea c. And when Amaziah objected against Amos Amos did not plead any general liberty the Israelites had of prophesying but tels Amaziah I was no Prophet I was an Herdsman and a gatherer of Sycamore fruit and the Lord took me as I followed the flock c. If then the Priests and Prophets of the Old Testament could not take this honour upon them till call'd and appointed who can shew any just reason why any under the New Testament should do otherwise especially if we consider That the Gospel-Ministry is more weighty and glorious then the Legal was Secondly By Christ who though he be God blessed for ever the true God coequal and coeternal with the Father yet he glorified not himself to be made an high-Priest but was sealed and inaugurated by his Father into this great Office And therefore he saith expresly Iohn 8.54 If I honour my self my honour is nothing it is my Father that honoureth me of whom you say that he is your God Now we desire all Christians in the fear of God to consider That if the Lord Jesus would not honour himself to become our Mediator till he was anointed by his Father and designed to this Office it cannot but be great presumption for any man to glorifie himself and make himself a Minister before he be lawfully ordained thereunto we may truly say to such as Christ doth You that thus honour your selves your honour is nothing Thirdly We argue from the Titles that are gâ—ven to the Ministers of the Gospel They are called Embassadours 2 Cor. 5.20 Stewards Tit. 1.7 Meâ— of God Tim. 6 11. compared with 2. King 5.8 Watchmen Ezek. 3.7 Angels Revel 2.1 which are all names of Office and require a special designation from God Stewards do not use to officiate without warrant Luke 12.42 Embassadours do not go forth to treat with forain States without publick Commission As they must have Instructions for the matter of their Message so they must be enabled with publick Authority for the managing of their Work Adde further that Ministers are called Gods Mouth and how shall a man take upon him to be Gods mouth who is not sent from God They are called the Good souldiers of Iesus Christ souldiers in an eminent degree to fight against iniquity and heresie and therefore must be listed by Christ into that number and must have his warrant for the discharge of their duty They are Gods Servants and Ministers and therefore must be sent by him or else they are their own masters not Gods servants And that all these things concern our Ministry as well as theirs in the Primitive times
Call is alwaies joyned either with the gift of Miracles or the gift of Tongues or some other extraordinary thing by which men are enabled undoubtedly to demonstrate to others their immediate Call Thus the Prophets were all of them endued with the gift of fore-telling things to come and Iohn Baptist was enabled to make proof of his immediate Call by shewing the Prophecies both of Isaiah and Malachy that were concerning him which prophecies were applied to him by the Angel Luke 1.15 16 17. before he was born appropriated by himself Ioh. 1.23 and confirmed by Christs testimony of him Mat. 11.9 10 11. And therefore let all those that boast of their Revelations and say they are called by God to preach as the Apostles were shew the signs and tokens of their Apostleship as the Apostles did let them shew the gift of miracles or of Tongues or of foretelling things to come or some supernaturall prediction that such as they should be sent into the world or at least some rare and extraordinary work of God that so the world may beleeve that they are in truth sent by God and are not Impostors and Seducers as the false Prophets were Ier. 14.14 Secondly They that are immediatly called by God will preach no other doctrine but what is agreeable to the Word of God This is the distinguishing character brought by the Prophet Ieremy Jer. 23.16 Hearken not unto the words of the Prophets c. For they prophesie a lye unto you for I have not sent them saith the Lord yet they prophesiâ— a lie in my Name Thus Ier. 29.8 9. Let not your Prophets and your Diviners deceive you neither hearken to your Dreams c. for they prophesie falsly unto you in my Name He that boasteth of dreams visionâ— â—nd Revelations and holds forth any doctrine contrary to the written Word he is an Impostor and a Seducer And this is the chief Note of difference without which the former iâ— insufficient Prima ac praecipua probationis regula saith Gerhard est harmonia congruentia doctrinae cum doctrinâ a Deo revelarâ The first and chief rule of triall is the harmony and agreement of the doctriâ—e they preach with the doctrine of thâ— Scriptâ—res For our Saviour Christ telâ— us That false Christâ— should arise and false Prophets and should shew great signs and wonders insomuch if it were possible they should deâ—eive the very Elect. And the Apostle tels us that the coming of Antichrist shall be after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders These wonders are called lying wonders either because they should be false and counterfeit or if â—rue yet they may be called lying wonders miranda not miracula because wrought by Satan to confirm erroneous doctrines and lies Such are Popish miracles falsly so called which are as our Annotations upon the place say either lyiâ—g prodigies or prodigious lies This caution was given to the Children of Israel by Moses Deut. 13.1 If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer if dreams and giveth thee a sign or a wonder and the sign or the wonder come to passe whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods c. Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul c. From all which we gather That whosoever groundeth his authority of preaching upon an immediate call and braggeth of heavenly visions and divine revelations if he preach strange doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles although he should confirm it by signs and wonders and although he should undertake to foretell things to come and these predictions should come to passe yet notwithstanding we are not to hearken unto him but to reject him as a Seducer and his wonders as lying wonders and to say with the Apostle Paul Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed Excellently to this purpose doth Austin answer to the Donatists boasting of their Revelations but departing from the sincerity of Evangelical doctrine Let them not therefore say it is a truth because Donatus or Pontius or any other did such and such miracles or because this Brother or that Sister saw such a vision or dreamed such a dream Let these fictions of deceitful men or wonders of lying spirits be laid aside c. And having laid them aside Let them demonstrate their Church not by such lying prodigies because against giving heed to such we are warned in the Word of God but by the prescript of the Law the predictions of the Prophets by the Book of Psalms by the voice of the great Shepherd by the Preachings and Writings of the Evangelists that is by â—…the Authority of Canonicall Books of Scripture So much for the first Question Quest. 2 Whether are we to expect any immediate and extraordinary Call to the Ministry in these daies Answ. Though we cannot nor ought not to set bounds to the infinite power of free-will of God nor will we dispute what God may do out of his free-grace in times of generall Apostacy yet we shall make bold to give in this answer to this great Question That we do not reade that we are commanded in Scripture to wait for and expect such a Call neither do we know of any promise that God hath made to encourage us to wait nor do we conceive that there is any absolute necessity of such an expectation For God as Chemnitius observes hath by his Apostles delivered and prescribed to his Church a certain form by which he would have men enter into the Ministry and that is a mediate Call neither is there now any need of an immediate For it is Gods will that the Ministry even to the end of the world should be tied to that doctrine which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles Adde to this That the Apostles though they themselves were called immediatly by God yet notwithstanding they did not wait till others that should succeed them in the work of the Ministry were chosen also immediatly by God But they themselveâ— ordained Ministers and gave order to Timothy and Titus about the way and method of electing and ordaining Elders which we are assured they would never have done if the immediate Call had not ceased together with their persons When Christ went up to heaven he gave two sorts of Officers to his Church some extraordinary as Apostles Evangelists Prophets and these were temporary some ordinary as Pastors and Teachers and these are perpetual Now as we are not to expect in our daies such extraordinary Officers as Apostles Evangelists and Prophets no more are we to expect such an extraordinary way of calling as they had but as our Officers are
in the Text fore-named was onely for those times and not to continue to the end of the world Answ. 1. This is not true For if the Ministry he to continue to the end of the world then the way of entring into the Ministry enjoyned by the Apostles is also to continue And there can no reason be brought why the one should be abolished and not the other 2. Timothy is enjoyned to keep this commandment without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec mandatâ— Keep these commandments that is saith he all the commandments commanded him in the whole Epistle Thus Deodate That thou keep this commandment that is Not only that which is contained vers 11. 12. but generally all other commandments which are contained in this Epistle Now this commandment of laying hands suddenly on no man is one of those commandments which he was to keep without spot untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which evidently proves That Ordination is an Ordinance of Christ and is to last to the end of the world It is worth observing which is also hinted by a Reverend Minister that there are 4. descents of men sent and ordained 1. Christ himself was sent and had his Commission from his Father Ioh. 20.22 23. Iesus Christ did not glorifie himself to be made an High-Priest but was anointed thereunto by God his Father Act. 10.38 2. Christ Jesus as he was sent of his Father so he sent forth his Apostles Ioh. 20.23 It is said Mat. 10.1 That Christ called unto him his twelve Apostles and sent them forth and gave them their commission Nay it is said Mar. 3.14 And he ordained twelve The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he made twelve that they should be with him and that he might send them forth to preach This making was an authoritative appointing them to their Office The Apostles would not have dared to have preached the Gospel had they not been commissionated by Christ thereunto 3. The Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church Paul ordained Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 4. Timothy and Titus did ordain others as they themselves had been ordained and that by the Apostles own appointment Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 Nay we reade of a Presbytery ordaining 1 Tim. 4.14 And as Timothy was intrusted with the Word of Christ so he is commanded to commit the same trust to faithfull men able to teach others also that so there may be a succession of Teachers Thus we have four descents recorded in Scripture 1. God anoints Jesus Christ and ordains him to his Ministerial office 2. Christ ordains his Apostles 3. The Apostles ordain extraordinary and ordinary Officers 4. And these ordain others And this commandment is given to be observed till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus as the Authour fore-mentioned saith The Apostles admitted men in their own practice into the Ministry and thus they appointed for succeeding times and can any think that Ordination ended with that age Is there not the same cause necessity use and reason for it in after ages as in the first times of the Church when there were as yet extraordinary gifts stirring in the Church which are now ceased and therefore the more need of a standing Ministry Sure we are of two things 1. That there are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for popular Election Our Brethren in New-England and many in Old England are very much for Election by the people And so are we if it be rightly ordered and managed But we desire them to shew us as clear Scriptures for Election as we have done for Ordination 2. That there is as much if not more in Scripture for the Justification of Ordination as for any other part of Church-Government as for the divine right of Synods of Excommunication of Ruling Elders or any other part of Discipline in which we agree together How then it should come to passe that many in our daies should cry up the divine right of Election by the people of Excommunication and other parts of Church-government and cry down the divine right of Ordination we know not Indeed we confesse That the Papists do too much extoll it calling it a Sacrament and not only a Sacrament in a generall sense as Calvin seemeth to do but a Sacrament in a proper sense as Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments And also in appropriating it to Bishops as distinct from Presbyters Hence it may be it is That some in our age running into the other extream as the nature of man alwaies is apt to do do too much vilifie and undervalue it and because they like it not brand it with the black mark as they do other of the Ordinances of Christ of Antichristian Ordination But we hope better things of our people and beseech them to take heed of those that call good evil and evil good and that call the Institutions of Christ the doctrines of Antichrist So much for the first Assertion CHAP. XI Proving the Second Assertion about Ordination to wit That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth properly consist in Ordination THe Second Assertion is That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth properly consist in Ordination The contrary to this Assertion is maintained by many Reverend Divines who set up Election in the room of Ordination and make Ordination â—o be but an adjunct unto and a consequent of this Ministeriall Call and a confirmation of a man into that office which he hath bestowed upon him by his election The essence and substance of the outward calling of an ordinary Officer in the Church say the Ministers of New-England in their Platform of Church-Government doth not consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election In opposition to this we have already endeavoured at large to prove That the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth not consist in popular Election And therefore we intend to be very brief in proving the contrary That it doth consist in Ordination This we make out by these ensuing arguments 1. If Election doth not give the essentials of the Ministeriall Office then Ordination doth For the outward Call of a Minister as it is agreed on all sides doth consist only in his Election or Ordination But Election doth not c. as we have formerly shewed by divers arguments Ergo. Ordination doth 2. If Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before then it gives the essence of the Ministeriall Office But Ordination makes a man a Minister that was not one before Ergo c. That this is so appears 1. From the Ordination of Deacons Act. 6.3 Look ye out seven men c. whom we may appoint over this businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a man into an Office which he had not before Thus it
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the greek-Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
Us can testifie perswades all Scholars unto Opinionum varietas opiâ—antium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that We shall be willing to entertain any sincere Motion as We have also formerly Declared in Our Printed Vindication that shall further a happy Accommodation between Us. 6. The last sort are the Moderate Godly Episcopal men that hold Ordination by Presbyters to be lawfull and valid That a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Order of Ministry that are Orthodox in Doctrinal Truths and yet hold That the Government of the Church by a perpetual Moderatour is most agreeable to Scripture-patern Though herein We differ from them yet We are farre from thinking that this difference should hinder a happy Union between them and Us. Nay We crave leave to profess to the world That it will never as We humbly conceive be well with England till there be an Union endeavoured and effected between all those that are Orthodox in Doctrine though differing among themselves in some Circumstances about Church-government And the Lord hath strangely made way for this long-desired Union by the bitter wofull and unutterable fruits of Our Divisions which have almost destroyed not only the Ministry but even the very heart and life of Religion and Godlinesse Memorable is the Story of Bishop Ridley and Bishop Hooper two famous Martyrs who when they were out of Prison disagreed about certain Ceremonial Garments but when they were put into Prison they quickly and easily agreed together Adversity united them whom Prosperity divided The time is now come wherein the ruine of all the Godly Orthodox and Ordained Ministry is by some men designed and endeavoured And therefore though hitherto We have continued sinfully divided yet now the Consideration of our Common Danger and the Preservation of the Ministry and therein the Preservation of the Glorious Ordinances Churches and precious Truths of Jesus Christ should marvellously constrain Us to study to finde out and being found out cordially to imbrace all lawfull waies to Unity and Agreement Thus much We thought fit to signifie that so Our Endeavours in the ensuing Discourse may not be misâ—interpreted and mis-represented There are two other things also which We are necessitated to communicate unto the Christian Reader First That this Book should have come out two Years ago but was hindred by multitude of necessary and indispensable Businesses intervening And that since our first undertaking of it there have been many Treatises written of most of these Subjects of which We speak to very good purpose which had prevailed with Us to have spared Our Pains had We not been encouraged by a saying of Austines That it is good and profitable to the Church of Christ that the same things be written of by divers Men in divers Books because those Books which come to the view of some will not come to the sight of others and by this means the Truths of Christ will be the sooner and easier spread and propagated We confesse that We have been necessitated in the Point of Episcopacy to borrow some things out of Smectymnuus and Our Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their Conference at the Isle of Wight and in Our Discourse about Election out of Mr Hudson and some others Which We have done because being to handle the same Subjects We thought it needless to adde any thing to what they have said and also That by this means We might revive the Memory of those Books which We believe are quite forgotten by most and are assured were never sufficiently answered by any Secondly The other thing which We would make known is That in this Our large Treatise We have purposedly declined all affectation of Language We have not laboured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feast the ear with curious phrases Our endeavour is to speak non diserta sed fortia We have alwaies disliked those Books which have in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sea of words and but a drop of sound Reason Our Care hath been more after Matter then Words And We hope the unbiassed and judicious Reader will finde that though the Garment with which We clothe Our Matter be rough and hairy like Esau yet the Voice is alwaies the Voice of Iacob For We have studiously avoided all Bitternesse of Speech even against those that make it a great part oftheirReligion to rail and reproach Us and who account Us the filth of the world and the off-scouring of all things We have learned of Our blessed Saviour To blesse those that curse Us to do good to them that hate Us and to pray for them which despitefully use Us and persecute Us. And of the blessed Apostle To instruct them in meeknesse that oppose Us if God peradventure will give thâ—m Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth It is a great Comfort to Us that the Government of the Church is upon Christs shoulders and he that could bear the wrath of God no doubt will uphold his own Government maugre all opposition And it is no lesse Joy unto Us that the Ministers of Christ are Stars in his right hand and therefore safe and secure from the hurt of unreasonable men We reade in the Revelation of a Woman cloathed with the Sunne and the Moon under her feet and a Crown of twelve Stars upon her head This Woman represents the true Church Every true Christian is cloathed with Christs Righteousnesse as with the Sunne and hath the world as the Moon under his feet and wears the Ministers and their Gospel-Doctrine as a Crown upon his head He that treads this Crown under his feet hath little of true Christianity in him But howsoever though We be trodden under feet and reproachfully used for what We have written yet it is no little Satisfaction to Us that We have discharged Our Consciences both to God and men And if some people will not wear Us as Crowns upon their heads We shall wear their Reproaches as Our Crown and shall pray unto the Lord who only teacheth to profit that he would give a good Successe to this Undertaking of Ours for the Glory of his Name the Benefit of his Church and more especially for the Establishing of our respective Congregations That he would direct protect providefor support sanctifie and comfort the Godly Ministry against all the sad Discouragements they meet with That he would keep out Popery root out Error Herâ—sie Atheism and all Prophanenesse and make Peace and Truth Holinesse and Righteousnesse to kisse one another in these three Nations The PREFACE THe Necessity and Excellency of the Gospel Ministery is so transcendently great as that it cannot but be accounted a very glorious Service in all those that shall undertake to represent it in its Beauty to the Sonnes of men and to vindicate it from all that seek to asperse undermine and destroy it Our Saviour Christ when he Ascended up into Heaven left the Ministry as his choisest Legacy next to the Gift of his
