Council of Chalcedon observed Can. 3. forbids Ministers to take Farms or Stewardships and to intermeddle with Secular Affairs Can. 7. is against the Clergies medling with Military Affairs or receiving Secular Honours upon pain of Excommunication Booted Prelates and Spiritual Lords would have look'd strange in this Age. One of the Methods which Iulian the Apostate used to corrupt the Clergy was to make Senators and Ministers of State of them That Politick Enemy of Christianity knew well enough how inconsistent worldly Greatness and Dominion would be with that humble Mortification and vigorous Application which the Gospel requires He that had been a READER in the Church before he came to the Empire could not be ignorant of that Precept of our Saviour to his Apostles Matth. 20. 25 26. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them but it shall not be so among you Can. 10. Deposeth all obstinate Pluralists This Canon if executed would bear hard upon our Gigantick Pluralists that heap Pelion upon Ossa Steeple upon Steeple as if they would mount to Heaven from the Pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Promotions I only produce these Canons ad hominem to shew how unreasonable 't is to urge old Canons against Ordinations by Presbyters when they may be equally urged against Episcopal Ordinations We judge it more ingenuous to disown their Authority over us as being made by such as had no power to give Universal Laws to the Church then pretend Submission to them as they do who act in open Contradiction to them If then it be a Crime not to observe the Canons let them that are without Canonical Guilt cast the first Stone Object 2. Your Ordinations are not by such Diocesans as have uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles Answ. 1. This is the triumphing Argument of the Papists against the first Reformers They peremptorily deny the validity of their Ordinations because they wanted this Succession It is urged by Bellarmine De Sacram. Ordinis cap. 2. and by Gretzer against Luther Ep. Dedic praefix Operibus ejus The same Argument is used by Parsons the supposed Author of the Three Conversions of England part 2. cap. 10. and by Stapleton Rel. cap. 1. q. 4. art 2. as also by Arnoux the Jesuit in Moulin's Buckler p. 274 275. Turrian the Jesuite writ a great Book de Ordinationibus Ministrorum Ecclesiae against the Ordinations in Protestant Churches The Sum of all his Arguments is this of the Succession which we find gathered up in this Syllogism by M. Sadeel All lawful Ordinations depend upon an Ordinary Succession of Bishops under the Roman Pontiff the visible Head of the whole Church but no Protestant Ordinations are such therefore no Protestant Ordinations are lawful but they are void null and meerly Laic This Argument is exactly the same that is used against our Ordinations but with this Addition That the Pope is put at the top of the Line of Succession which adds no great Reputation to it 2. This Argument of the Succession is at large refuted by our Prosestant Writers Sadeel calls it praecipuum adversariorum Argumentum he challenges them to produce some Scripture to confirm it by Several Testimonies of the Ancients are cited by him that the Succession they plead for is a Succession of Doctrine and not of Persons which Succession of Doctrine failing in the Romish Church the other Succession of Persons is a meer useless Carcass These offensive Carcasses of Popish Bishops are animated by some to propagate a Generation of immortal Successors He further proves that the Ordinary Succession of Ministers may be interrupted by Scripture-Examples as when the Priesthood was taken away from the House of Ely to whom a Promise of perpetual Succession was made 1 Sam. 2. 30. And under the Kings of Israel God raised up Elijah to preach Repentance to them though he was not ex Sacerdotum Ordine Nay Christ himself coming to reform his Church chose unto himself Apostles not from the Priests but from other Families He did not observe the Ordinary Succession in the Reformation of the Church To which I may add That the Roman Governours set up and deposed what High Priests they pleased in the Jewish Church without regard to Lineal Succession Iosephus gives many Instances of this kind Vide lib. 15. c. 2. If ever an uninterrupted Succession were necessary to the being of a Church it must be in the Jewish Priesthood which was entailed upon one Family but the Church remained a true Church though the regular Succession was destroyed To the same effect speaks holy Mr. Bradford the Martyr to Dr. Harpsfield You shall not find saith he in all the Scripture this your essential part of Succession of Bishops In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit Dr. Fulk saith If the Truth of Doctrine be necessary to prove a true Church the Scriptures are sufficient to prove a true Church with lawful Succession also Dr. Field is of the same Judgment in this Point Field of the Church II. 6. III. 39. Mr. Perkins distinguisheth of a threefold Succession The first of Persons and Doctrines in the primitive Church The second of Persons alone among Infidels and Hereticks The third of Doctrine alone And thus our Ministers saith he succeed the Apostles and this is sufficient For this Rule must be remembred that the power of the Keys that of Order and Iurisdiction is tied by God and annext in the New Testament to Doctrine Dr. White largely confutes this pretended Succession in his defence of the way to the true Church So doth his Brother Mr. Francis White Thus we see the vanity of this pretended Succession who they be that maintain it and who are the Opposers of it It 's one of the Pillars of the Popish Church which supports that tottering Fabrick The Arguments against our Ordination must needs be very defective when no other can be found but those which the