the Bottomlesse pit which were innumerable called two like their types Moses and Aaron who brought Israel out of Egypt or as Elias and Elisha which reduced Israel out of Baalism yet these Witnesses though in number few continue in their successions all the reign of the Beast for the daies of their prophecying in Sackcloth are One thousand two hundred and sixty years and so expire not till the 42 moneths of the Beasts Reign be expired Now fifthly we adde that these Sackcloth Prophesiers were not only Saints who mournfully bewailed the abominations of those times that the holy City should be trampled under foot but also that they were holy pious Ministers distinct from the Saints in Office and in the act of their Prophetical function which is intimated to us 1. From the power bestowed upon them the Lord gives to them not only to pray and to mourn but to Prophesie Rev. 11.3 Not so much by prediction of things future as by Preaching the everlasting Gospel It was a mighty power from on high that a few contemned persecuted Ministers should have gifts to be able and power to be couragious to preach against the son of perdition when all the world wondered after the Beast 2. From their effectual exercise of that power and that in their publick detecting those Antichristian abominations and denouncing the wrath of God against them It is said in the daies of their Prophesie though they were poor men and had no carnal weapons to defend themselves or offend their enemies yet in a spiritual sense fire proceedeth out of their mouths and devoureth their enemies Revel 11.5 For the Lord did make his words in their mouth to be fire and the people wood and it devoured them Ier. 5.14 and the holy Ghost adds further that these Prophets tormented them that dwel upon the earth v. 10. 3. The Spirit of truth doth not only call these two by the name of Prophets but elsewhere distinguisheth the Prophets and Righteous men He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward and he that receiveth a Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man shall receive a Righteous mans reward Where Christ incouraging poor Preachers of the Gospel against all the hard and harsh usage of the world intimates to us 1. That there are some who by way of Office and distinction from others are Prophets and Preachers 2. That there is some eminent reward due to Prophets 3. That they who do any good to Prophets even because of that Office shall receive a Prophets reward And in this very Prophesie concerning Antichrist the Spirit maketh these two distinct the Prophets and the Saints Babylon is therefore ruined because in her is found the blood of the Prophets and of the Saints Rev. 17.24 Now if we descend from the words of this Prophecy and come to observe the answerable event in History we shall finde that in every age there were Ministers opposing the tenents of Antichrist Their particular names times places and their manner of resisting the man of sin it will be too large to insist upon yet a brief Catalogue of Ministers is here inserted From the time of Christ and his Apostles for 600 years our famous Iewell against the Romanists hath abundantly proved that the truths professed in the reformed Churches were maintained by the Ancients And in the succeeding Centuries when the Man of Sinne began to prevail there were in their several Ages Godly and Learned Ministers who opposed the Popish Errours defending the sufficiency of Scripture Communion in both kindes Justification by free Grace disclaiming the defilements of worship in adoring Images Invocation of Saints praying for the Dead worshipping Reliques and openly testifying against the rising and swelling power of the Pope declaiming against his Supremacy and title of Universal Bishop as Antichristian From the 600 year of Christ to the 700 besides Isidore Hesychius and others there were in this Island these two famous Preachers Aidan who converted from Paganism the Kingdom of Northumberland which then contained not only the Country now so called but also Cumberland Westmoreland Lancashire Yorkshire the Bishoprick of Durham and some part of Scotland Also Finan by whose Ministry the Lord turned to the Christian faith the Kingdom of the East Saxons and of Mercia as our own Countryman doth testifie Bâ—sides our famous Countrymen Bede Alâ—vinus and many others there were Adlebertus and Clemens and Sampson with many other Priests who did mightily withstand Pope Boniface Besides Taurinensis Agobarduâ— Rabanus Maurus there was Scotus accused by the Pope for an Heretique and murdered as is conceived by his own Scholars for his opposing the carnal presence And Bertram a Priest in France was so clear a Protestant in the point of the Sacrament in a Book that he set forth that some Romanists say it was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram And the most learned of the Papists confess that Walafridus Strabo Ionas Bishop of Orleans and Hinâ—marus Archbishop of Rhemes departed from the received opinion of the Church Catholique In this Age the most unlearned and unhappy are recounted Radulphus Flaviaâ—ensis Stephanus Eduensis Smaragdus and our English Alfricke whose Saxon Homily was appointed to be read publikely to the people against the carnal presence In this Age more light began to appear even in the heat and height of Antichristianism not only by the Ministry of Fulbert Bishop of Chartres Anselme of Laon Author of the Interlineal Gloss Oecumenius Theophylact and others but especially by Berengarius and his disciples Besides Arnulphus the Martyr Hugo de Sancto Victore Robertus Tuitiensis Gulielmus de sancto amore Ioâ—chim Abbas Niceas were Peter Bruis and his Scholar Henry of Tholousâ— two famous Preachers against Popish errours insomuch as Peter was apprehended and burnt In this Age the Waldenses appeared who were the famous opposers of Antichrist In this Age are recorded Alâ—â—ssiodore Peter de Vinâ—is Arnoldus de nova villa and those two famous Preachers Gerardus and Dulcinus who preached that the Pope was Antichrist and Rome Babylon Besides our famous Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne the great hammer of the Romanists who wrote to the Pope that he was Antichrist In this Age appeared for Christ Thomas Bradwardin Richard Armachanus Taulerus a famous Preacher in Germany and that glorious instrument of the Lord Iohn Wickliff In this Century besides Peter de Alliaco Nichol. Clemangis and many others we need name no other but those great Worthies and Martyrs Savanorola a famous Preacher in Florence with Iohn Huss and Hierom of Prague whose memories are pretious throughout all the Reformed Churches In this Age the Father of mercies raised up Martin Luther and so many others and from that time the defection from Rome was so eminent that it hath visibly continued to this day and concerning the following times
is evident because these Titles are applied not onely to extraordinary but to ordinary Ministers The Ministers of the seven Churches of Asia are called Angels the Ministers ordained by Titus Stewards the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Overseers or Bishops now a Ruler is a name of Office and implieth a Commission to constitute him in that capacity Fourthly We argue From the constant distinction that is made in Scripture between gifts and calling We reade Ioh. 20.21 22. First Christ gives his Apostles their Commission As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Then he gives them their gifts Receive the Holy Ghost Thus also Isa. 6.6 7 9. God touched his lips with a coal from the Altar and gifted him Afterwards he gives him his Commission Thus also it was with the Prophet Ieremy 1.5 9. God sends him and then puts forth his hand toucheth his mouth and fiâ—s him Even as it is in all civill Governments Gifts make not any man a Judge or a Lord-Maior Sheriff or Common-Counsell man though he be never so richly qualified for these Offices unlesse he be lawfully appointed thereunto So is it in Church-affairs it is not gifts but calling that constitutes a Minister therefore that distinction of a Minister by gifts and a Minister by calling hath no footing in the Word of Truth If gifts were sufficient to make a Minister then women might preach as well as men for they may have as eminent gifts Indeed gifts are a necessary qualification of the person to be called but make him not a lawfull Minister till called and ordained And if he take the Office upon him unsent he is an Usurper and may fear to perish in the gain-saying of Corah notwithstanding his gifts Fifthly We argue from the Rules laid down in Scripture for the calling of men to the Office of the Ministry The Word of God doth exactly tell us the qualifications of the person that is to be called 1 Tim. 3.2 3. c. The Scripture also directs for the manner of his calling to the work who are to Ordain How he is to be Ordained 1 Tim. 4.14 c. Now either these directions are superfluous and unnecessary or else it is a truth that no man ought to take this Office upon him without such a call Nor were these directions given for that age only but for all the ages of the Church to the end of the world as appears evidently from 1 Tim. 6.18 compared with 1 Tim. 5.7.21 In the first place he is charged to keep those commands without spot to the appearance of Iesus Christ And in the second place there is as solemn a charge particularly applied to quicken his diligence and faithfulnesse about matters of the Church and especially the ordination honour and maintenance of the Ministry in ordinary as appeareth by the context before and after from ver 17. to ver 23. The same charge is laid down also by way of direction Chap. 3. and particularly committed to Timethy's care ver 14. And one main ground why Paul chargeth Timothy to be so carefull about these particulars especially at Ephesus was That thereby false doctrine might be prevented 1 Tim. 1.3 4. for which there is scarce a more effectuall means in the world then a publike and regular care of calling persons duely qualified to the Ministry And we cannot but look with sad hearts upon the spreading of errours in these daies of generall Apostasie as the righteous judgement of God upon the supine negligence of men in this particular among others The same charge upon the same ground is laid upon Titus Cha. 1.5 9 10. where also the Apostle gives singular directions for the qualification of the person to be ordained both in point of gifts and grace which are all vain and unusefull if any may enter upon the Ministry without Ordination Sixthly We argue from that confusion which would come into the Church if every man that presumes himself gifted should intrude himself into the Office of the Ministry without a regular call Saint Ierome held it an infallible sign of a Church falling into ruine Vbi nulla Ministrorum est electio manifestum cognosce collabâ—nt is Christianismi judicium where there is no choice of Ministers acknowledge this a manifest evidence of Christianity decaying The reason is apparent The prostituting of this sacred and weighty Office to the wils of men opens a door to all disorders and the introducing of all heresies and errors How much did the Church of Antioch suffer from such as came from the Apostles and had no Commission Act. 15. Gal. 2.5 besides that contempt and scorn which it exposeth the Ministry unto Admit the same in the Common-wealth or in an Army Might he that would make himself a Maior Judge Constable a Colonell Captain c. what an Iliad of miseries would thence â—nsue is easier to be imagined then expressed CHAP. V. Containing part of the Third Proposition PROVING That none may do the Work of the Ministry without Ordination NO man may perform the work of the Ministry but he that is solemnly set apart and ordained to be a Minister Having in the precedent Chapter asserted the necessity of Ordination to the work of the Ministry against the presumptuous usurpation of such as run and are not sent We shall by the grace of God in this Chapter vindicate the work of the Ministry unto those whom God hath set as Officers in his Church That there is a work belonging to the Ministry is out of question and what that work is is confessed by all It belongs to them to dispense the mysteries of God the keys of the Kingdom of God are in their hands It is their work to watch for souls as they that must give an account of them at that great day To preach the Word and by sound doctrine to convince gain-sayers to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper to pray for and blesse the people in the Name of God to rule and govern the Church having a care of discipline and all these as in the place and person of Christ. Of how great necessity these works are unto the Church is evident unto understanding Christians and hath been demonstrated already It now remains to be enquired whether all or any of these works may be performed by men uncalled though gifted or whether they be peculiar unto Ministers Those with whom we have to do yeelding all the rest to the Ministry challenge in their writings a liberty to preach the Word and in their practises some of them a power of praying for and blessing the people how justly we shall shew when we have first stated the Question which we shall do briefly and plainly that we may not seem to disallow what we ought to countenance commend nay to command in the Name of the Lord and that we may prevent and anticipate the cavils of some gain-sayers For the right stating of the Question we shall
declare what we mean by preaching of the Word and from thence premise some few distinctions which well considered of might put an end to this whole controversie By the Preaching of the Word we understand an authoritative explication and application of Scripture for exhortation edification and comfort to a Congregation met together for the solemn worship of God in the stead and place of Christ and we desire that every branch of this description may be well weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary The Subject of Preaching is the Word of God Mat. 28.19 Let him that hath my word speak my word faithfully Jer. 23.28 This is that sound doctrine and form of sound words which the Apostle enjoyns Timothy and Titus to hold fast And themselves and Christ himself taught no other things then were written in Moses and the Prophets c. This work is the explication and application of this word As Ezra read in the Book of the Law and gave the sense and caused all Israel to understand Neh. 8.8 And it is to this which Paul presseth Timothy when he exhorts him to shew himself a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth 2 Tim. 2.15 The end of this work is the exhortation edification and comfort of the Church 1 Cor. 14.2 which is the profitable use of all Scripture 2 Tim. 3.16 The object of this work is a Congregation met together for the Solemn worship of God 1 Cor. 14.23 when you are come together into one place It is true that the word ought to be preach'd to Infidels Mat. 28. Mar. 16. Go into all the world but the principall object of this work is the Church Prophecy is not i. not so much for them that beleeve not but for them that beleeve 1 Cor. 14.22 Hence it is that God hath sâ—t his Officers in the Church 1 Cor. 12.28 For the Church Eph. 4.12 The manner of the doing of this work is 1 Authoritatively not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magisterially as Lords of Faith but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerially as being over the Church in the Lord 1 Thes. 5.12 Thus is Titus enjoyned Tit. 2.15 These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all command Secondly In the stead and place of Christ Thus the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. We beseech you as if God did beseech you we pray you in Christs stead be reconciled to God and hence it is that Christ saith to his Disciples Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me c. From hence First We distinguish between a private brotherly teaching admonition exhortation of one another and an authoritative publique teaching The first grounded on charity is the common duty of all Christians by the royall Law of love and prescribed to all even to women by the Law of God under pain of sin and this especially in evil times This practise we are far from disallowing or discouraging we call God to witnesse it would be the joy of our hearts to see our people full of knowledge and full of goodnesse able and willing to admonish one another with prudence love zeal and a spirit of meeknesse and this we exhort and charge in the name of Christ that they neglect not It is authoritative teaching only which we deny Secondly We distinguish between the teaching of parents and Masters in their Families to which also the teaching of School-masters may be reduced and Ministeriall preaching We call upon Parents Masters School-masters not only to bring their Families and Scholars to publike Ordinances but to make their Houses the Churches of Christ To reade the Scriptures in them to catechize them to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord to teach them in their youth in the trade of their way as they will answer it at that great day And unto this duty we exhort even mothers but we deny unto them Ministeriall Preaching Thirdly We distinguish between the exhortation of a General in the head of an Army and of a Judge in his charge upon the Bench and preaching the Word of God Though we deny not the lawfulness of the one or the other of the two former because we have the approved examples of Ioab 2 Sam. 10. Of Abijah 2 Chro. 13. Of Iehosaphat 2 Chro. 19.20 Ioshua Cha. 23.24 yet we say First That properly thus to do was the Ministers work for thus the Lord prescribes Deut. 20.2 And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battell that the Priâ—st shall approach and speak to the people and shall say unto them Hear O Israel as it follows ver 3. And thus Iehosaphaâ— practiseth 2 Chron. 19. where he joyns Priests and Levites to the Judges whom he sends abroad in all the Cities of Iudah Secondly We say that there is a vast difference between this action and the work of the Ministry for neither is the object of it a Congregation sacred but meerly civill neither is the authority Ecclesiasticall and from Christ but meerly politicall These Officers perform this work as Custodes utriusque â—abâ—lae and their work is rather reducible to a charitative admonition then a ministeriall dispensation Should it not be done by them their sin was rather against charity then justice and ceased not to discharge the duty of a Generall or a Judge though they ceased to do the duty of a Christian Generall or a Christian Judge Fourthly We distinguish between Divinity-exercises in the Schools and University and the Preaching of the Word For though these Lectures are performed either only by such as have received Ordination and arâ— Ministers of the Gospel or such aâ— are Candidates of the Ministry either Prophets or the Sons of the Prophets and so not wholly without Commission yeâ— are they not performed to a Congregation met together for the solemn worship of God They are rather reducible to the work of School-maâ—â—ers instructing their Scholars and Scholars rendring account to their Masters then ministerial preaching Fifthly We distinguish between the act of members in any sacred or civil Assembly debating counselling and admonishing one another out of the Word of God and the preaching of the Word Because this action of theirs towards one another is not authoritative but meerly brotherly is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Christian conference then preaching and no other then private Christians met together by mutual consent may perform neither is their meeting such a one as is the Object of preaching of which we speak Sixthly Before we proceed to argument we desire it may be observed that we dispute not what may be done in extraordinary cases either in regard of times or places where Ordination may not possibly be had whether in such a case private gifted men may not preach we do not dispute Davids necessity made it lawfull for him and his men to eat the shew-bread which it was not lawfull for any but only the Priests to eat but our
ordinary so the calling we are to expect is ordinary Adde That God hath promised to preserve an ordinary Ministry in the world till the coming of Christ 1 Cor. 11.26 Eph. 4.12 13. Mat. 28.20 Isa. 59.21 And therefore there is no need of waiting for and expecting an extraordinary and immediate Call As it is necessary saith Learned Zanchy that there shall be alwaies a Church upon earth because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it So also it is every way as necessary that a lawfull Ministry be preserved Vnum enim ab altero separari non potest nec Ecclesia a Ministerio nec Ministerium ab Ecclesiâ For the one cannot be separated from the other neither the Church from the Ministry nor the Ministry from the Church And from hence it appears saith the same Authour That even in the Church of Rome though the worship of God be most corrupt in it yet God hath preserved in it so much of the substance of Religion as was necessary to salvation so that as the Church is not wholly extinct therein so neither was the Ministry We deny not but that there are some Learned Divines that pleade much for an immediate and extraordinary call in times of publique and generall defection from the Truth For our parts we will not espouse this quarrell We cannot we ought not to set bounds to the infinite power and free-will of God We dispute not what God may do at such times only we say with Gerhard Destituimur promissione quòd debeamus hoc tempore post confirmatum Novi Testamenti canonem immediatam vocationem expectare We have no promise that we ought after the confirmation of the Canon of the New Testament to expect an immediate call And afterwards he saith Nulla apparet immediatae vocationis necessitas There appears no necessity of this immediate Call And besides even those that are for an immediate Call do lay down divers limitations which are very worthy to be considered by the people of our age lest they should suck poison from such a doctrine One that pleads much for it gives these Rules 1. That this extraordinary and immediate Call then only takes place when a mediate and ordinary cannot be had and that such a Call ought not to be pretended unto in contempt of the ordinary way 2. That whosoever shall pretend to this immediate Call ought first to be tried before he be admitted That his doctrine ought to be examined by the Word That his life and conversation ought to be diligently lookt into lest he prove one of those concerning whom the Apostle speaketh That serve not our Lord Iesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple After this he puts this Question Anne cessante ordinaria vocatione c. Whether when the ordinary Call ceaseth it be then lawful for every private Christian verst in the Scriptures to go up into the Pulpit and preach against false Doctrines and assert the Truth and answers God forbid for this would open a door euivis ubivis qui se sapientem existimaret c. to every one every where who thinks himself wise under a pretence whether true or false of confuting false doctrine to have clandestine meetings as the Anabaptists and Libertines of our daies are wont to do following the evil example of those that first at Antioch afterwards in Galatia and elsewhere creeping in privately brought great tumults and confusions into the Church Of whom the Apostle speaks Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law to whom we gave no such commandment Thus farre Bucanus and much more to this purpose in the same Chapter By this it appears That even they that justifie an immediate Call in some cases do notwithstanding flatly condemn the disorderly practices of our times So much in answer to the second Question The third Question is Whether the Call of Luther and the rest of the best Reformers of Religion from the errors of Popery was an immediate and extraordinary Call or no Answ. He that would be satisfied about the Call of Luther to the Ministry let him reade Gerhard de Ministerio where he shall finde proved That Luther though he did alwaies pleade his doctrine to be of God yet he did never so much as pretend to an immediate and extraordinary Call but that he was called after a mediate and ordinary way That he was ordained Presbyter in the Year of our Lord 1507. at 24 years of Age That when he was ordained Presbyter he did receive power to preach the Word of God That the next Year after he was called by Iohn Staupitius with the consent of Elector Frederick to be Divinity Professor of the Church and University of Wittenberg By the Statutes of which University he was bound to this sc. Vestrum est legem divinam interpretari librum vitae docere It is your Office to interpret the Divine Law and to teach the Book of Life Object If it be objected That Luther received his Ordination from the Church of Rome and therefore it is null and void Answ. To this Gerhard answereth That although the rite of Ordination in the Church of Rome was corrupted with many Superstitious and Vnprofitable Ceremonies yet Ordination it self was not nullified We must distinguish between the impurity of the Bishop Ordaining and the Ordination which is done in the Name of the whole Church And in the Ordination we must distinguish that which is divine from that which is humane that which is essential from that which is accidentall that which is godly and Christian from that which was Antichristian As in the Israelitish Church they were to use the Ministry Sacrifices and Ordination of the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in Moses chair yet the people were warned to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16.12 So also is the Church of Rome We use the Ministry Sacraments and Ordination of those that were in ordinary succession but we reject the leaven of their Superstition But to this Objection we shall speak more fully in our fifth Proposition The like to that is said of Luther may be said of Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bucer Peter Martyr c Zanchy saith That Luther was a lawful Teacher and a Minister created in the Church of Rome with Imposition of hands and with authority to create others The like he saith of Zuinglius Bucer c. and of himself Qui in Papatu fuimus creati Doctores cum authoritate alios creandi We were made Teachers under the Papacy with authority to make others We confesse that Zanchy Bucanus and divers others speak much if not too much of an extraordinary Call that these blessed Reformers had But yet we desire it may be considered
consist in his Ordination but in his voluntary and free Election by the Church and in his accepting of that Election c. For our parts we crave leave to dissent from these worthy men and that upon these grounds Arg. 1. Because our brethren do not bring any one Text of Scripture to prove this their assertion as we can finde nor do we think that any can be brought Arg. 2. Because that those very Texts fore-mentioned which are the chief if not the only Texts that are brought for popular Election do seem to us to hold forth the quite contrary to this assertion When Matthias was made an Apostle it was not the Election of the people that did constitute him an Apostle The people chose two if they chose at all but that which did constitute him an Apostle was the determination by lot As in a Corporation when the community chooseth two and the Aldermen one of these two in propriety of speech it is the Aldermen that choose the Mayor not the community All that the 120. did if they did that was to set two before the Lord but it was God that did constitute and appoint Matthias to be the Apostle In the choise of Deacons the people nominated seven Persons to be Deacons but it was the Apostles Ordination not the peoples Election that did constitute and make them Deacons So saith the Text expresly Look ye out among you seven men whom we may appoint or constitute over this businesse The essence and substance of the Deacons Call is placed not in the peoples nomination but in the Apostles Ordination As for Act. 14.23 we have already shewed that they that did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Apostles and not the Churches And that if they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by suffrages it was per suffragia propria non aliena by their own suffrage not the Peoples though we think as we have formerly said that the word is to be taken for a bare decerning and appointing without the ceremony of lifting up of hands as it is taken Act. 10.41 There is nothing at all in this Text that proves That the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call is in the peoples Election but it rather proves the quite contrary That the Apostolicall Ordination was that which did constitute Elders in every Church Arg. 3. All those Texts that we shall hereafter bring for the asserting of the divine right of Ordination do prove that the essence of the Ministeriall Call doth consist in Ordination and not in Election There are more and more clear Texts for Ordination then for Election and Texts that make it not to be an adjunct but an essentiall constituent of the Ministeriall Call as we shall hereafter God willing prove at large Arg. 4. We argue from the nature of popular Election Election by the people properly is nothing else but their designation of a person that is to be made their Minister or that is already a Minister to his particular charge It is not simply a making of a Minister but the making of him a Minister of such a place As it is one thing saith Mr Rutherford to make a gold Ring another thing to appropriate it to such or such a finger Election is nothing else but the appropriation of a Minister for the exercise of his Ministry in such a place It doth not give him the Office but the opportunity of exercising his officiall authority over those that choose him This appears in the Election of Deacons all that the people did by Election was only to design the persons and to set them before the Apostles but it was the Apostles praying and laying on of their hands that made them Deacons This likewise appears from Deut. 1.13 which place though it speaks of the choice of civil Officers yet it doth very clearly describe unto us the nature of Election Take ye wise men and understanding and known among your tribes and I will make them Rulers over you The peoples taking of men did not give them the essentials of their office They nominated the persons but it was Moses that made them Rulers Our brethren of New-England in their Platform of Church-discipline tell us That all Office-power is proper to the Eldership and that the brotherhood have only a power of priviledge Now then we demand If the people have no Office-power belonging to them how can they by Election make an Officer Indeed they may and do design persons unto office by choosing of them but that they that have not the power of Office neither formally nor virtually committed unto them and that cannot act or exercise an Office-power that they by a bare Election should communicate Office-power and give the essentials of a Ministeriall Call is to us a riddle we understand not Nihil dat quod non habet nec formaliter nec eminenter The lesser is blessed of the greater not the greater of the lesser Adde further If Election be as our Brethren say the constituting of a Minister and the giving him the essentials of his Office why then did the Apostles take so much pains to return to Lystra Iconium and Antioch to ordain them Elders in every Church and why did Paul leave Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Why did they not spare their journey and send to the people to make their own Ministers by Election Can we imagine that they took such pains only to adde an adjunct to the Ministeriall Call an adjunct which doth not give essence but follows the essence supposing the Subject compleat in its essence before For our parts we are far from so thinking but rather conceive it much more sutable to Scripture to say That Titâ—â— was left to make Ministers in Crete and that the Apostles went about from Church to Church to give the Essence of the Ministeriall Call and that all that the people did was to nominate the person to be ordained or rather to approve and accept of the Ministers made them by the Apostles Arg. 5. If Election gives the essentials to a Minister then may a Minister elected administer the Sacraments without Ordination For as Mr Hooker well saith in another case He that hath compleat power of an Office and stands an Officer without exception he cannot justly be hindred from doing all acts of that Office For to be an Officer compleat without an Office or being compleat in his Office yet according to rule to be hindred from doing any thing belonging to his Office implies a contradiction for it 's all one to say a man is bound to a rule and yet by a rule he should not do it But a person Elected cannot administer the Sacraments without Ordination he cannot do it lawfully it being cross to Scripture-Presidents nor can he do it in the opinion of those Reverend men with whom we now dispute Mr Hooker cals it an Anabaptisticall phrensie to say That an un-ordained person may baptize And
the Universal Church yet we are far from thinking that he is actually an Universal Minister The Apostles had the actual care of the Church Universal committed unto them and wheresoever they came had actual power to perform all Ministerial Offices without the consent or call of particular Churches And besides they were not fixed to any particular charge but were Ministers alike of all the Churches of Christ. But it is far otherwise with ordinary Ministers They are fixed to their particular Congregations where they are bound by divine right to reside and to be diligent in preaching to them in season and out of season All that we say concerning their being Ministers of the Church universall is That they have power by their Ordination in actu primo as M. Hudson saith to administer the Ordinances of Christ in all the Churches of the Saints yet not in actu secundo without a speciall Call which is farre differing from the Apostolicall power Object If a Minister may act as a Minister out of his own Congregation why do you your selves ordain none but such as have a title to some particular charge Answ. It is true We say in our Government That it is agreeable to the Word of God and very convenient That they that are to be ordained be designed to some particular Church or Ministerial employment not hereby limiting their Office but the ordinary exercise of their Office We distinguish between a Minister of Christ and a Minister of Christ in such a place between the Office it self and the ordinary â—xercise of it to such or such a people And yet notwithstanding we ordain none without a Title thereby to prevent 1. A vagrant and ambulatory Ministry For we conceive it far more edifying for the people of God to live under a fixt Ministry 2. A lazy and idle Ministry For when men shall have an office and no place actually to exercise it this might in a little space fill the Church with unpreaching Ministers 3. A begging and so a contemptible Ministry For when Ministers want places they are oftentimes wholly destitute of means and thereby come to great poverty even to the very contempt of the office it self So much for the sixth Argument Arg. 7. If the whole essence of the Ministeriall Call consisteth in Election without Ordination then it will necessarily follow that when a Minister leaves or is put from that particular charge to which he is called that then he ceaseth to be a Minister and becomes a private person and that when he is elected to another place he needs a new Ordination and so toties quoties as often as he is elected so often he is to be ordained which to us seems a very great absurdity That this consequence doth necessarily follow is confessed by the Reverend Ministers of New-England in their Platform of Church-Discipline where they say He that is clearly loosed from his Office-relation unto that Church whereof he was a Minister cannot be looked upon as an Officer nor perform any act of Office in any other Church unlesse he be again orderly called unto Office which when it shall be we know nothing to hinder but Imposicion of hands also in his Ordination ought to be used towards him again For so Paul the Apostle received Imposition of hands twice at least from Ananias Act. 9.17 and Act. 13.3 4. But this seems to us to be a very great absurdity and contrary to sound doctrine which we prove 1. Because every Minister hath a double relation one to the Church-Catholique indefinitely another to that particular Congregation over which he is set And when he removes from his particular Congregation he ceaseth indeed to be a Minister of that place but not from being a Minister of the Gospel And when called to another he needs no new Ordination no more as M. Hudson well saith then a Physician or Lawyer need a new License or Call to the Barre though they remove to other places and have other Patients and Clients For Ordination is to the essence of the Ministeriall Office and not only in reference to a particular place or charge The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Advice to the Parliament concerning Church-government say That there is one generall Church visible held forth in the New Testament and that the Ministry was given by Iesus Christ to the génerall Church-visible for the gathering and perfecting of it in this life until his second coming which they prove from 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.4 5. compared with ver 10 11 12 13 15 16. of the same Chapter Now if Ministers be seated by Christ in the Church-Catholique as well as in their particular Churches then it followeth That they have a relation as Ministers to the Church-Catholique and though their relation to their particular Church ceaseth yet their Ministeriall relation ceaseth not because they were Officers of the Church-Catholique and there doth still remain in them a power in actu primo to dispense all the Ordinances of Christ though their Call ad actum secundum sive exercitum pro hic nunc as M. Hudson phraseth it ceaseth Even as every private Christian hath also a double relation one to the Church generall another to the particular place whereof he is a member And when he removes from his Congregation he doth not cease to be a member of the visible Church for then his Baptism should cease for every baptized person is a member of the Church but only of that particular Church And when he joyns with any other Congregation he needs not to be baptized again but is received by vertue of his former Baptism So it is with a Minister of the Gospel When he leaves his particular Congregation he continueth still to be a Minister though not their Minister and needs no more to be ordained anew then a private Christian to be baptized anew because neither Ordination nor Baptism do stand in relation to the particular Congregation but to the Church-Catholique Secondly If a Minister when he removes or is removed from his particular Congregation ceaseth to be a Minister then it will follow 1. That if the Church that called him prove hereticall and wickedly separate from him that then the sin of the people should nullifie the Office of the Minister Or. 2. If the Church refuse to give him competent maintenance and starve him out from them or if the major part unjustly combine together to vote him out for such power our brethren give to particular Churches that then the covetousnesse and injustice of the people should make void the Function of their Minister Nay 3. By this doctrine there will be a door opened for the people of a City or Nation to un-minister all their Ministers which things are very great absurdities and contrary to sound doctrine Thirdly Because there is no Scripture to warrant the iteration of Ordination in case of removall The Apostles went about Ordaining Elders in every Church And Titus was
though they deny the necessity of Ordination yet they acknowledge that for order and decency it is fit to retain it in the Church For our parts we think the Scripture to be so clear for the proof of this Assertion that we wonder there should be any found to stand up in opposition against it For First In the Old Testament not onely the high-Priest but all the other Priests and Levites were by divine appointment inaugurated to their Ministerial Offices and when any men unconsecrated intruded themselves into the Priestly or Levitical Office they were remarkably punished by God himself Witnesse Corah and his company of whom we have formerly made mention Now surely this was written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come to teach us that it is the will of Christ that no man should enter into the Ministerial Office unordained or unconsecrate To hint this the Prophet Isaiah tels us That in the times of the New Testament the Lord would take from among Christians some to be Priests and some to be Levites where the New Testament Ministers are cloathed with Old Testament titles and are called Priests and Levites not in reference to any real unbloudy and propitiatory Sacrifice by them to be offered as the Papists falsly imagine but as we conceive to signifie unto us 1. That there should be an Office of the Ministry distinct from all other Offices undeâ— the New Testament as well as under the Old and therefore it is said that God would take of them for Priests not take all them for Priests And 2. That these Ministers were to be consecrated to their respective offices as the Priests and Levites were Secondly In the New Testament we read 1. That in the very choice of Deacons which was but an inferiour Office and serving only for the distribution of the temporal estates of people the Apostle requires that they should not onely be elected by the people but also ordained to this office Much more ought this to be done in the choise of persons who are called to the work of preaching and dispensing Sacramental mysteries a service of all others of greatest weight and worth 2. That even the very Apostle Paul though chosen immediately by Christ unto the great Office of preaching unto the Gentiles and that in a miraculous way yet notwithstanding it was the pleasure of the holy Ghost that he must be separated and set apart by men for this great work And if this was thought necessary for an extraordinary Officer If Paul that was separated from his mothers womb to preach Christ to the Heathen and was separated by an immediate voice from Heaven to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles must also have an outward solemn separation by the Prophets at Antioch unto this work how much more is this necessary in ordinary Officers 3. That Paul and Barnabas who were themselves separated to the work of the Ministry Act. 13.1 went about Act. 14.23 ordaining Elders in every Church The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as we have shewed not a choosing by the suffrages of the people but a special designing and appointing of Ministers by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas 4. That Titus was left at Crete to ordain Elders in every Church which surely had been very vain and superfluous if Ordination be not an Institution of Christ and necessary in his Church 5. That Timothy was ordained not only by the laying on of Pauls hands but also by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery By laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche is meant the whole work of Ordination and hence we see that it is the will of the holy Ghost that not only Paul an Apostle as formerly but Timothy an Evangelist must be set apart unto his Office by Ordination 6. That Timothy is commanded to lay hands suddenly on no man neither to be partakers of other mens sin but to keep himself pure This negative command implies an affirmative that it was his Office to lay on hands that is to ordain Elders but his care must be not to do it rashly and unadvisedly upon men insufficient lest he should thereby be made partakers of other mens sins This Text doth necessarily imply a precept for Ordination 7. That Timothy is commanded to commit those things which he had heard from Paul among many witnesses to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Where we have 1. A Separation of some men to be teachers in Christs Church 2. The Qualification of these teachers they must be faithfull men and such as are able to teach others 3. We have an injunction laid upon Timothy that he should commit what he had heard of Paul unto these faithfull men Now this committing was not only to be by way of instruction but also by way of Ordination Pauls charge committed to Timothy was not so much to make men fit to teach others as by Ordination to set men apart for the teaching of others that there might be a perpetual Succession of teachers For the further making out of this truth let the Reader consider what is said by Mr Gillespy in his Miscellany Questions and what we have before said pag. 84. 8. That laying on of hands is reckoned not only as an institution of Christ but as one of the principles of the Doctrines of Christ but of this Text we shall speak more in the third Assertion By all these places it is evident That it is the will of Christ that those that enter into the Ministerial Calling should be consecrated set apart and ordained thereunto Most of the Objections brought against this Assertion have been answered at large in the handling of the third Proposition If any shall further object and say Obj. 1. That these are but examples and examples do not amount up to a Rule Answ. 1. That Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which have a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a Rule Of this nature is Ordination 2. If we should not follow the examples of the Apostles in those things in which they acted as ordinary Elders we should be left at uncertainties and every man might do what seemeth good in his own eyes which would tend to confusion and the dissolution of the Church 3. The Apostles taught the Churches to do nothing but what they had a commandment from Christ to teach them Matth. 28.20 1 Cor. 11.28 and in all their Disciplinary Institutions which were not meerly occasional and had only a temporary reason of their Institution of which kinde Ordination we are sure is not are to be imitated as though they were the immediate Institutionâ— of Christ. 4. For Ordination of Ministers we have not only Apostolical example but Apostolical preâ—â—pt as we have already proved out of 1 Tim. 5.22 Object 2. If it be further objected That the Ordination mentioned