Jesuits urge against all Protestant Ordinations It 's an ill Cause that must be defended by Weapons borrowed out of their Tents Is there no Sword in Israel that you go to the Philistines to sharpen your Goads 3. The violent Assertors and Defendants of this Opinion little consider that by this Hypothesis there can be no true Ministers in the Church of England for it 's certain the Chain of Succession pleaded for hath been broken again and again One Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain All our Bishops as such derive their Succession from Rome Now if we can find any Interruption in the Succession of Bishops there it Nullifies all the Administrations of those that depend upon them If the Pope succeeds Peter as Darkness doth Light if he who calls himself Christ's Vicar proves to be the Antichrist if many Popes were Hereticks Sodomites Idolaters Conjurers Whoremongers Murderers c. as some of their own Authors affirm if there were two or three Popes at a time and if they were
Notion of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy as a superiour Order was first promoted in the Church of England by Arch-Bishop Laud. Dr. Holland the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxon was much offended with Dr. Laud for asserting it in a Disputation for his Degrees he checked him publickly and told him He was a Schismatick and went about to make a division between the English and other Reformed Churches This Prelate had inured his Tongue to say Ecclesia Romana and Turba Genevensis Cressy who apostatized to the Romish Church conceives that the reason why Episcopacy took no firm rooting in the Consciences of English Subjects before Archbishop Lauds time was because the Succession and Authority of Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Orders received from the Roman Church was never confidently and generally taught in England to be of Divine Right His Disciples since have rectified that Errour by obliging all the Conforming Ministers to subscribe That Episcopacy is a distinct Order and that it is manifest in God's Word that it is so This goes beyond the determination of the Council of Trent And to make the Fabrick lasting which was built upon this new Foundation all Ministers must be sworn to support it and that they will not remove one Stone out of the Building by any endeavours to alter the Government as established in Church and State The Substance of this Oath as it relates to Ecclesiastical Government is the same with the c. Oath which was imposed in the year 1640. only it includes also the Civil Government and requires Passive Obedience and Non-resistance in all Cases whatever which rendred it acceptable to the Powers then in being and gave them incouragement to trample upon Fundamental Laws and Constitutions as presuming upon the security of an Oath that neither they nor any commissioned by them must be resisted upon any pretence whatsoever The Proofs brought for this distinction and superiority of Order are so very weak that scarce two of the Asserters of Episcopacy agree in any one of them No Scripture no primitive General Council no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers no not one Father of note in the first Ages speak particularly and home to this purpose The Point of Re-ordination began to be urged here in Arch-Bishop Laud's time his Influence was such and the Cause then in hand did work so powerfully upon good Bishop Hall himself that he adventured as Mr. Prin tells us to Re-ordain Mr. Iohn Dury though he had been before Ordained in some Reformed Church But from the beginning it was not so The old Church of England did not require Re-ordination as is now done In King Edward the Sixth his time Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and P. Fagius had Ecclesiastical Preferments in the Church of England but Cranmer whose Judgment of Episcopacy we have seen before never required Re-ordination of them He was most familiar with Martyr nether did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might Ordain Iohn à Lasco with his Congregation of Germans was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's Patent he to be Super-intendent and four other Ministers with him and though he wrote against some Orders of our Church was with others called to Reform our Ecclesiastical Laws In Queen Elizabeth's time Ordination by Presbyters was allowed as appears by the Statute of Reformation c. 13 Eliz. cap. 12. It cannot refer to Popish Ordinations only if at all For 1. the words are general Be it enacted that every person which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy Word The Title of Minister of God's holy Word is rarely used among the Papists and in common use among the Reformed Churches The Ministry with the Papists is a real Priesthood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests And it 's an old Maxim Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit 2. The Subscription seems to intend those that scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies which the Papists do not For the assent and subscription required is to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments By this they gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to Subscribe all the Articles absolutely because the Approbation of the Homilies and Book of Consecration were included in them which are no Articles of the Catholick Church but private Articles of the Church of England as Mr. T. Rogers observes Therefore the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments By the way I cannot but take notice of the following Clause in that Statute If any Person Ecclesiastical shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented before the Bishop of the Diocess or the Ordinary or before the Queen's Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical shall persist therein and not revoke his Errour or after such Revocation eftsoons affirm such untrue Doctrine such maintaining or affirming or persisting shall be just cause to deprive such Person of his Ecclesiastical Promotions And it shall be lawful to the Bishop of the Diocess or the said Commissioners to deprive such a Person so persisting and upon such Sentence of Deprivation pronounced he shall be indeed deprived Quaere Whether the Profession of Arminianism be not directly contrary to the Seventeenth Article of Predestination and Election to the Tenth Article of Free-will and to the Thirteenth of Works preparatory to Grace and if so Whether the Guilty do not deserve Deprivation by this Statute The best of it is they are like to meet with favourable Judges who will not be over-strict to mark the Errours of those who do but write after the Copy they have set before them Surely the Case is altered from what it was formerly It was Baro's unhappiness that he lived in a peevish Age for when he delivered himself unwarily in favour of those Opinions the Heads of the University of Cambridge sent up Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Tindal to Arch-Bishop Whitguift that by the interposition of his Authority those Errours might be crushed in the Egg. Hereupon Baro being obnoxious to this Statute was expelled the University and the Lambeth-Articles were made which come nothing short of the Determinations of Dort But tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis But to return from this short digression some that were Ordained by Presbyters were admitted to the Publick Exercise of their Ministry and had Preferment in the Church of England without Re-ordination in Queen Elizabeth's time Mr. William Whittingham was made Dean of Durham about 1563. though Ordained by Presbyters only Mr. Travers Ordained by a Presbytery beyond Sea was Seven years Lecturer in the Temple and had the Bishop of London's Letter for it In his Supplication to the Council printed at the end of Mr. Hooker's Eccl. Polit. he saith One reason why he was Suspended by Arch-Bishop
whether Peter Euodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one and the other Paul At Alexandria where the Succession seems to run clearest the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution as we observed already 7. If there were any certainty in this Succession the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bishops Ignatius saith concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles Irenaeus affirms the same Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Though the truth is when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons but principally of the Succession of Doctrine which the first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable as received from the Apostles Otherwise the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine is no note of a true Church as among the Arians where they had a Succession of Bishops and yet no true Church Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet Atque haec quidem nomen illa vero rem ipsam veritatem habet successionis Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple Object 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy p. 91 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government cap. 13. Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter as he had been formerly Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons it was sine titulo extra fines and nulli vicinorum nota all which Circumstances make it uncanonical Dr. Field saith That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void it 's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age which appears saith he by this that Ordinations sine Titulo were null Conc. Chalc. Can. 6. The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras I am sorry saith he so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Niâ—e made a Canon wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent their Ordination should be null You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter therefore the irregular Bishop and the irregular Presbyter are of the same Order of the same Authority neither able to Ordain Object 4. It is objected out of Ierom Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints and not of Scriptural for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it he confirms it by asking this Question What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour Order the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same As if he would say The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion they are Ambassadors for Christ to preach the Gospel they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper and what doth a Bishop more then these except Ordination which being no Sacrament is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power FINIS Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica England Sicily Malta Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those and divers other Earthquakes by Iohn Shower Earthquakes explained and Practically improved occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea by Tho. Doolittle M.A. The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God and the Prosperity of their Souls by T. Cruso The Christian Laver or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ by T. Cruso Four Sermons on several Occasions by T. Cruso Barbarian Cruelty being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco c. by Francis Brooks The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon by Robert Flemming V. D. M. * Perrin's Hist. p. 53 62. Hist. of the Vaudois c. 3 * Contra Waldens cap. 4. Walsing Hist. p. 339. * Dr. Stillingfl Iren. p. 393. †Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. * CommuniÌ„ Concitio Presbyterorum gubernabatur Ecclesia Hieron ubi supra ad Evagr. ‖ See La Rocque's Conform of Dâ—scipline cap. 1. art 3. Isa. 53. 