keeping the Sabbath are sometimes put for the whole worship of God Ier. 10.25 Isa. 56.4 And as it is a good Argument keeping of the Sabbath and prayer are put for the whole worship of God and therefore they are parts of it if not chief parts So it is a good Argument Imposition of hands is put for the whole work of Ordination and therefore it is a part of it if not a chief part And we desire our people further to consider that there is but one Text for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lifting up of hands in the election of a Minister and this also but a shadow without a substance as we have proved and yet how zealous are many amongst us for popular Election And why should not they be much more zealous for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Imposition of hands which hath so many substantial Texts for the justification of it and which is so often put for the whole work of Ordination Fourthly Because it is placed by the Apostle Heb. 6.1 2. amongst the principles of the doctrine of Christ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of the doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands and of resurrection of the dead and of eternall judgement The great Question is What is here meant by laying on of hands The Papists understand it of the Sacrament of Confirmation But it never hath nor ever will be sufficiently proved that either there is such a Sacrament appointed by Christ or that it was a custome in the Apostles daies to lay on hands or as was formerly phrased to Bishop baptized Christians who were grown up to years of discretion others by laying on of hands understand the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which in these daies were given by laying on of hands But this cannot be the meaning 1. Because it cannot be proved that the gift of the holy Ghost was given with every laying on of hands in those times For the laying on of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 was not for giving the holy Ghost but for Ordination 2. Because the giving of the holy Ghost by laying on of hands was proper to the Primitive age and doth not concern after ages But the Catechetical heads enumerated by the Apostle concern all ages 3. Because it would be hard to think that the knowledge or profession of the doctrine concerning the giving of the holy Ghost by such laying on of hands was such a principle as that none ignorant thereof though instructed in all the other Articles of Christian faith could be received as a Church-member and as one grounded in Catechisticall doctrine And therefore by laying on of hands as by a Synecdoche we suppose is meant the whole Ministry Thus D. Ames in his Confutation of Bellarmine By laying on of hands saith he is here meant Totum Ministerium the whole Ministry Bullinger on the place By laying on of hands understandeth also the Ministry and their Vocation Mission and Authority given them Mr. Hooker in his Survey of Church-Discipline par 1. pag. 1. By laying on of hands as by a Metonymy of the adjunct understandeth Ordination and Ordination as one particular is put saith he for the whole of Church-Discipline And from this very Text he undertakes to prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamentall point of Religion But we may more safely and more rationally assert the same of the Church-Ministry For whosoever denieth a Ministry overthroweth all Gospel-Ordinances and Gospel-Churches And here we will make bold to put our people in minde of a passage in M. Cartwrights Confutation of the Rhemists who was a man sufficiently opposite to the Bishops and their Ceremonies yet he is pleased to use these words upon this Text. By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament much lesse Confirmation after Baptism but by a Trope and borrowed Speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever beleeveth that there ought not to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity whereas if Confirmation of Children were a Sacrament as it is not yet a man holding the rest and denying the use of it might notwithstanding be saved So Cartwright Now then If Imposition of hands be taken in Scripture not only for the whole work of Ordination but also for the whole Ministry We may we hope safely and convincingly conclude That it is the will of Jesus Christ that they that enter into the Ministry should have hands laid upon them And that they that oppose Imposition of hands may as well oppose the whole Gospel-Ministry and therein overthrow Christianity it self We will not trouble the Reader with answering all the Objections that are brought against this Thesis but only such as seem to carry most weight in them Object 1. We do not reade that the Apostles were made Ministers with Imposition of hands Answ. 1. No more do we reade that they were made Ministers by the Election of the people This objection fights as much against Election as against Imposition of hands 2. A negative argument from Scripture doth not hold in matters of this nature It doth not follow because it is not recorded therefore it was not done Many things were done by Christ which are not written It is said That Christ ordained twelve but after what manner is not set down 3. The Apostles were extraordinary Officers and had an extraordinary Call Our Thesis is of ordinary Officers They that oppose this Assertion must prove that ordinary Officers were made without Imposition of hands or else they prove nothing to the purpose Object 2. When the Apostle left Titus to ordain Elders in Crete he saies not a word of Imposition of hands Answ. 1. Nor a word of Election by the people 2. The Apostle left him to ordain Elders as he had appointed him Now it is irrationall to think that he would appoint Titus to do otherwise then according to what he himself practised He ordained Deacons Elders and Timothy by laying on of hands And therefore it is without dispute to us That he appointed Titus to do so also 3. If we compare Tit. 1.5 with Act. 6.3 5. it will appear That by appointing or ordaining Elders in Crete is meant ordaining by Imposition of hands For there is the same word in both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. was by laying on of hands and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tit. 1.5 Object 3. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles only for the present occasion as other things were observed as bloud was forbidden as Paul used circumcision and shaving viz. for the Jews sake who had their publique Officers thus set apart Answ. 1. No circumstance of any one Text where Imposition of hands is mentioned to be used
to the mind of God a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one The Scripture owns no Bishop over Presbyters but onely a Presbyter-Bishop That the Lawes of the Realme acknowledge nothing by divine right in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Sir Edward Cook makes it one part of the Kings jurisdiction to grant to Bishops that Ecclesiastical power they now exercise over us speaking of his times and also to take it from them at pleasure c. In Henry the 8 thâ— dayes there was a Book Printed for all his subjects to receive seen and allowed by both Houses of Parliament wherein is said Of these two Orders onely that is to say Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh expresse mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands By which it is evident That the Lawes of the Realme do not acknowledge the divine right of Prelacy That most of our Bishops in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes did freely confess That Episcopacy as it differed from Presbytery was onely of humane right and not from divine institution This Bishop Iewel confesseth in his answer to Harding and brings divers of the Ancient Fathers of the same judgement whose sayings we shall hereafter mention The same is affirmed by Archbishop Whitgift against Carewright and by Bishop Downam in the Preface to his defence of his Sermon Preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells That the best learned even amongst the Papists themselves do confesse That a Bishop is not a superiour order of Ministry above a Presbyter but onely a superiour dignity That Sacerdotium that is as they call it The Priesthood is the highest order in the Church That a Bishop is onely 〈◊〉 Presbyter The first Presbyter or as Bellarmine calls him major 〈◊〉 Episcopacy is not another Order distinct from the Priesthood saith Caeprâ—â—lus No Prelate hath more concerning Sacramental power or of Order then simple Priests So Armachanus As concerning Sacerdotal order and things that pertain to Order they are equal Thus Bellarmine himself Although a Bishop and Presbyter are distinguished yet as concerning Sacrifice they exercise the same Ministry and therefore they make one Order and not two Cusanus goeth further All Bishops and haply also Presbyters are of equal power in respect of jurisdiction although not of execution which executive power is shut up and restrained by certain positive Lawes The Master of the Sentences saith That the Canons acknowledge onely two sorts of holy orders Diaconatum sc. Presbyteratum quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli â—abamus That is The Deacon and the Presbyter Because the Primitive Church had no other and the Apostolique precept speaks of no other Estins tells us That Aquinas Waldensis Bonaventure and most of the other Schoolmen are of this opinion And Doctor Field in his 5th Book of the Church hath this remarkeable passage Touching the preeminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the School Divines For the best Learned amongst them are of opinion that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order but only in the exercise of it and in the power of jurisdiction seeing Presbyters may Preach and Minister the greatest of all Sacraments by vertue of their Consecration and order as well as Bishops Touching the power of consecration or order saith Durandus it is much doubted of amongst Divines whether any be greater then an ordinary Presbyter For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of consecration or order iâ— the power of a Priest or Elder so that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may Minister all Sacraments confirm the Baptized give all orders all blessings and consecrations but that for the avoiding of the peril of Schisme it was Ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a Bishop whom the rest should obey and to whom it was reserved to give orders and to do some other things which none but Bishops do And afterwards he saith That Hierome is clearly of this opinion and much more to this purpose Now hence it followeth necessarily That the power of Ordination of Ministers exercised for these many hundred years by Bishops did belong to them as Presbyters and not as Bishops and that the act and exercise of it was restrained to them potius ad honorem Sacerdotii in remedium schismatis quam ad Legis â—â—cessitatem rather for the honour of the Priesthood and as was then their opinion for the remedy of Schisme then for any necessity of Law For the Scripture warrants no such practise as we shall shew hereafter Now this floweth from the former conclusion For if Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministers with Presbytery and the Ecclesiastical power equal in both and a Bishop be nothing else in the opinion of Antiquity but a chief Presbyter or the President of the Presbytery and of the same rank with them then all the acts he doth he must do by vertue of his Presbyterial consecration This is demonstrable even our adversaries being Judges from this Argument Because a Bishop made per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor Ordain a Presbyter himself being none nor do any act peculiarly appertaining to Presbyters Ordination therefore saith Mr. Ball is reserved to the Bishop not in respect of superiority in degree of Ministry above his brethren for if he be no Presbyter he cannot make Presbyters but for order sake and to prevent Schisme and division being for substance of the same Order and consecration with them Dr. Field manageth the same argument these or words A Presbyter saith he ordained per saltum that never was consecrated or ordained a Deacon may notwithstanding do all those Actâ— that pertaine to the Deacons Order because the higher Order doth alwayes imply in it the lower and inferiour in an eminent and excellent sort But â— Bishop Ordained per saltum that never had the Ordination of a Presbyter can neither Consecrate and Administer the Sacrament of the Lords body nor Ordaine a Presbyter himself being nonâ— nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters Whereby it is most Evident saith Dr. Field That that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter is not a distinct Power of Order but an Eminency and Dignitie onely specially yeelded to one above all the rest of the same Rank for Order sake and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church What peace and Order was preserved hereby in the Church we shall shew afterwards For the present it is most clear even from the testimony of Episcopal men themselves That a Bishop is of the same Order and Rank with a Presbyter and that his acts of Ordination were exercised by him as a Presbyter
not as a Bishop These things premised we now come to Answer to the Objection and to every branch of it The Ministers we plead for were made by Bishops distinct from Presbyters who had no power nor authority to Ordain them The Bishop though distinct from his Presbyters yet he did not Ordain them alone but together with the laying on of the hands of other Presbyters he being as the first and chief Presbyter or is Prâ—ses Presbyâ—â—rii The President of the Presbytery The Bishop that ordained them was also himself a Presbyter and had power as a Presbyter to Ordain and therefore by vertue of his Presbyterial capacity his Ordination must needs be valid and lawful Even as when a Bishop conseâ—rateth the Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper he doth it not as a Bishop though he be one but as a Presbyter so also when the Ordaineth a Minister which is an act of a farâ— inferiour nature he doth it by vertue of a power belonging to him as a Presbyter not as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse as a Lord-Bishop This is that which is said in the Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination Whereas the word Presbyter that is to say Elder and the word Bishop do in the holy Scripture intend and signifie one and the same function although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt custome appropriated to one and that unto him aâ—cribed and by him assumed as in other things so in that matter of Ordination that was not meet which Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him a Presbyter joyned with other Presbyters we hold for substance to be valid and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it And that Presbyters so Ordained being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized may ordain other Presbyters In the office and calling of Bishops two things arâ— to be considered saith Mr. Ball. 1. The substance of their office and Ministry whereunto they are separated to wit to Preach the Gospel dispense the Sacraments and Administer the Discipline of Jesus Christ. And this is of God 2. The superiority they take or challenge over their Brethren whether in Ordination or Jurisdiction and this is of man But they make not a difference or nullity in the substance of their Ministry All Ministers of the Gospel are stewards of Jesus Chrisâ— seâ— apart to do his work wherein if any one shall challenge more thâ—â— of right appertaineth to him or do ought out of pride partiality sinister affection tyranny or sedition or receive such authority to himself alone as belongeth not to his place and office or is common to many in that he is blame worthy but thereupon his Ministry or Ministerial acts done by him are not made void or of none effect But the Bishop that Ordained these Ministers you plead for Ordained them as a Bishop by vertue of his Episcopal consecration and not as a Presbyter by vertue of his Presbyterial Order This is not true of all Bishops For as Mr. Firmin tells us he heard a Reverend Minister of a Congregational Church in Essex say That when the Bishop Ordained him he told him I do Ordain you as I am a Presbyter 2. Suppose he did this waâ— his personal errour but did not â—word his power of Ordination as a Presbyter Suppose a man made a Constable by lawful authority should afterwards unwarrantably assume the power of a Justice of the Peace and should do things which belong to his place as a Constable under the Title of a Justice of Peace should not this act of his be valid though he pretends to do it upon a wrong title Mr. Burroughs in his Heart-divisions hath this observable passage If a man doth a thing that he may do by vertue of 2 relations or either of them it may be he thinks he stands in one of these relations which indeed he doth not yet he doth the action by vertue of it in his own thoughts in this he sins but there is another relation wherein he stands that is enough to warrant the action that he doth to be lawful Now though he doth not intend the acting by this relation the action may be sin to him but not at all sin to those that joyn with him in it If he will go upon a false ground when he may go upon a true let him look to it I will joyn with him in that action as warranted for him to do by vertue of his second relation which it may be he will not own himself He gives this instance Giving alms is a work that a man may do either by vertue of Church-office as a Deacon or as a Christian whom God hath blessed in his estate or betrusted with the distribution of what others betrust him with Now suppose a man is in the place of a Deacon he thinks himself to be in that office by a right call into it and he gives out the alms of his Church by vertue of his call but I am perswaded his call to that office is not right he is not a true Deacon yet if I be in want I knowing that bothhe and those who have given him monies to dispose may and ought to distribute to those that are in need by vertue of another relation as men as Christians enabled by God surely then I may receive alms from him lawfully though his principle by which he gives them me is sin to him I may communicate with him in this thing though he acts by vertue of that offece that he had no true call unto c. Much more may the like be said of receiving Ordination from a Bishop who hath power to confer it as a Presbyter though he gave it by vertue of his Episcopal consecration But the Ministers whose Ordinations you defend were made by Bishops who held themselves to be a superior order of Ministry above Presbyters by divine Institution Whether they did so or no we know not but sure we are that the Bishops of King Edwaâ—d and Queen Elizabeths dayes were not of this opinion as we have shewed That the lawes of the Realm do not countenance it that the learnedest of the Papists are against it and if any of the Bishops of late years were of this opinion it was their personall error and not at all essentiall to the Episcopall Office The Ministers we speak against were made not onely by Bishops but Lord Bishops But not as Lord-Bishops The Lordly dignities of Bishops were meere civil additaments annexed to their Bishopricks by Kingly favour not essential ingredients into their Office And therefore when they were taken from them they continued not onely Presbyters but Bishops The Bishops from whom these Ministers received their Ordination were wicked and ungodly and therefore their Ordination must needs be wicked and ungoldly This is not true of all of them Some of them were godly and some of them have shed their bloods for the Gospel
sake And he that shall call such Bishops wicked and ungodly is notoriously guilty of the breach of the 9. commandement 2. Supposing though not granting that all of them were wicked and ungodly yet notwithstanding though we are far from justifying their ungodlinesse We answer That some evil men may and alwaies have de facto been officers and Ministers in the Church In the Church of the Jewes Hophni and Phinehas in the dayes of Christ Scribes and Pharises 2. That the wickednesse of such men did not null or evacuate their ministerial acts The Scribes Pharisees that sat in Moses his chair were to be heard though they said and did not Christs commission did as well authorize Iudas as any other to Preach and baptize c. And surely if the Principall acts belongingto the Ministerial function as Preaching Baptizing adminstring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be not nulled or made void by the personal wickedness of Ministers then consequently not their ordination So that if Iudas had been an Apostle when Christ sent his Apostles to ordain Elders his Ordination should have been as valid as his Preaching and Baptizing formerly had been The Leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the corn which that hand soweth But these Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian and therefore the Ministers ordained by them must needs be Antichristian Ministers and not the Ministers of Christ. For satisfaction to this objection we shall first propose what the ancient learned godly Non-conformists have left in print about it and then we will lay down our own answer The old Non-conformists by joynt consent have written That they did not see how our Bishops could be called Antichrists or Antichristian 1. Because the word mâ—rks out Antichrist by his false Doctrine nor do we find in holy Scripture any such accounted Antichrist or Antichristian which holding the truth of Doctrine swerveth either in judgement or practise from Christs rule for Discipline Now it is evident that our Bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines and truths and some of them have soundly maintained them against Hereticks converted many to the truth and have suffered persecution for the Gospel 2. Their Hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of our Bishops were rather to be esteemed the staires and way to Antichristianity then Antichristianity â—t self for they were in the Church before the Popâ— who is the Antichrist and the chiefe Head link of all Antichristianity was revealed 3. The Antichristian Bishops hold their preeminence as from Gods law which is unchangeable whereas our Bishops since his Majesties reign to this day for the most part hold superiority by no other right then the positive law which is variable yea it appeares by the institution of the Court of Delegates and the continuance thereof to this day that they do and ought by law to hold their Jurisdiction not as from God but is from the Prince Thus they And as to the Ministers Ordeyned by Bishops they say Bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiencie of Ministers that many of them have been such Ministers themselves as to whose labours thâ— Lord hath set to his Seal We are perswaded that though it were not necessary yet it cannot be unlawful for him that entreth into the ministery to be approved and authorized even by them Andif our Ordination be in this behalf faultie how will our Brethren justifie the calling of their own Ministers that have received Ordination ever from the people who neither by commandement nor example can be found to have any such authority nor are in any degree so capable of it as the Bishops Thus much is said by the old Non-conformist For our own particulars we shall return an answer to this objection by distinguishing of the word Bishop and the word Antichristian There are three sorts of Bishop the Scripture-Bishop thâ— Bishop of the first Primitive times and the Bishop of latter times Now we are far from thinking that the scripture Bishop that is to say the Presbyter or the Bishop of the first Primitive times who was nothing else but a chief Bresbyter or the Moderator of the Presbytery and had a Priority not of power but of order onely like a Speaker in the Parliament were Antichristian The question onely is about the Bishop of latter times The word Antichristian may be taken propeâ—ly or improperly An Antichristian Minister propeâ—ly is one that own 's the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church and that stands a Minister with subjection and subordination to the Church of Rome and that professedly maintains the Popish religion An Antichristian Minister improperly is one that in his calling and office hath divers things that are Antichristian In the first sense we believe none will say our Bishops were Antichristians But yet we cannot deny but that those Bishops who did take upon them by divine right the care of whole Diocesses and did assume the whole power of jurisdiction over the people and Ministers therein and did challenge a Majority and tantum non a sole power in Ordination did symbolize herein too much with Antichrist and had in this sence much of Antichristianisme in them yet notwithstanding this is not sufficient to denominate them Antichristian no more then the having of some hypocrisy and covetousnesse doth denominate a godly man an hypocrite or a covetous person The denomination is alwaies á meliore Our Bishops for the most part were very Orthodox in doctrine and pure in the substantialls of worship and have written many learned treatises against Popery and Antichristianisme Indeed in matters of Discipline and ceremonies they were exceeding faulty and some of â—hem of late yeares began to Apoâ—â—atize both in doctrine and worship for which God hath grieviously punished them yet all this is not sufficient to make them Antichristian properly so called much lesse to null all their acts of Ordination no more then their acts of preaching baptizing and administring theLords supper specially if we consider that they had power enabling them to perform all these acts as they were Presbyters though they never had been Bishops Bâ—t let us suppose though not grant the Bishops were Antichristian and their office Antichristian yet we answer That it will not follow that the Ministers made by them are Antichristian unlesse it can also be made out which never can be done that they were Antichristian in the very act of Ordination For as a maimed man may beget a perfect child because he begets him not as maimed but as a man So an Antichristian Bishop may ordain a true Minister because he ordaines him not aâ— Antichristian but as a Presbyter that by divine warrant hath authority so to do As Austin against the Donatists proves the validity of Baptisme by Hereticks if they Baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost though in other
these very gro unds and Principles Now then if the denying of our Ministry during the raign of Episcopacy to be a lawfulâ— Ministry be the parental cause of such horrid and desperate consequences we doubt not but it will be abhorred and abominated by all sober and godly Christians And that our people that read these lines will be rooted and established in this great Truth That the call to the Office of the Ministry which some of our Ministers did receive during the prevalency of Episcopacy was lawful and valid for the substance of it though mingled with many circumstantial defects CHAP. III. Wherein the great Objection against our Ministry as being derived from Rome is answered But the great objection of which we even now spake against this proposition is IF we justifie the lawfulnesse of Episcopal Ordination then it will also follow that we must justifie the Ordination that is in the Church of Rome For if Ordination by our Bishops be lawful then these Bishops themselves must be be lawful Ministers and then their Ordination must also be lawful and so by consequence it will follow That those in the Church of Rome from whom the Protestant Ministers in the beginning of the Reformation had their Ordination were true Ministers of Christ. For if they were not then were not our Ministers made by them the Ministers of Christ. And if they were then may a Minister of Antichrist be a Minister of Christ and Ordination received from the Pope of Rome be a Scripture Ordination Before we answer to this great Objection we shall premise this one distinction It is one thing to receive a Ministry from the Apostate Church of Rome as the author of it another thing to receive a Ministry from Jesus Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome Our Antiministerial adversaries if they would argue aright their objection must be thus framed The Ministry which hath the Pope of Rome or which is all one That hath Antichrist for the author of it is Popish and Antichristian But such is the Ministry of the Church of England Ergo. We deny the Minor For we say That our ministry is derived to us from Jesus Christ. We are his Ministers and his Ambassadors It is he that gave Pastors and Teachers to his Church as well as Apostles and Evangelists We say That Ordination of Ministers by Ministers is no Romish institution but instituted by the Lord Jesus himself long before Antichrist was That our Ministry is descended to us from Christ through the Apostate Church of Rome but not from the Apostate Church of Rome And that this great objection which some say is unanswerable must of necessity be summed up into this argument Those Ministers which stand by an institution of Christ descending to them from the Apostles through the antichristian Church of Rome are ministers of Antichrist and not of Christ. But such are our Ministers Ergo. But here we deny the Major as utterly false we say That the Ministry which is an institution ofChrist passing to us through Rome is not made null and void no more then the Scriptures Sacraments or any other Gospel-Ordinance which we now enjoy and which do also descend to us from the Apostles through the Romish Church Now that this great Truth so necessary to be known in these dayes may be fully made out to our respective Congregations we shall crave leave a litle to enlarge our selves in the proof of it and shall for this end offer these ensuing considerations to be seriously weighed by all that fear God amongst us That the Lord Jesus hath given the Ministery to the Church to continue till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ which will never be till the day of judgement And he hath promised to be with the Apostles teaching and baptizing alway even unto the end of the World which must needs be understood of them and their successors He hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church which Mr. Hooker Mr. Cotton and others expound of the universall visible Church existing in its particulars The Apostle Paul also saith That the Sacrament of the Lords supper is to be observed and to continue till the comming of Christ. And that glory is to be given to God by Christ Jesus in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout all generations and ages It is also prophesied concerning the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ both invisible and visible that it shall abide to the end of the world Luc. 1.33 Isaiah 9.6.7 By all these teâ—ts it is evident That there was iâ— and shall be a true Church and a true Ministery preserved by Jesus Christ even unto the end of the World How can glory be given to God in the Church throughout all ages if there should be an age in which the Church should be utterly lost How can the Sacrament be continued in the Church till Christ come if there were so many hundred years in which there was no true Ministery How can it be said That Christ is with his Ministers alway even unto the end of the World and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and that there is no end of Christs Government if during all the raign of Antichrist there was no true Church-state in the world no true Ordinance as some say no true Ministery And therefore though we should not be able to tell how the Church and Ministry was preserved in the midst of that great and general Apostasie that hath been in the Christian World yet notwithstanding we ought to believe that it is so because Christ hath said it shall be so and heaven and earth shall â—asse away but not one title of Gods word shall passe away Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way spends the most part of a Chapter to prove That the essentials of a Church-state together with the Officers Ordinances and administrations thereunto appertaining hath and shall abide for ever in the World This he proveth both by Prophesies promises and precepts of Scripture and also by divers reasons The same task is also undertaken by Mr. Philips of Watertown in New-England but for brevity we forebear transcribing them We read Revel 12. of a great wonder in heaven a woman cloathed with the Sun c. This woman represents the Christian Church she is persecuted by the heathen Emperours and overthrows them by the blood of the Lambe and by the word of her testimonie and by not loving her life unto the death Afterward she is persecuted by Antichrist and then she flies into the wildernesse where she hath a place prepared her of God that they should feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes Vers. 6. and she iâ— said to be
the people began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Câ—phas The Churches were governed by the common Councel of the Presters But after that each man begun to account those whom he had baptized his own and not Christs it was decreed through the whole world that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of al the Church should belong that the seeds of schisme might be taken away Thinkes any that this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Scripture that a Bishop and an Elder is the same let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians saying Paul and Timothy the servants of Iesus Christ to them that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acâ—ns Philippi is one City of Macidonia and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops as they are now called But because at that time they called the same men Bishops whom they called Presbyters Therefore he speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters If thiâ— yet seems doubtful to any unlesse it be proved by another testimony let him consider That in the Acts of the Apostles it is written That when Paul came to Miletuâ— he sent to Ephâ—sus and called the Elders of that Church and amongst other things saith unto them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood And here let yet be diligently observed That calling the Presbyters of one City of Ephesus he afterwards called the same persons Bishops If any will receive that Epistle which under the name of Paul is written to the Hebrewes There are care of the Church is divided amongst many For thus he writeth to the people Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you And Peter if called from the firmnesse of his faith saith in his Epistle The Elders which are among you I exhort also who am an Elder and a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the Glory that shall be revealed Feed the flock of God which is among you c. not by constraint but willingly These things I have written to shew that amongst the ancients Bishops and Presbyters were one the same and that by little little that all the seeds of dissention might be pluckt up all the care of the Church was delegated to one And therefore as the Elders may know that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the custom of theChurch so let the Bishops know That it is more from custom then from any true dispensation from the Lord that they are above the Presbyters and that they ought to rule the Church in common imitating Moses who though he had it in his own power to govern the people of Israel yet notwithstanding chose 70. with whom he would judge the People We have thought fit to transcribe this quotation at large because it gives the same interpretation of Scriptures which we do and makes it the result of all his discourse That Bishops over Presbyters are from the Custom of the Church onely and not from any divine original We might here likewise set down the Epistle that St. Hierome writes to Evagrius wherein he brings not only the Scripture forementioned but most of the other places which we have brought and gives the same explication of them but because it is very long we think fit to omit it and desire the diligent Reader for his own further satisfaction to peruse it The next that we shall cite is St. Austin who in his 19 th Epistle writing unto St. Hierome saith That though according to words of honour which the custome of the Church hath brought in Episcopacy be greater then Presbytery yet in many things Austin is Inferior to Hierome And in Quaest. veteris et Novi Testamenti Quaest. 101. what is a Bishop but the first Priest that is to say the highest Priest In the third place we shall add Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls who shewes out of Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustinâ— Theodoret Pri masius Sedulius Theophylact That Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture and that Aerius co uld no more be justly condemned for heresie for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one then all those fathers with whom agree saith he Oecumenius and Ansolme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and another Anselme and Gregory and Gratian and affirmes that it was once enro lled in the Canon law for sound and Catholique Doctrine and thereupon taught by learned men he adds further That it is unlikely that Anselmâ— should have been Canonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome and the other Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law if they had taught that for sound doctrine which by the whole Church in her most flourishing condition was condemned for heresy and concludes th at they who have laboured about the reformation of the Church these five hundred yeares of whom he names abundance have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the word of God In the fourth place we might urge the saying of Michael Medina lib. 1. de sacris origin who affirmes that not onely St. Hierome but also that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same judgement with Aerius and held that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter by Scripture The Next we shall instance in is Cassander in his Book of consâ—ltation article 14 who saith whether Episcopacy be to be accounted an order Ecclesiastical distinct from Presbytery is a question much debated between the Theologues and the Canonists But in this one particular all sides agree That in the Apostles dayes there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme the Bishop was placed before the Presbyter to whom the power of ordination was granted that so peace might be continued in the Church Add further That in the Oecumenical Councels of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded That Presbyters should have dicisive suffrages in Councells as well as Bishops because that by the law of God Bishops were no more then they and it is expressely given them Act 17.23 7. Erasmus upon 1. Tim. 4.4 saith that in ancient time there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter but afterwards for the avoiding of Schisme a Bishop was chosen by many and so many Pres byters so many Bishops 8. Bishop Iewel in
any peculiar jurisdiction or preheminence but is a common name to all Ministers and is so used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadours sent for the good of the Elect and therfore the name being common to all Ministers why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Stars in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation There is nothing in these Titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our Brethrens sense insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some Authors that succeeded them who spake of former times according to the language of their own times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 5. Add lastly That these Titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1.20 The mysterie of the seven Stars c. And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacy by Divine right upon mysterious and metaphorical denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleare Texts that make Presbyters and Bishops to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegoricall and mysterious titles to so many express testimonies of Scripture Against all this it will be said That our Saviour Christ in his Epistles to these seven Churcheâ— singles out one Angel in every Church from all the other ministers that were there and dedicates his Epistle unto these Angels thereby giving us to understand that these Angels were superiour to all the other Ministers Angels of an higher Orbe Superintendents not only Bishops overPresbyters Arch-Bishops over other Bishops as a high Prelatist is pleased to tell us To this objection there are solid and every way sufficient answers given in the books forementioned we shall reduce all to these two headâ— 1. That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Ministers this answer we confesse is called a poore shift vain conceit and a manifest wresting of the plain words of our Saviour by our Episcopal men But we conceive there are such reasons brought for the Justification of it that cannot be answered As for example It is certain that our Saviour Christ speakes to this Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2.24 But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira Rev. 2.10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer Bâ—hold the Divel shall cast some of you into prison that ye may be tryed and ye shall have tribulation ten dayes be thou faithful unto death c. This see Rev. 2.13 By which is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers But some copies leave out the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall view the Antecedent and consequent and consider that verse 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. And then followes But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burden will confesse that the old copies are better then that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 2. It is certain that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his final departure from them committed the charge of that Church And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them stars of the same magnitude and Angeâ—s of the same Order without a difference distinction 3. It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other books of the Scripture but in this very book of the Revelation in Mysterious and prophetick writings and visional representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usual way of representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Revel 8.2 It is said That Iohn say seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven Individual Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven Individual Angels that stand before God but all do Dan 7. There are many more instances brought in the bookâ— forementioned 4. Add lastly That though but one Angel be mentioned in the foreâ—front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are far from thinking in that formall Denomination the Angels and Candlesticks are the the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church and to the Churches themselves as appears Rev. 1.11 Rev. 2.7.11.17 And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and do thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one Individuall person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2.5.16.2 Now we have no warrant in the word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other Ministers and Churches are far from those sins These are some of those reasons that are brought to prove that this our interpretation is no wresting or offering of violence to the text but such a one that floweth naturally from it We might for the confirmation of it cite Mr. Brightman Mr. Perkins Mr. Fox who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. of the same judgment Dr. Fulk Mr. Mede Gregory and St. Austin all of them interpreting this text as we do But we forbear because they are quoted by Smectimnuus But it will be said that as some Autohors say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle to it Others that Onesimus was Bishop c Others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that very time And therefore these Angels must needs be taken Individually for for so many single persons They that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeal to Episcopacy they make that Glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injurie is offered by Objections to Onesimus 2. We have
already proved That Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called a Bishop of Ephesus in their sense It will not follow because Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus in 3. St. Johns dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle for St Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe For our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plural number Rev. 2.10 And therefore he may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one So much for the first head of answers 2. But now in the second place Let us suppose it though we will not grant it That these Angels were Personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken Individually yet we conceive That this will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause For 1. First Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth That by these words To the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the President as whom it behoved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Colleagues and the whole Church likewise But then he addeth But that Episcopal Degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetual President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligâ—rchical Tyranny whose head is the Antichâ—istian Beast now at length with â—he most certain ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest by which quotation it is evident that though Beza hâ—ld the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus presâ—s not Angâ—lus Princeps And that he was Praeses prâ— tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament To this effect do the Reverend Divines speak in their humble answer at the Isle of VVight where they say That these writings to the Angels are directed as Epistolary letters to Collective bodies usually are That is To one but intended to the body which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your two Houses and directing it to the Speaker of the Houâ—e of Peers which as it doth not hinder we confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person or if he were that therefore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least and so your Majestie hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetual Moderators Secondly Dr Reynolds who hath written a letter in Print against the jâ—s divinum of Episcopacy acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart dial 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith That Presbyters when they met together for the carrying on of the affairs of the Church by common Councel and consent chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth The Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know From which saying we may safely conclude That though we should grant which yet we do not that this Angel is a single person yet it will not at all help the Episcopal Hierarchy For this Angel is but a Moderator of the Presbytery having no superiority of power either in Ordination or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is himself also a Presbytery and for ought appears to the contrary from the judgment of Dr. Reynolds a Moderator onely pro tempore Which kind of government is purely Presbyterial and not at all Episcopal much lesse as some would have it even from this text Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical But it is objected by some learned men That the Seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation unto the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them And that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops To this we answer 1. That it will hardly be proved that these Seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in St. Iohnâ— dayes And the situation of the most of them lying near together by the Sea side makes it very improbable 2. But suppose it would yet we answer 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferr the greatnesse of the Churches For though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 2. We do not believe that ever it can be proved That the Apostles did model the government of the Church according to the government of the Roman State This was the after-policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolical policy And therefore it doth not follow That because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of these seven Cities That therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to these seven Asian Churcheâ— 3. We are fully assured That it can never be made out That any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven starrs are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches not one Star over divers Candlesticks or Churches If this opinion were true Then Tertullian did noâ— do well in saying That St. Iohn made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said That he made him Arch-Bishop And our Saviour Christ had not given unto these seven Angels their due Titles For he must have written To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other Six Surely this device was found out for the honour of Archiepiscopacy by some that did aspire unto that dignity But we hope that our more moderate Brethren are far from stamping a divinum jus upon Archbishops and Primâ—tes and Patriarchs for fear lest by the same proportion of reason they be forced to put a divine stamp at last upon the Pope himself And therefore we forbear to say any more about it For the conclusion of this discourse about the Asian Angels we shall add 4. That it can never be proved That these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Prelatical sence much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word