12. Rom. 8. 36 37. Eph. 4. 11 14. Arg. 1. * 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †Rev. 2. 27 ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 1 Tim 3. Phil. 1. 1. †Acts 20. 17 28. ‖ Acts 14. 21 22 23. * Walt. Praef. de Edit Bib. Polygl p. 30 40. ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17. †1 Pet. 5. 1. Object * Spens contra Bucer Answ. †Acts 20. 28. ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Eph. 4. 11. * Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Object Answ. 1. ‖ Vid. Turr. Sophis inter Sadeel Op. p. 598. * Eph. 4. 11 ‖ Euseb. Hist. 111. 34. * In Eph 4. †1 Tim. 5. 22. ‖ 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. * 1 Tim. 4. 14. †Acts 14. 23. ‖ 1 Tim. 1. 3. 4. 13 14. * 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. †Whitt contr 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16. ‖ Cypr. Ep. 64 68. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. 4. 13. †1 Tim. 5. 13. ‖ 1 Pet. 4. 15. * 2 Tim 4. 9 10 11. †Heb. 13. 23. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * Acts 20. 4 5 6 7 13 14. * Ib. v. 25. †1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1.
into Swords and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency of all the Divisions of Ministers those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification But that which administers just cause of Sorrow is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers if they are but meer Lay-men their Baptism is no Baptism and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism On the other hand some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls the Lord Jesus and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest if not the best part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid but they look upon them as Schismatical where Bishops may be had We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters but about the Charge of Schism which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches who have no Bishops but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities where Bishops may be had as in England Our present Controversie is with these For the stating of the Point in difference we 'l consider 1. Wherein we are agreed 2. Wherein the real difference lies Our Agreement We agree 1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane but of Divine Original It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House 2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time Matth. 28.19 20. 3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word without a lawful Calling or Mission Rom. 10.14 15. Ier. 14.14 Heb. 5.4 4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.21 22. 5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office 6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands and Prayer with Fasting Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22 7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities according to the Rules of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6 7 8 9. In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry whatever more we are fully agreed The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining We say Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is That they are no true Ministers of Christ but Intruders and false Prophets And why so Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities exemplary Conversations and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard who seek not their own things but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers Where lies the defect then why in this they are not Ordained by Bishops They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that have not the Ordaining Power and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself Our Case then in short is this Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's without Diocesan Bishops be valid The Question needs but little Explanation By Ordination I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry By Presbyters I understand Gospel Ministers who are called to the Oversight of Souls and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church By valid I mean not what the Old Canons make so but what the Scriptures determine to be so Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising are the Foundation of our Faith and the infallible Standard by which Truth and Errour must be tried The Question being thus explained I affirm That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters are regularly Ordained and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments CHAP. II Presbyters have power to Ordain because they are Scripture Bishops The Syriac Translation useth not different Names If there be a difference the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians as he doth in other Epistles 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor though he were present 6. He did not reside at Ephesus 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church but a Parochial or Congregational The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches from