of God of Ordination by Presbyters without Prelats HAving now finished our Vindication of the present Ministers of the Church of England both such as were made by Bishops and such as are now made without Bishops before we come to our Appendix we shall crave leave to shew in few words unto our respective Congregations not onely the lawfulnesse of the present Ministry But the absolute necessity of adhering to it and the destructive dangers and ineffable mischiefs that will follow upon receiving of it And this will appear upon a fourfold account 1. Because a true Ministery is essential to an Organical Church that is a Church administring Ordinances A true Church saith Cyprian is Plebs Episcopo adunata Ecclesia non est saith Jerom quae non habet sacerdotem Sure we are That there cannot be a true Church Ministerial without true Ministers 2. Because the Scripture way and the onely Ordinary way by which men are set apart to the work of the Ministry is by Ordination as we have abundantly shewed He that comes any other way is a Thief and a Robber not a true Shepherd 3. Because That this Ordination must be performed either by Ministers or by the people And if all Ordination by Ministers be to be accounted Antichristian because these Ministers were made by other Ministers and those by others and those by such as before the reformation were belonging to the Church of Rome Then it will follow That there is no way of Ordination left but by the people 4. Because there is neither precept nor president in all the Book of God for Ordination of Ministers by the people without Ministers We read of Ordination by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but never by the laying on of the hands of the people We find the Apostles Ordaining and Timothy and Titus Ordaining as we have formerly said and the Presbytery ordaining But no where of the peoples Ordaining We find the people contra-distinguished from Rulers and Governours but no where called Rulers or Governours And if there be a power by Scripture in the people to Ordain Ministers why was Titus sent to Creete to Ordain Elders why did the Apostles visit the Churches they had planted to Ordain Elders in every Church And why is Timothy commanded To lay hands suddenly on no man c. Some thing possibly may be said out of Scripture For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem in totâ Scripturâ Surely this way of Ordination by the people is a devise that hath neither ground for it in the Scripture nor in all Antiquity And for private Christians to assume not onely a power to elect their own Ministers that is to nominate Persons to be made their Ministers which we no wayes dislike or deny so it be done in an orderly way by the guidance of the Presbytery but also to undertake without Ordination to become Publick Preachers themselves and not onely so but to send forth Ministers authoritatively to Preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments This is a sin like unto the sin of Vzziah and of Corah and his company This is to make themselves Political Popes and Antichristian Christians And therefore for the conclusion of all we shall make bold to speak two things to all those that renounce their former Ordination by Ministers and take up a new way of Ordination by the people 1. We would intreat them that before they find fault with our way of Ordination by Ministers they would first of all justifie by the Canon of the Scripture their new way of Ordination by the people 2. We would desire them in the fear of God to consider That whosoever renounceth Ordination by Ministers must of nece ssity not onely renounce our Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches Reformed in the Christian world and as Constantine said to Acesius the Novaâ—ian He must erect a Ladder by himself to go to heaven in a new way He must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-Communion as some do in these our unhappy dayes upon this very ground that we are speaking of For sure we are If Ordination by Ministers be Antichristian Ordination by the people is much more Antichristian But we hope better things of you though we thus speak And our prayer to God is and shall be That the Lord would send down the spirit of Truth into the hearts of his people to guide them in the truth in these erring dayes The Spirit of holinesse to sanctifie them by his truth in these prophane dayes And the Spirit of charity and meeknesse and sobriety to cause them to speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 and to love one another in the truth 2 Joh. 1. in these sinful and miserable dayes of uncharitablenesse and division The Appendix HAving sufficiently proved out of the word of God that a Bishop and Presbyter are all one and that Ordination by Presbyters is most agreeable thereunto We shall now subjoyn a brief Discourse about the grand Objection from the Antiquity of Prelacy and about the Judgement and Practise of the Ancient Church concerning the Ordination of Ministers And this we shall do the rather because our Prelatical Divines do herein most triumph and boast For Bishops distinct from Presbyters have been say they in the Church of Christ for 1600. years and upâ—ward And there never was any Ordination without them And when Coluthus was Ordained by a Presbyter without a Bishop his Ordination was pronounced null and void And Aerius by Austin and Epiphanius was accounted an Heretique for holding an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equality and Identity between a Bishop and a Presbyter Nay Ierom himself saith That a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apostolical Tradition and that it began when some said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was say they in the Apostles dayes And from hence it is peremptorily asserted that Episcopal government is of Apostolical institution For answer to this great and plausible objection and for the further declaration of our judgements concerning the Antiquity of Prelaâ—y we crave leave to lay down these following Propositâ—ons Proposition 1. THat whatsoever may be said for Prelacy out of antiquity yet sure we are as we hope hath been sufficiently proved That it hath no foundation in the Scriptures And as Christ in matter of divorce brought the Iewes to the first institution of marriage so ought we in the point of Prelacy to reduce men back to the first Institution of Episâ—opacy and to say as Christ From the beginning it was not so It is a good saying of Tertullian Id adulterum quod posterius id verum quod primum And it was well observed by Cyprian That Christ said Ego sum via veritas vita not Ego sum consuetudo and that consuetudo sine veritate est vetâ—stas erroris Christ is
Ecclesiastical custome Thus far Smectymâ—uns And thus Ierom is made to agree with himself whom our Episcopal Doctors would make to speak contradictions But Ierom saith It was toto orbe decretum and how could this be but by Apostolical appointment The same Author also saith in the same place That it came in paulatim It was not decreed in the whole world all at once but it came in by degrees in some places sooner and in some later The saying of Ambrose or whosoever was the Author of it upon the 4 th to the Ephesians is very remarkable Ideo non per omnia conveniâ—nt scripta Apostoli Ordâ—nationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est c. Nam Timotheum Presbyterum a se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum This quotation we shall have occasion to mention afterwards We bring it now onely to shew 1. That the Ordination that was in Ambrose his dayes if he be the Author was not in all things agreeable to the Apostolical pattern 2. That the change that was made was prospicieâ—te concilio Was by the advise of a Councel and therefore it is not to be wondered if in time the Church of Christ came to be governed by the lifting up of one Presbyter above the rest But how long was it that the Church of Christ was governed by the common Councel of Presbyters without a Bishop set over them Dr. Blondel a man of great Reading and Learning undertakes in a large discourse to make out that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters To whose elaborate writings we refer the Reader for further satisfaction in this particular Sure we are that Clemens who lived in the first Century in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians an undoubted piece of Antiquity makes but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons The occasion of that Epistle seems to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57.58 not as B. Hall saies the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles dayes Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed several Orders in his Church which must not be confounded In the Iewish Church he appointed a high Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospel that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they preached and constituted the first fruits approving them by the spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe Here we observe 1. That in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities Afterwards indeed in the year 347. in the Councel of Sardica it was decreed That no man should be chosen Bishop in a Village or in a little City ne vilescat noâ—eâ— Episcopi That the name of a Bishop might not be rendred contemptible But in the first age of the Church they appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That Bishops and Deacons were the onely Orders of Ministry in the first Primitive Church And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to believe Because when he had reckoned up three Orders appointed by God among the Jewes Highpriest Priests and Levites coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospel he doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons The same Clemens adds pag. 57. That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 About the name Bishop and being indued with perfect foreknowledge they appointed the foresaid that is the foresaid Orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here note 1. That by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2.9 Ephes. 1.21 Heb. 1.4 Revel 11. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie amongst the Corinthians was not about the Name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57.58 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the care of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church unto Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us That the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things Ordained onely Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of all Schismes It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the Justification of our proposition Let the Reader peruse pag. 57.62.69.72 and take notice That those that are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle The like record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of Iohn the Apostle who lived also within the first Century and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministry Bishops and Deacons perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and to Christ. Nay Bishop Bilson himself saith pag. 158.159 That Elders at first did govern by common advise is no doubt at all to us That which is doubted and denied by us is That these Elders were Lay-men Gratian in his decrees brings in Ierom word for word affirming That a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same upon which words the author of the glosse saith Some say that in the first Primitive Church the Office of Bishops and Presbyters was common but in the second Primitive Church both names and Offices began to be distinguished And again A third sort say this advancing was made in respect of name and in respect of administration and in respect of certain Ministeries which belong onely to the Episcopal office And the same Author himself is of this opinion saying Before this advancing these names Bishops and Presbyters were altogether of the same signification and the administration was common because Churches were governed by the common advise of Presbyters And again This advancing was made for a remedy against schisme as is here said by St. Ierom. That one should have the preheminence in regard of the name the administration and certain Sacraments which now are appropriated to Bishops Here we have a distinction of the first and second Primitive Church and that in the first Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were all one To all these Quotations we shall subjoyn a remarkable passage of the L.
Digby recorded in a letter of his full of excellent learning writen to Sr. Kenelme Digby This Gentleman was a great adorer of Monarchical Episcopacy and yet observe what he saith He that would reduce the Church now to the form of government in the most Primitive timeâ— should not take in my opinion the best nor wisest course I am sure not the safest for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland which for my part I believe in point of government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christs Church and yet it is never a whit the better for it since it was a form not chosen for 〈◊〉 best but imposed by adversity under oppression which in the beginning forc'd the Church from what it wish't to what it might not suffering that dignity and state Ecclesiastical which rightly belonged unto it to manifest it self to the world and which soon afterwards upon the least lucida intervalla shone forth so gloriously in the happier as well as more Monarchical condition of Episcopacy of which way of government I am so well perswaded that I think it pitty it was not made betimes an Article of the Scottish Catechisme That Bishops are jure Divino By this passage it is easie to perceive the indiscreet zeal of this Gentleman towards Lordly and Monarchical Prelacy and yet we have here his free clear and full confession That in the first and best and purest times of the Church the Presbyterian government was practised and not the Episcopal which is the thing which we undertook to make out in this third Proposition Against all thâ—t hath been said in this Proposition it is objected That the Blessed St. Ignatius who lived in the first Century hath in his Epistles clearly and fully asserted Episcopal government as it is distinct from Presbyterial And that therefore there was no space of time wherein the Church ofChrist was governed by the common Councel of Preâ—byters without Bishops properly so called In answer to this we must intreat the Reader to take notice that in the Primitive times there were abundance of spurious and supposititious works put forth under the names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs which were none of theirs but fatherâ—d upon them ut ementitis titulis fidem authoritatemque erroribus suis â—onciliarent That by their counterfect titles they might gain belief and authority to their errors Such were the Epistle of Paul to Seneca and Seneca's to Paul The lawes and constitutions Apostolical The works of Dionysius Arâ—opagita and divers others The like fraud hath been used in Ignatius his works It is certain That the Epistle of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Ignatius and of Ignatius to the Blessed Viâ—gin and two other Epistles of Ignatius unto St. Iohn the Apostle are spurious and counterfeit And as for his other twelve Epistles five of them are by invincible arguments as we conceive proved by Vedelius to be written by à Pseudo-Ignatius Eusebius and Ierom make mention but of Seven And for those seven though with Scultetus Vedelius and Rivetus we do not renounce them as none of hiâ— yet sure we are they are so much adulterated and corrupted that no man can ground any solid assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius his works The Reverend Archbishop of Armagh saith That there are but six of these Epistles that are genuine and that even these six are miserably depraved and corrupted Rivet saith very judiciously That in these Epistles some things are defective some things added some things changed And therefore they cannot merit oisr belief but onely in those things in which thâ—y agree with the Apostolical writings Baronius indeed saith that all his Epistles are come to us integrae inâ—orruptae intire and uncorrupted But yet notwithstanding it seems forgetting what he had said he tells That when there is mention made in the Epistle to the Philadelphians of the marriages of Pâ—ter and Paul That the word Paul iâ— foysted in And he also tells us as Vedelius observes That the words Gratia and Amâ—â— with which Ignatius was wont to conclude his Epistles were left out incuria librariorum in all his Epistles except two And whereas it is said in the Epistle to the Philadelphians That not onely the bread was given but the cup also was distributed to all Bellarminâ— saith That the Greek Copâ—es are corrupt For our parts we will not trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject If he please he may read that what thâ— Archbishop of Armagh what â—ivet Vedelius and Cook in his Censura Patrum And what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles There is a learned Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the objectionâ— of the two last But this Doctor should do well to answer also to what the learned Archbishop of Armagh hâ—th written about these Epistles who proves at large That six of them are Nothae the other six Mixtae and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincâ—rae gâ—nuinae Who also tellâ— us out of Casaubâ—nâ— That amongst all the Ecclesiâ—stical monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence then in Ignatius his Epistles That Baronius in his first Tome almost in every page cites Ignaâ—ius to confirm his Popish traditions In the Second Tome Anno. 109. he confesseth and disputeth it at large That these Epistles are the very Tower of the Pontifician doctrine and that it stands upheld by them as by a pillar and he often saith That there was never any found who called the truth of these Epistles into question c. And therefore this Reverend Doctor ought not to be offended if we advise him to take heed how he complies with Baronius in justifying of Ignatius from all depravations and interpolations left out of overmuch love of Prelacy he be found an advancer of Popery We shall briefly offer three Reasons why we cannot build our judgment concerning the doctrine of the Primitive Church about Episcopacy upon Ignatius his Epistles Because there are divers things quoted out of his Epistles by Athanasius Gelasius and Theoâ—oret which are either not to be found in their Epistles or to be found altered and changed and not according as they are quoted This is Rivets argument and pursued at lâ—rge by the Archbishop to whom we refer the Reader From his overmuch extolling himself in his Epistle to the Trallians where he saith That he had attained such a measure of knowledge That he understood heavenly things The Orders of Angels The differences of Archangels and of the heavenly Host The differences between Powers and Dominations The distances of Thrones and Powers The magnificencies or magnitudeâ— of Aeâ—nes or Principalities The sublimity of the Spirit The excellencies of Cherubims and Seraphims The Kingdom of the Lord and the incomparable divinity of the Lord God