all the Counsel of God How can this be when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Successor If Ministry and Churches depend upon this Succession 't was no small part of the Counsel of God to be declar'd unto them He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more Whether he did see them again or no is not material to the point 'T is certain he thought he should not how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd to defend them against those Wolves that should enter after his departure The reason is obvious he thought the Presbyters of Ephesus fit for this undertaking without a superior Bishop Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Successor but the first Epistle to Timothy upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built was written before this time therefore no power given him in that Epistle can prove him to be a Bishop That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome when he went to Macedonia is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall though he was a zealous Defender of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy Of this Opinion is Athanasius Theodoret Baronius Ludov. Capellus Grotius Hammond Lightfoot Cary c. VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him how comes he to be absent from Ephesus when Paul writ the second Epistle to him was Timothy a Non-resident Bishop Paul sends Tychicus to Ephesus with an Epistle to the Church there but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord Eph. 6. 21 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him when he is supposed to be Bishop there even when the second Epistle was written to him 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say it was to receive his dying words must prove it The Apostle gives another reason 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. that he had only Luke with him of all his Companions and therefore desires him to come to him and to bring Mark with him as being profitable to him for the Ministry He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. from his supposed Bishoprick of Creet and was he to receive his dying words there also about fourteen years before his death for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf harm Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay how comes the Apostle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also I question whether Non-residency was allowed of much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be It is true some of the Fathers say they were Bishops of those places But it 's considerable that Eusebius saith no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus He doth not affirm it Theodoret calls him ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet few will take them for real Apostles They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome yet many of our Protestant Writers deny it so doth Reynolds against Hart and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy The Fathers and Councils speak of the Officers of former times according to the style of their own To conclude If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species then there were no such in the Apostles times That Timothy was not such we have proved and if Timothy was not no more was Titus whose power and work was the same with Timothy's If the power of Ordination invested in Timothy at Ephesus doth not prove him Bishop there no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there VII But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet it will be no Argument for Diocesan Bishops except the Church of Ephesus and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches which can never be proved Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes or particular Congregations under the conduct of their proper Presbyters which were all subject to Timothy as their Bishop This must be proved or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be impertinent to the present Case Nay there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place That Church had but one Altar at which the whole Congregation ordinarily received the Lord's Supper in Ignatius his time which was many years after Timothy's death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God and for praise for when you often come into one place the powers of Satan are destroyed c. I render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place as our English Translators do Acts 2. 1. He saith also ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He therefore that cometh not to the same place is proud and condemneth himself In his Epistle to the Magnesians he mentions one Altar which further explains his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all of you come together as into the Temple of God as unto one Altar The meaning of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare To be intra Altare is to be in Church Communion to be extra Altare is to be without The Bishop of Salisbury doth acknowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church his words are these By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles especially that to Smyrna it would appear that there was but one Church at least but one place where there was but one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes which was the Bishops whole Charge And if so then the Church of Ephesus to whom he directed one of his Epistles was of no larger extent except we imagine it was decreased in Ignatius's time from what it was in Timothy's days which is absurd The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age then they were in the Apostles time And yet we find in the beginning of the fourth Century the Believers in greater Cities then Ephesus were no more then could meet in one place or in two at the most For Constantine the Great thought two Temples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople the one he called the Temple of the Apostles Vt doceret Scripturas Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum in Templis praedicandas esse the other he called the Temple of Peace
the Church of England the Ceremonies iâ— seems being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity That Charity which â— King of the Roman Communion impower'd them to receive though of another Religion was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion â—â— they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them as being Natives of another Kingdom and no way subject to our Constitution See the first Brief for the French Protestants Besides that the French Ministers hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times â—â— there be occasion and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle 4. We may judge of the forreigâ— Churches by their Confessions which are the most Authentick Testimony oâ— their sense about Episcopacy The French Confession asserts an equality of Power â—n all Pastors Credimus omnes Pastores â—bicunque collocati sint eâdem aequali â—otestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno â—llo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable because no Man is â—o be Ordained a Minister or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches â—ut he must subscribe the Publick Conâ—ession of their Faith and also the Constitutions agreed on at Paris commonly known by the name of their Discipline See Durel p. 52. La Rocque's Conformity of the French Discipline cap. 1. art â— cap. 3. art 1. The Dutch Confession speaks the â—ame thing Caeterum ubicunque locoâ—um sint Verbi Dei Ministri eandem atâ—ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem â—um authoritatem qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri By readâ—ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort I â—nd that Session 144. notice was given â—hat it was the will of the States that â—he Belgick Confession of Faith should â—e read and examined by the Synod the Exteri being also present Upon the reading of this 31 Article that asserts the parity of Ministers the Bishop of Landaff in his Name and the Name of his Brethren made open Protestation That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point No dislike was shewn to this Article asserting the parity of Ministers by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops nor desire them for they make all Ministers equal CHAP. V. Our Ordination better then that of Rome which is accounted valid in the Church of England because in Roman Ordinations 1. Their Ordainers are incapable as wanting Scriptural and Canonical Qualifications 2. The manner of Ordaining grosly Superstitious and Vnscriptural 3. The Ordained not Elected by the People Sworn to the Pope 4. Their Office Idolatrous Their Ordinations are by Bishops ours without answered THAT Ordination which is better then that of the Church of Rome is valid but Ordination by meer Presbyters is much better then that of the Church of Rome Therefore 't is valid The Major will not be denied by the Church of England because she owns the Ordination of the Church of Rome and doth not re-ordain their Priests The Minor I prove Ordination by Presbyters is better then the Ordinations of Rome because in the Church of Rome I. The Ordainers are incapable and that upon these Accounts 1. They have not Scriptural Qualifications Paul's Bishop must be found in the Faith Popish ordaining Bishops are studious Maintainers of corrupt Doctrine and Enemies to the Faith as is acknowledg'd by all Orthodox Protestants Paul's Bishop must be apt to teach Popish Bishops are for the most part illiterate unpreaching Prelates and justified herein by their own Writers Paul's Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife Popish Bishops forbid to marry and yet allow Fornication Paul's Bishop must be a lover of good men Popish Prelates are not such for they mortally hate the sincere Professors of the Gospel and are all sworn to contribute their Endeavours for their Extirpation under the Notion of Hereticks The words of the Oath are these Haereticos Schismaticos Rebelles eidem Domino nostro Papae vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar impugnabo i.e. I A. B. do swear that I will to the utmost of my endeavour prosecute and destroy all Hereticks Schismaticks and all other Opposers of our Soveraign Lord the Pope and his Successors Shall the sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Ministers of Christ and the Ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no Ministers Tell it not in Gath publish it not in the streets of Askelon lest the uncircumcised triumph But I proceed A Bishop indeed must be a Pattern of Humility and Self-denial to the Flock Romish Bishops are Lords over God's Heritage have Dominion over their Faith and bind them to blind Obedience Now if the Ordinations of such usurping Monsters as these that have nothing but the empty name of Bishops be valid as the Church of England saith they are how much more are the Ordinations of Orthodox faithful Gospel Ministers or Bishops to be judg'd lawful Can any thing be more absurd then that the Ministers of Antichrist should make true Ministers and the Ministers of Christ make false Prophets by one and the same Ordaining Act. It 's the received Doctrine of the Church of England that the Pope is Antichrist See Homily against Idolatry part 3. p. 69. and the sixth part of the Sermon against Rebellion p. 316. 2. They derive their Power from the Pope who hath no right to the Universal Headship either from Scripture or true Antiquity The very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Christ and consequently is a most Treasonable Usurpation II. The manner of their Ordaining is Unscriptural and Superstitious They ascend to the Priesthood by several Steps or Degrees which have no footsteps in the Sacred Writings They make them 1. Ostiarij or Door-keepers whose Office is to ring the Bell to open the Church-Vestry and the Priest's Book Espencaeus a Popish Writer sheweth out of Chrysostom that it belong'd to the Office of a Deacon to admit into the Church and shut out Then 2. they make them Lectores Readers whose work is to read and sing the Lessons and to bless the Bread and all the first Fruits In the primitive Church this was not a distinct Office for in some places 't was the Office of a Deacon in some of the Minister and in some it belonged to the Bishops to read the Scriptures especially on Festivals 3. The next step is that of Exorcists whose pretended Office is to cast out Devils in a feigned imitation of the miraculous Operations