Almighty All these things I know and yet am not perfect c. Now who is there that can believe that such Arrogant boasting can proceed from such a holy man and humble Saint as Ignatius was The third Reason which is most for our purpose is from his over eager and over anxious defence of the Episcopal Hierarchy which he doth with such strange hyperbolical expressions as if all Christianity were lost if Prelacy were not upheld and with such multiplied repetitions ad nauseam usque That we may confidently say as one doth Certo certius est has Epistolas vel supposititias esse vel foedè corruptas And that they do neither agree with those times wherein he wrote nor with such a holy and humble Martyr as he was We will instance in some few of them In his Epistle to the Trallians he saith What is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principalitie and authority beâ—ond all as much as is possible for men to be possest of being made an imitator according to thâ— power of Christ who is God He that can find in these words an Apostolical Spirit breathing hath little acquaintance with the Apostolical writings How unlike is this to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.5 Who then is Paul and who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe In the same Epistle he saith Reverence the Bishop as yeâ— do Christ at the holy Apostles have commanded But where is this commanded In his Epistle to the Magnâ—sians He saith It becomes you to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him For it is a terrible thing to contradict him And again As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father So must you do nothing without your Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Lâ—y man Let nothing seem right and equal to you that is contrary to his judgment For that that is such is wicked and â—nmity to God In his Epistle to Polycarpe It becomes those that marry and are married not to marry without the consent of the Bishop And again my soul for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In his Epistle to the Philadelphians Let the Princes obey the Emperour the Souldiers the Princes The Deacons and the rest of the Clergy with all the people and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop Observe here how the Princes and Emperours are enjoyned to obey the Bishop when there were not at this time nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Christian In his Epistle to the Smyrâ—enses he saith The Scripture saith Honour God and the King But I say Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things And the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God Of God for his Principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the salvation of the whole world c. and afterwards He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured by God and he that injur's him shall be punished by God And if he be justly thought worthy of punishment that riseth up against Kings and is therein a violator of good Lawes Of how much greater punishment shall he be thought worthy that will undertake to do any thing without his Bishop thereby breaking concord and overturning good Order c. We need not paraphrase upon these passages Onely we desire the Reader in the fear of God to passe sentence whether these high and supertranscendent expressions This prelation of Bishops above Kings do savour of the first Primitive times or can be imagined to proceed from Blessed Ignatius even then when he was in bonds and ready to be Martyred In the same Epistle he saith Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father Let no man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop Let that Eucharist be allowed on which is done by the Bishop or by his concession c. It is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or offer c. That which he approves on is accepted of God and whatsoever is so done is safe and firm It is right that God and the Bishop be known He that honours the Bishop is honoured of God He that doth any thing without first consulting with the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Worshipper of the Divel If this Doctrine be true what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as Ioannes Major saith lib. 2. hystoria de gâ—stis Scotorum cap. 2. was after its first conversion to the Christian faith above 230. years without Episcopal government We will not cite any more passages of this nature These are sufficient to justifie that censure which the Reverend Presbyterian Divines in their humble answer to the second Paper delivered them by his Majestie at the Isle of Wight do passe upon Ignatius where they say That there are great arguments drawn out of these Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronius and the rest of the Popish writers do of such rights and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter That which may justly render him suspected is that he gives too much Honour saith he the Bishop as Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy names The considerations of these things makes Salmasius to believe that these Epistles were written by a Pseâ—do-Ignatius at that very time when Episcopacy properly so called came into the Church that so the people who had been accustomed to the Presbyterian government might the more willingly and easily receive this new government and not be offended at the novelty of it And this he the rather thinkes Because in all his Epistles he speaks highly in honour of the Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy For in the Epistle to the Trallenses He bids them be subject to the Presbytery as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ. And a little after he calleâ— the Preâ—bytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the sâ—me Epistle he saith That the Colledge of the Presbyters is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which passage must needs be understood of the second Primitive times For afterwards the Presbytery was much neglected and laid aside as Ambrose complaines upon 1 Tim. 5. We will conclude our discourse concerning the The Epistles of Ignaâ—ius with a remarkable saying of Riveâ— in his Critica sacra We are ready to ascâ—ibe to the genuine writings of the Fâ—thers as much as
Ignatius requires of Hero to whom he saith Keep that depositum which I and Christ have committed unto you Christ in his Word hath concredited this holy depositum And whatsoever is agreeable in Ignatius to this holy word we imbrace Other things which neither agree with Christ nor with the true Ignatius we reject as adulterinâ— and not to be born So much in answer to this objection Proposition 4. THat when it is said by Irâ—naeus lib. 3. cap. 3. That the holy Apostles made Bishops in Churches and particularly That Polycaâ—pe was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and that the Apostles made Linus Bishop of Rome after whom succeeded Anacletus and that Clemens was made the third Bishop by the Apostles And when it is said by Tertullian lib. de praescription That Polycarpe was made Bishop of Smyrna by S. Iohn and Clement Bishop of Rome by S. Peter This will nothing at all advance the Episcopal cause unlesse it can be proved that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters a Bishop as Gerrhard saith pâ—rasi Ponâ—ificiâ not a Bishop phrasi Apostolica a Bishop in a Popish not in an Apostolical sense which is all one with a Presbyter For it is not denyed by any that ever wrote of Episcopacy That the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles dayes and many years after And therefore Irenâ—us in his Epistle to Victor cited by Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 23 calls Aâ—iâ—etus Pius Higinus Telesphorâ—s Xistâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Rome and afterwards Presbyter◠〈◊〉 qui te pracesserunt The Presbyters that went before thee And so also Nec Polycarpus Aniceto suasit ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat consuâ—tudinem servandam 〈◊〉 dicebaâ— Tâ—rtullian also in his Apolog. cap. 39. callâ— the Presidents of the Churches Seniorâ— or Presbyteâ—â— when he saith Praesident probati quique Senioreâ— c. It is not therefore sufficient for our Episcopal Brethren to say That Bishops over Presbyters are of Apostolical institution because the Apostles made Bishops in Churches unlesse they do also prove that those holy men who are called â—ishopâ— were more then Presbyters Otherwise we must justly charge them of which they unjustly charge us to be guilty of endeavouring from the name Bishop which was common to Presbyters with Bishops to prove a superiority of Bishops over Presbyters Adde to this That when our Brethren do frequently urge those places of Irenaeus where he â—aith That he was able to number those that were madeBishops by the Apostles their successors unto his time and often urgeth the successions of Bishops unto whom the Apostles committed the charge of the Church in every place This will nothing at all as we conceive advantage the Episcopal Hierâ—rchy unlesse they do also prove That those Bishops were Hierarchical Bishops and not the very same with Presbyters For the same Authoâ— doth speak the very same things of Presbyters calling them also Bishops For he saith lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter â—is 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia sunt Presbyterâ—s obaudirâ— oporâ—et his qui successionâ—â— hâ—beâ—â— ab Apostolâ—s sicu◠〈◊〉 qui cum Episcopaâ—us successiâ—â—â— charisâ—a veritatis certâ—m secundum placitum Patris accâ—perunt Reâ—iquos vero qui absistuâ—â— Ã principâ—lâ— successione quâ—cunque loco colliguntur suspectos habere vel quasi hâ—reticâ—s mala 〈◊〉 vel quasi sciâ—dâ—ntes â—latos sibi placeâ—â—â—s 〈…〉 â—t hypocritas 〈◊〉 grati◠〈◊〉 gloriae hoc 〈◊〉 So also 〈◊〉 4 cap. 44 Ab omnibus â—aâ—ibus absistâ—re oportet adhaerere vero his qui Apostolorum sicut praediximus doctrinam custodiunt cum Presbyâ—â—rii ordine sâ—rmonem sanum conversationem sine offensa praestant ad informationem corrâ—ctionem aliorum Observe here 1. That Presbyters are called the Successors of the Apostles 2. That they are also called Bishops 3. That the Apostolical doctrine is derived from the Apostles by their succession 4. That there is nothing said in the former places of Bishops which is not here said of Presbyters And that therefore those placeâ— do not prove That the Apostles constituted Bishops in the Church distinct from and superiour over Presbyters As for that which is said about the succession of Bishops from the Apostles unto Irenaeus his time we shall hâ—ve â—ccasion to speak to afterwards Adde also That when in Antiquity Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have been made Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles and Peter to be ordained Bishop of Antioch or Rome c. This doth not contribute to the proof of what it is brought for to wit That there were Bishops properly so called in the Apostles dayes For as Dr. Reynolds againsâ— Hart cap. 2. saith When the Fathers termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that City as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome they meant in a general sort and signification because they did attend that Church for a time and supply that room in preaching the Gospel which Bishops did after but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church and Pastor of a several flock so Peter was not Bishop of any one place therefore not of Rome And Dr. Whitakers lib. de Pontif. qu. 2. cap. 15. saith Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum voâ—ant auâ— etiam Pâ—trum non propriè sumâ—nt Episcopi nâ—men sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquandiu commorati sunt Et si propriâ— de Episcopo loquatur absurdum est Apostolos fuisse Episcopos Nam qui propriè Episcopus â—st is Apostolus non potest esse quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae Aâ— Apostoli plâ—â—ium Ecclesiarum fundatores inspectores erant Et postea Hâ—â— eniâ— non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum aut reliquos Apostolos That the Fathers when they call Iames or Peter Bishops do not take the name of Bishop properly but they call them Bishops of those places where they abode for any long time And in the same place If we speak properly of Bishops it is absurd to say That the Apostles were Bishops For he that is properly a Bishop cannot be an Apostle For a Bishop is onely of one Church But the Apostles were the Founders and Overseers of many Churches And again he saith It doth not much differ from a phrenzy and madnesse to say That Peter or any of the Apostles were properly Bishops For the truth is This were to degrade the Apostles and to bring them into the Rank and Order of common and ordinâ—ry Officers of the Church which is no little Sacriledge And therefore such kind of quotations out of Antiquity do little avail our Brethren So much for the fourth Proposition Proposiâ—ion 5. THat when the distinction between a Bishop and Presbyter first began in the Church of Christ it was not
grounded upon a Ius Divinum but upon prudential reasons and arguments And the chief of them was as Hierom and divers after him say in remedâ—â—m Schismatis ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out of the Church Now that this prudential way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appeares as Smectymnuus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles daies there were divisions Rom. 16.17 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiâ—â—t inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestâ— fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are manifest amongst you may be removed 2. Because the Holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into the saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth history and our own experience Hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 Titus 1.5 1 Pet. 5.1 that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he addes But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elderâ— of the Church as Hierome saith Schismes arose and aâ— I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one among the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in a higher degree and called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth That if Hierome and others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schismes as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast and destroy the former Ministry that fed the flock Thus far Musculus Sadeel also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a gate they opened to the ambition of Bishopâ— Hence also Dr. Whiâ—akers asking How came in the inequality between Bishops and Presbyters answereth out of Hierome That the Schisme and faction of some occasioned the ancient Government to be changed which saith he how ever devised at first for a remedy against Schisme yet many holy and wise men have judged it more pernicious then the disease it self and although it did not by and by appear yet miserable experience afterward shewed it First ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his chair and brought the yoak of bondage upon the neck of the Church The sense of these mischiefs made Nazianzâ—n wish not onely that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place but also that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no principal dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking But now saith he Contentions about the right hand and the left about the higher and the lower place c. have bred many inconveniencies even among Ministers that should be Teachers in Israel Proposition 6. THat there is a widâ— and vast difference between the Bishops of the Primitive times and the Bishops of later times as much as between ancient Rome and Rome at this day A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter or Episcopus Praeses as a Moderator in a Church-Assembly or a Speaker in a Parliament that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum and had neither power of Ordination nor of Jurisdiction but in common with his Presbyters Ambrose upon the 1 Tim. 3. saith That there is one and the same Ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Dr. Reynolds saith That when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Gost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serve Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospel is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop So the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual language of of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders From which quotation it appeares that in the judgment of learned Dr. Reynold A Bishop at his first appearing was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President or Moderator of the Presbytery D. Blondel a man of vast Reading indeavours strenuously to make it out That when Episcopacy first came up in the Church the custome was to choose the Eldest of the company of the Presbyters whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the first of those that were ordained to be their Bishop or Moderator And after his decease the next in age succeeded him not advanced in degree of Ministry or power above his Brethren but onely in order and dignity as being the first Presbyter This opinion is agreeable to that passage out of St. Ambrose if that Book be his where he saith Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recâ—dente uno sequenâ— ei succederet Sed quia ceperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad Primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio ut
non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episâ—opum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temâ—re usurparet esset multis scandalum Iâ— lege nascebantur Sacâ—rdotes ex genere Aaron Leviâ—ae c. Whether this conjecture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be true or no or whether as others think it was true in some Churches and not in others we will not now debate But sure we are that in Alexandria as St. Ierom tells us The Bishop was chosen not onely out of the Presbytery but by the Presbytery and by them constituted Bishop and placed in excelsiâ—ri gradu in an higher degree of honour not Office He was not made by 3. Bishops Sed Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiore grâ—an collocatuâ— Episcopum nominabant Indeed afterwards in processe of time This Epâ—scopus Pâ—aeses came to be Episcopus Princeps and usurped sinfully upon the priviledges of Ministers and people and made way for the coming in of Antichrist Famous is that so often mentined in several writings in this age saying of Ambrose upon 1 Tim. 5 1 Vnde Synagoga postâ—a Ecclesia Seniores habuit quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia Quod quâ negligentiâ obsolevâ—rat nescio nisi forte Doctorum desidiâ— aut magis superbiâ dum volunt aliguid videri From hence came that distinction of Beza's between Episcopus divinus humanus and Diabolicus By the divine Bishop he means the Presbyter by the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be President over them and to rule with them by fixed Lawes and Canons By the Diabolical he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Lording it over Gods heritage and governing by his own will and authority And therefore when men argue from the practise of the Primitive times and from the Bishops of those dayes to the Bishops of our dayes they do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they commit a fallacy just as if a man should argue That the Church of Rome is now a true Church because it was so in the Apostles dayes For the further handling of this proposition we refer the Reader to Smâ—ctymâ—â—us where he shall have many pages spent to prove the imparity between the Bishops of the Primitive times and our dayes Onely we shall crave leave to relate a passage from a Reverend Divine now with God who holdeth forth this assertion That the ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist then from the Presbyterian This he proveth Because The Presbyterians alwayes have â— President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual dâ—rante vitâ â—â—do sâ— benâ— gâ—sseriâ— or temporary to avoid inconvenience Which Bilson in his preface again and again in his Book of the Perp. government takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintainâ— But now the high Prelatists excluâ—e a Presbytery â—s having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphaere of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher Order whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery and in divers cases Councels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them And so it is clear The high Prelatistâ— are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Prebyterians Afterwards he also adds If we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them consider in how many thingâ— we jumpe with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practise as 1. touching promiscuous dancing especially upon the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes all Pluralities 3. Frequency and diligence in Preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health-drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intanling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of state in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others Proposition 7. THat the great argument that is brought for Episcopacy from the lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles daies to our dâ—â—eâ— hath not that validity in it that is imagined Bishop Bilson and others â—ake a great deal of pains to give us a Catalogue of the Bishops in Rome Alâ—xandria Hierusalem and Antioch from the Apostles daies unto Constantine's time But we desire the Reader to consider First That these Catalogues labour much of an Homonymy in the word Bishop For the Bishops of later times were Bishops of a fâ—r different nature from the Bishops of the first times Though the same name be common to all in the Catalogue yet in the nature of their Office they differed very much The later peece by peece taking that authority to theâ— which the former neither might nor did â—njoy The later were Diocesan the former were Bishopâ— onely of one Congregation At first the Churches were governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters and the line of succession was drawn saith D. Bloâ—del from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that iâ— the first Ordained Minister Even â—s amongst the Athenianâ— there were 9. Archontes or chief Rulerâ— equal in power and authority and yet the succession of Governours in Athens was desiâ—ed from one of them onâ—ly who wâ—â— the first Arâ—bon or Ruler which was not done to diminish the â—â—thority of the â—est sed ut compendiâ—sioâ—â—â— minus 〈…〉 But that the enumerâ—â—iâ—n of the 〈◊〉 of their successive Governourâ— might 〈…〉 compendious and expedite Even so at first there were divers Presbyters in every City which did govern with equal power and authority and yet the line and succession was deduced from one who was the first of those that were ordained not thereby incroaching upon the joynt authority of the rest but for the more expedite way of reckoning And when afterwards one was chosen out of the Presbytery he was for a long time but as the Moderator of a Synod amongst the Scotch and Dutch and at most but as a Superintendent amongst the Germaâ—s of whom Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. saith That they are of the same degree with other Ministers they are only presidentâ— while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their Prerogative ceaseth They have no prerogative over their fellow-Ministers they are subject to their Presbyteries The Synod ended they return to the care of their particular Churches Secondly That these Catalogues the nearer they come to the Apostles daies are the more â—ncerâ—in and indeed contradictory one unto another Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore 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 that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