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine Opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
doth not prejudice our Cause for the Canon limits the power of Confirmation as well as Ordination to the Bishop as was also the power of Consecrating Churches if any should take the word in that sense We may understand the meaning by a parallel place of Hilary in Ambrose who thus speaks Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta nam Timotheum 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet Denique apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Sed quia caeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum nè indignus temerè usurparet esset multis scandalum The same Author saith also in Tim. 3. post Episcopum Diaconi Ordinem subjicit Quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est Here note 1. That the Ordination in Hilary's time did not in all things agree with the Writings of the Apostle That he speaks of the Ordination of Ministers is evident by the following words Presbyterum à se creatum c. 2. At first Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and Office and had but one Odination Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est which shews the meaning of Ordinatio in the former Paragraph The Bishop in Hilary's time which was about the Year 380 under Damasus was but primus Sacerdos and not of a superiour Order Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Apostolus Matth. 10. 2. and yet Protestants hold all the Apostles to be equal 3. Spalatensis infers from this quotation That at the beginning when a Bishop died there was not so much as an Election of him that was to succeed much less any new Ordination but the eldest Presbyter came into the room of the deceased Bishop See the Preface to Blondel's Apology p. 11. 31. 4. There was a Change in the way of choosing their Bishop ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum and this was prospiciente Concilio whether that Council was the Council of Nice Can. 4. as Blondel thinks for it should seem that before that time neither the Consent of the Bishops of the Province nor the Concurrence of three Bishops in Ordination were accounted necessary for the making of a Bishop though it might be the Custom for the keeping up of Unity in some places Or whether it signifies no more then that which Ierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum the Bench of Presbyters who might make this Change by general Consent Multorum Sacerdotum judicio as Hilarius speaks Or whether it were some Council of which we have no further account in Antiquity most of the Records of the three first Centuries being lost is not very material It might be some Provincial Synod of which there were several before that of Nice It is presumption in us that live at this distance to say there was no such Council when an Ancient Writer so positively affirmeth it Such a Change there was and that by the advice of some Council they that say there was no such Council must disprove it by some positive Authentick Testimony 5. After this Change the Presbyters chose and made their Bishop For so Hilarius affirms him to be multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum 6. He adds that in Egypt Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus He speaks in the foregoing words of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and he brings this as a Confirmation of it that in the absence of the Bishop they might do those things which Custom had appropriated to the Bishops Consignare is some Act of Prerogative that the Bishops challenged to themselves which yet in their absence the Presbyters might perform Whether we understand it of Ordination or Confirmation in which they did Chrysmate consignare it 's not material for both were reserved to the Bishop by the Canons Though by comparing this with the scope of Hilary's Discoarse and with the quotation out of the Questions under Austin's Name Si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter it should seem evidently meant of Ordination especially when we find consignare to be taken for consecrare in several Authors Arnob. lib. 3. Cypr. Ep. 2. Tu tantum quem jà m Spiritalibus castris coelestis militia signavit VIII Pelagius the first Bishop of Rome was Ordained by Iohn Bishop of Perusia Bonus Bishop of Florence and Andreas Presbyter de Hostia whereas by the Canons three Bishops are absolutely necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop Either then Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and the Succession was interrupted in the Church of Rome and consequently the English Bishops have no Canonical Succession or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination with a Bishop but it 's only restrained by Ecclesiastical Laws This Instance is quoted in Dr. Stillingfl Iren. IX The Chorepiscopi or Country-Bishops Ordained Presbyters until they were restrained by a Canon in the Council of Antioch A. D. 344. Now these Chorepiscopi were either of the Order of Bishops or not If they were then it appears that Bishops were made not only in Cities but in Country Villages which were but thinly peopled with Christians when the Majority were Heathens or at least were great numbers By which we may guess at the bigness of primitive Diocesses which were scarce as large as our lesser Parishes Such Bishops in the Exercise of that power which Christ gave them without