whole Kingdom wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders it is said expresly That although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferiour degrees of Ministery yet the truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in Orders but onely of Deacons or Ministers and Presbyters or Bishops and thoroughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters and Bishops one and the same But of this Proposition we have had occasion to speak formerly to which we refer the diligent Reader Now from hence it followeth inevitably That if according unto the judgments of our Episcopal Divines Episcopacy be the same Order of Ministry with Presbytery thâ—â— it hath no more intrinsecal power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then Presbytery hath And that all that distinction that was put between them by Antiquity was meerly in restraining the use and exercise of that power which was truly and really inherent in them The actus primuâ— was common to both although for order sake the actus secundus was inhibited the Presbytery And this leads us to speak something about the practise of Antiquity in the point of Ordination of Ministers which is that in which we believe the Reader doth desire especially to be satisfied and which is that for which we have undertaken this discourse about Antiquity and in which our Adversaries do most triumph For it is said by all Anti-Presbyterians That the way of Ordination now in use is quite contrary to Antiquity and that whatsoever is done in this kind without a Bishop over Presbyters is null and void In answer to this we shall crave leave to hold forth these ensuing Propositions about Ordination out of Antiquity for as to what the Scripture saith of that we have already spoken Several Propositions declaring the Iudgment and Practise of the Ancient Church about Ordination of Ministers Proposition 1. THat in the first and purest times when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters For these Bishops came in postea paulatim as Hierome saith And Panormitanus lib. 1. Decretal de consuetudine cap. quarto saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes paâ—iter conferebant omnia Sacramenta Proposition 2. THat after that Bishops were admitted into the Church yet notwithstanding Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwaies forbidden and opposed Cyprian in his exile writing to his charge certifies them that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues who were present with him By his Colleagues he meanes his Presbyters as appears epist. 58. And Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church Quod baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem And who those be he expresseth a little before Seniores Praepositi by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood In Synodo ad Quercum anno 403. it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he had made Ordinations without the company and sentence of his Clergy In the Councel of Carthâ—ge it was decreed Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet And Can. 2. Cum â— dinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is ordained The Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head all the Presbyters that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head with the hands of the Bishop By this laying on of the hands of Presbyters is not onely signified the Presbyters consent to what the Bishop doth but Ordo ipse confertur gratia ordini necessaâ—ia impeâ—ratur quemadmodum per impositionem manuum Episcopi The Order it self is conferred and grace necessary is impetrated as it is by the hands of the Bishop as saith Forbefius in his Irenicum The Presbyters impose hands saith the same Author non tanquam duntaxat consentientes ad consensum enim sufficiunt suffragia plebs etiam consentit nec tamen ejus est manus imponere sed tanquam Ordinantes seâ— Ordinem conferentes ex potestate Ordinandi Diuinitùs acceptâ gratiam Ordinato hoc adhibito ritu apprecantes Not onely as Consenting for to manifest their consent their suffrages had been sufficient and the people also gave their consent and yet they impose not their hands but as Ordaining and conferring Orders and by the power of Ordination conferred to them by God praying for grace upon him that is Ordained using the ceremony of laying on of hands The same Author brings a famous example of Pelagius Bishop of Rome the first of that name who was made Bishop of Rome by Two Bishops and one Presbyter named Andreas In the Councel of Nice it was decreed That No Bishop should be made but by Three Bishops at least And yet this Pelagius being by Iustinian Anno 555. appointed to be Bishop of Rome and not being able to obtain Three Bishops to ordain him he being suspected then of a crime from which he afterwards cleared himself he received Ordination from Two Bishops and one Presbyter And this Ordination Canonica habita est in hunc usque diem is accounted Canonical even to this day By which it is evident that Presbyters lay on hands in Ordination together with the Bishop as partners in the power And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of Ordination had they not believed That a Presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer Ecclesiastical Orders And this leads us to a Third Proposition Proposition 3. THat even according to the Judgment of Antiquity Presbyters have an intrinsecal power and authority to ordain Ministers and when this power was restrained and inhibited it was not propter legis necessitatem but onely propter honorem Sacerdotii It was not from the necessity of any Divine law for bidding it but onely for the Honour of Episcopacy It was not from the Canon of the Scriptures but from some Canons of the Church Leo Primus ep 88. upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations writing to the Germane and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops Among which he sets down Presbyterorum Diaconorum consecratio and then adds Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur And Isidore Hispalensis lib. 2. de Offiâ—iis Ecclesiasticis cap. 7. speaking of Presbyters saith His enim sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est Praesunt enim Ecclesiis Christi in confectione divina corporis sanguinis consortâ—s cum Episcopâ— sunt similiter in doctrina populorum in Officio praedicandi Sed sola propter authoritatem
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
subjungit vâ—rba Alii â—amen non minorâ—s authoritatis existimant Chorâ—piscopos fuisse tantùm Presbyteros Ita expresse sentit Ayala de traditionibus Ecclesiasticis 3. part Consideratione 4. ubi haâ—c râ—m ex prâ—fâ—ssâ— disputat noster Franciscus Turrianus in annotationibus ad Consilium Nicaenum Can. 54. â—it Ordinâ—m Chorepiscoporum non fuisse nisi Presbyterorum tantùm eandem sententiam sequuntur docti aliqui recâ—ntiores c. Porro Damasum duo illa genera Chorepiscoporum minimè distinxisse sed de omnibus etiam illis quoruâ— mâ— minit Concilium Antiochenum pronunciasse veros non esse Episcopos ita ut si Presbyteri essâ— nollent nihil omâ—ino essent probat ex instituto Ayala loce citato Potestque ex ipso Damaso sâ—aderi Nunquam dicit Damasus hos Chorepiscopos diversos esse à prioribus aut verè Episcopos esse imo verò ex professo probat licet à pluribus consecrati verè tamen Episcopos non esse Haec Vasquez So much of this argument A second Argument to prove That it was not held unlawful in Antiquity for Presbyters to Ordain may be drawn from the opinion of the Schoolmen and Canonists during the prevalency not onely of Episcopacy but even of Papal Tyranny For it is a received opinion in the Church of Rome That the Pope may by his Commission authorize a single Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters he cannot say they commissionate a Lay-man but he may a Presbyter Mr. Francis Mason citeâ— many Authors to attest this The Author of the Glosse saith Diâ—o quod Papa potest hoc delegare simpliâ—i Sacerdotâ— non Laico sicut credo sic ex tali delegatione adminiculo habiti Sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Imo quilibet Clâ—ricus hoc facere potest qui verâ— non habet non potest conferre Rosâ—llus also saith Vâ—lunt Doctores quod Papa potest committere cuilibet Clerico ut conferat quae babet ipse ut si est Presbyter possit Ordinare Presbyterum Diaconus Diaconum ex manâ—ato Papae And again Ego teneo quod Papa possit demandare Presbyterâ— quod conferat omnâ—s sacros Ordines in hoc 〈◊〉 cum sentenâ—ia Canonistarum Dr. Forbes brings also many quotations to this purpose some of which we shall recite as being very observable Panormitaâ—â—â— saith Ego potiuâ— pâ—tarem ut Sacerdoti hoc possit delegare indistinctè quia 〈◊〉 de Sacrâ—â—â—nto Eucharistiâ— sit dispositâ—m institutione Domiâ—icâ— quâ— haâ—â—ant illud administrare hoc tamen non est dispositum in collationâ— Ordinum Nam olim Presbyteri in commâ—ni râ—gebaâ— Ecclesiam ordinabant Sacerdotes Vndâ— quemadmodum olim poterant ita videtur quòd Papa possit hoc concedere Sacerdoti maximè delegando quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio In decretalibus Gregorii 9. de consuetudine cap. 4. c. It is said Dico quod Papa potest hoc delegare simplici Sacerdoti et non Laico sicut credo et sic ex tali delegatione et in adminiculo habiti sacramenti potest conferre quicquid habet Very remarkable is that passage in Petrus Aureolus in quartum Sent. Distinct. 24. In habente animam rationalem quandoque impeditur â—ctus rationis et postea removetur impedimentum non datur nova anima vel forma sed tantum removetur illud quod impediebat prius animam nâ— exiret in actum rationis Sed Ordinare in Sacerdotem est actus conveniens Sacerdoti in quantum Sacerdos est tantùm est actus impeditus in â—o Probo Quia nemo dat quod non habet sicut in naturalibus ubi forma transfundit seipsam Ergo non Sacerdotis non est ordinare in Sacerdotem sed hoc pertinet ad Sacerdotem qui habet formam illam in actu potentem transfundere seipsam Vnde Papa non posseâ— Ordines committere nisi Sacerdoti ut Diacono vel Laico Potest autem committere cuicunque Sacerdoti Ergo videtur quod conferre Ordines sit pertinens ad Sacerdotem Probo Quia Pone quod sit Sacerdos omni alio circumscripto potest Papa committere â—i Ordines Pone autem alia omnia circumscribe Sacerdotium non poterit Papa committere potestatem Ordinandi Hoc videtur satis rationale quia omnis forma ex quo est in actu videtur quod possit se communicare infra eandem speciem apud Capreolum est in eandem speciem ergo Sacerdos hoc modo quantum est ex potestate sibi conveniente absolutè poterit Ordines celebrare Ergo si potestas â—lla modo sit impedita sicut est de facto impedimentum removeatur per hoc quod fit Episcopus Non datur â—i Nova potestas sed tantummodo pristina potestas prius impedita reducitur ad usum impedimento remoto haec reductio illius potestatis ad usum dicitur ampliatio potestatis Hac Aureolus From these two arguments and the quotations alledged we may safely gather these conclusions 1. That there was a time when Presbyters did govern by Common Councel and did Ordain without Bishops So saith Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam Ordinabant Sacerdotes 2. That whole Nations have been converted to the faith and governed for hundreds of years without Bishops This Conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel Sect. 3. de Ordinationibus where he tells us That Ioannes Major de gestis Scotorum lib. 2. cap. 2. saith Per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi That Ioannes Fordonius saith Ante Palladiâ— adventum habâ—bant Scoti fidei Doctoros ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodò vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesia Primitivae The Scots were Christians 220. years and more without Episcopal Government The like he proves of the Gothes and French For brevity sake we refer the Reader to the Author himself 3. That in Aegypt when the Bishop was absent Presbyters did consecrate 4. That in Alexandria for almost 200. years the Presbyters constituted and Ordained their Bishop 5. That though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in Ordaining was restrained yet it was the judgment of Antiquity That every Presbyter hath actum primum and an inward power to Ordain and that though his power was impedited by the Canons yet it was not utterly extinguished 6. That when a Presbyter is made a Bishop he hath no new power conferred upon him but onely his former restraints and impediments are removed as saith Aureolus 7. That the Chorâ—piscopi for a certain space did Ordain of their own authority without receiving authority from the Bishop Afterwards though they were meer Presbyters yet notwithstanding by the leave of Councels had liberty with the Bishops licence to Ordain 8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to Ordain From whence saith Dr. Forbes it evidently followeth
Ordinationem quae per solos Presbyteroâ— peragitur non esse de jurâ— divino invalidam neque Ordinationâ—m esse de jure Divino ita propriam Episcoporum ut non possit validè peragi per solos Presbyteros That is That Ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by Divine right invalid neither is Ordination so proper by Divine right to a Bishop that it may not be done even in the opinion of Papists themselves by Presbyters alone For otherwise the Pope could not commit Ordination unto Presbyters For Bellâ—rmine saith expresly In jure Divino non potest Papa dispensare The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine right And Aureolus saith Ea quae sunt Ordinum omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quod in potestâ—te nullius imò nec Papae est illâ— auferre qua sunt autem jurisdictionis potest ea Pâ—pa suspendere Now then from hence we may argue That which by divine authority is to be done onely by Bishops that neither Bishops nor Councels nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops Nam in jure Divino Papa non potest dispensare But according to the Judgment and practise of Antiquity The Pope may give the liberty and power of Ordaining to Presbâ—ters that are not Bishops And Bishops also may do the like Therefore the liberty and power of Ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops onely but may be lawfully done by others the Papists themselves being Judges And so much for our fourth Proposition Proposition 5. THat when Hierome saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ— Ordinatione This passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought That Ordination was by Divine right appropriated to Bishops and not to Presbyters as Bishop Bilson saith For in the very same Epistle he tells us That by divine right a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one And that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters Ordained their Bishop But he must bâ— understood of the practise of the Church in his dayes and his meaning iâ— Quid facit Episcopus secundum Canoâ—â—s Ecclesia quad non facit Presbyteâ— excepta Ordinatione Proposition 6. THat when Ischyras was deposed from being a Presbyter because madâ— by Colluâ—hus that was but a Presbyter himself and not a Bishop This was done not because the act of Colluâ—â—us was against the Canon of thâ— Scriptures but onely because it was against the Canons of some Councelâ— Thuâ— Dr. Fiâ—ld answereth Whereas saith he The Fathers make all such Ordinations void 〈◊〉 are made by Presbyters it is to be understood according to the strictnesse of the Canon in use in their time and not absolutely in the nâ—ture of the thing which appears in that they likewise make all Ordinations sine titulo to be void All Ordinationâ— of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane All Ordinations of Presbyterâ— by Bishops out of their own Churches without leave Whereas I am well assured The Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault Thus far Dr. Field But now whether the Church in thâ—se dayes did well or no in restraining that by their Canons which the Canons of the Scripture hath left free we leave it to all sober Christians to judge and determine Proposition 7. THat Aâ—rius was never condemned by any Councel oâ— heresie for holding the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter But on the contrary Concil Aquisgranens sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1â— an 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge We confesse That he is called an heretick by Epiphanius and Austinâ— but this was especially if not onely because he was an Arrian Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austine saith That he did in Arrianorum haeresin labi But as for his opinion That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter Austine indeed calls it proprium dogma And Epiphanius calls it dogma furiosum stolidum But neither of them both call it an Heresie But suppose they did for so it is commonly thought yet that this was the private opinion of these two Doctors and not much to be regarded appears 1. Because as Smectymâ—uus hath well observed the same Authors condemn Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring praying and offering for the dead and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead Epiphanius accused him because he said that superstitum preces did not opitulari â—is qui ex hâ—c vita discesserunt And Austine accused Aerius because he said Non licet orare vel offerrâ— pro mortuis oblationem He is further condemned for reprehending stata jejunia and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast. Which things if worthy of condemnation would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresie and would make most of our Episcopal men themselves Hereticks 2. Because not onely Saint Hierome but Austine himself Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aërius as Michael Medina observes in the Councel of Trent and hath written lib. 1. de Sacr. hom origin and yet none of these do deserve the name of fooles and mad men much lesse to be branded for hereticks Adde to this That Alphonsus de Castro advers haeres Titul Episcopus saith That Hierome was of the same opinion with Aërius And our learned Professor Dr. Whitakers resp ad Campian rat 10. hath these words Aâ—rium Epiphanius Augustinus in haereticis nume ant praeter eos antiqui pauci Et si Presbyterum Episcopo aequare sit haereticum nihil Catholicum esse potest Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino sensit Illos enim jure divino Episcopis aequales esse statuit This is sufficient to answer the objection about Aerius Proposition 8. THat even many if not most of those that hold Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination to be divini juris yet as we in charity believe they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary â—n the Church of Christ But they say That those Churchâ—â— are true Churches that want Bishops and those Ministers true Ministers who are Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Thus Bishop Downame in his consecr Sermon professeth pag. 92. not so to maintain the calling of Bishops to be Divini juris as intending thereby a general and perpetual necessity thereof And afterwards in his defence Though ordinary right of Ordination belongeth to Bishopâ— in the Judgment of the ancient Church yet it was not to be understood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in case of
necessity it might not be lawful for Presbyters to Ordain and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the Ordination which is performed without a Bishop which answer I confirmed by divers reasons see them whereunto I now adde That there seemeth to be the like reasons for the imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publick penitents as in the Ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserved as well as the third to the Bishop yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want and absence of the Bishop the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose hands either for confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose upon Eph. 4. and Austin qu. ex Vet. Nov. Test. mixt qu. 101. The latter by Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 17. and divers Councels Concil Carthag graec cap. 43. Carth. 2. cap. 4. Concil Araâ—sic cap. 2. And the Popish Writâ—rs themselves do teach that the Pope may give license to him that is not a Bishop to Ordain so that he to whom such licence is given have those Orders himself which he would give to another Summa Angel ordo c. If therefore by the Popes license a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is devolved be authorized by necessity which as they say hath no law So far B. Downame Thus also Mr. Francis Mason If by jure Divino you mean That which is according to Scripture then the preeminence of Bishops is jure Divino But if by jure Divinâ— you understand a law and commandement of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure Divino And no doubt it were a most cruel and unmerciful opinion so to cry up Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination as to condemn all the reformed Churches of France Scotland Holland Helvetia c. as no Churches and their Ministers as no Ministers and their Sacraments as no Sacraments But we shall say no more of this Proposition because there is a Reverend Minister hath spoken largely to it and hath proved That it was the opinion of Dr. Field B. Downame B. Iewell Saravia B. Alley B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel and divers others That Ordination by Presbyters in some cases is lawful and valid and hath also fully and excellently discovered the woful and unsufferable miseries and mischiefs that would flow from the contrary assertion To him we refer the Reader that desires to be further satisfied herein We shall name but one Proposition more and then we have done Proposition 9. THat our Episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the Presbyterianâ— in all their writingâ— for walking contrary to Antiquity in the matter of Ordination do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name if we did desire to recriminate We will instance only in two 1. The ancient Bishops would do nothing without their Presbyters Cyprian professeth he would do nothing without the Clergy he could do nothing without them nay he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all The fourth Councel of Carthage condemâ—s the sentence of the Bishop as irrita nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur The Church had itâ— Seniores sine quorum consâ—lio nihil agâ—batur in Ecclesiâ There are a multitude of quotations of this nature which we might transcribe out of D. Blondâ—â— and Smectymnuus but we forbear Now how contrary our Episcopal men walk to this practise iâ— sufficiently manifest to all the Christian world 2. D. Blondel that great Antiquary undertakes in a very long discourse to make it out That for 1200. yeares the people had free liberty in the choyce of their Bishops he proves it by undoubted Authors in all the several Countries And Cyprian tells us That this power did descend upon the people de Divina Authoritate And yet our Brethren in their practise go quite Antipodes to this part of Antiquity and would be loath to be charged with the black brand of Innovators and despisers of all Antiquity for so doing And therefore let them not accuse us for walking contrary to Antiquity when as we are sure that we walk agreeably unto the Scriptures and to the first and purest Antiquity but consider how deeply and how justly they themselves may be charged with this guilt ANd thus we have finished all that we thought fit to adde concerning the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Church in the point of Episcopacy Not that we intend to be finally concluded by the determination of Apostolical Traditions unwritten or by the Fathers or Canons of the Church in this great Controversie For though we are amongst the number of those that do much reverence Antiquity yet we do not Idolize it For we know that the Ancient Church was much beguiled in receiving many things as Traditions Apostolical which are confessed by all to have been Apocryphal Irenaeus tells us that S. Iohn told those that told him That Christ lived here upon earth and preached ultra quadragesimum aut etiam quinquagesimum annum beyond 40. or 50. years which to be a counterfeit Tradition will be by none denyed The Bishops of Asia in Victor's time who was Bishop of Rome celebrated the Christian Passeover or the Feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moneth according â—s the Jewes were commanded to eat their Passeover This they did as a received Tradition not onely from Polycarpe but from S. Iohn himself But now on the contrary the Bishops of the Western Churches kept it upon the day of Christ's Resurrection which they did from a Tradition received from S. Peter Now sure we are that both of these cannot be true And as for the Ancient Fathers though they were famouâ— Lights in the Church yet they have their Naevâ—s and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their writings are much defaced by the Popish Index Expurgatorius A learned Gentleman undertakes in a short Epistle to make out Their Contradictions one to another Their variance from themselves Their Repugnancies both to Protestants and Papists Their want of ability in many points of our Controversies in most of will to decide them And therefore we appeal from men to God from the Canons of the Fatherâ— to the Canons of the Holy Scriptures as the onely infallible Judge of this and all other Controversies of Religion We say with the Prophet Ad Legem Testimonium To the Law and to thâ— Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them And yet we have spoken something