Canonical Restraints we plead for and earnestly desire Nay the Chorepiscopi are an Instance of Bishops without subject Presbyters they were but Parish-Bishops under the City-Bishop Sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochia Chorepiscopis non licet aliquid agere But if they were not Bishops then it 's undeniable that Presbyters did Ordain then without Bishops and their Ordination was valid until they were limited by the Canons The second Council of Hispalis makes the Chorepiscopi and Presbyters to be the same As to Bellarmine's conceit of two sorts of Choral Bishops some meer Presbyters others veri nominis Episcopi he is answered at large by Forbes in his Irenic c. 11. X. The Histories of Scotland do tell us that their Churches were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for above two hundred years and therefore had no Ordination but by Presbyters Hector Boetius saith Ante Palladium populi Suffragiis ex Monachis Culdaeis pontifices assumerentur Hist. Scot. lib. 7. fol. 28. Iohn Major is more express Prioribus illis temporibus per Sacerdotes
rather Apostatical then Apostolical for fifty years together as their own Baronius confesseth what becomes of the pretended Line of Succession If none of these things can infringe it what can We may as rationally affirm that a Dog may generate a Man as that the Man of God may be the Off-spring of the Man of Sin I doubt not but Christ had his Ministers in the darkest Ages of the Church but not by virtue of this Succession in debate 4. Nay this Principle destroys all Churches in the World For there 's no Church this day can produce such a Testimonial of Succession as hath met with no Canonical Interruption They that bid fairest for it are the Greek Churches the Latine and the African Churches and all of them derive the Succession from the same Source making Peter the Head of it The Greeks produce a large Catalogue of Patriarchs proceeding from Peter until the time of Neophytus who not many years ago held the See at Constantinople The Christians of Affrica especially the Habassines who are the most considerable among them derive their Succession from the Patriarch of Alexandria and he from Mark and Peter The Western Churches also derive the Succession from the same Spring Thus we have the most considerable Sects of Christians in the World deriving their Claim from one and the same Apostle All would be reputed the Off-spring of the Chief Apostle and glory in their Relation to him It seems Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles who laboured more abundantly then all the rest either left no Successour behind him or no Body knows what is become of him Sic vos non vobis c. Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision must be the Universal Head of all the Gentile-Churches and Paul with the rest of the Apostles must be written Childless or be the Progenitors of such an Off-spring that is long ago extinct or so very obscure that their Names are written in the Dust. But how comes Peter to Canton his Bishoprick into three Parts and to leave three Successors behind him By the same Rule every Bishop must have more Successors then one three at least and each of them as many and so forward until Bishopricks be crumbled into Parochial Churches and the Patrimony of Peter by an Apostolical Gavel kind be equally divided between his Parochial Successors But the unhappiness of it is the three Patriarchal Successors cannot agree about the divided Inheritance The eldest Brother for so the Pope of Rome reckons himself Condemns the two others as spurious and Claims to himself the Universal Inheritance His Advocate Bellarmine expresly affirms Non posse ostendi in Ecclesiâ Graecâ Successionem He adds We see that the other Apostolick Sees are decay'd and fail'd viz. those of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem wherein after that those places were taken away from the Romans by the Persians and Saracens since which time there are nine hundred years past there hath been no Succession and if there were any the same was very obscure Stapleton also saith of the Greek Church That she hath no Legitimate Succession The Greek Churches on the other hand condemn the Roman Succession Primi qui seriò primatum Romanum Pontificis oppugnarunt videntur fuisse Graeci saith Bellarmine Barlaam the Monk thus attacks the Roman Succession What Law saith he obligeth us to reckon the Bishop of Rome Peter's only Successor that must rule all the rest and why may not the Bishop of Alexandria be accouted Peter's Successor and so challenge the Supremacy for as Clemens was made Bishop of Rome so was Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria He strikes at the Head of the Succession and denies Peter to have been Bishop of Rome as many of our Protestant Writers have done If therefore a Man would know the true Church by Personal Succession 't is difficult to know what part to take especially considering that of all the pretended Successions the Roman from which the English Prelacy derives it self is most suspicious as being often interrupted by Simony Heresie and Schism Pope Eugenius the Fourth was deposed by the General Council of Basil and pronounced Heretick and Schismatick with all his Adherents yet he retains the Papal Authority against the Judgment of that Council Cardinals and Bishops were Instituted by him 5. By this Principle no Man can know himself to be a Minister of Christ. Can any Man know that all the Predecessors of that Bishop that Ordained him were Canonical Bishops that none of them came in by Simony or err'd in the Fundamentals so as to be guilty of Heresie that none of them lost their Authority by involving themselves in Secular and Publick Administrations or by neglecting to instruct their Flocks or by being Ordained by a Bishop without the reach of his own Jurisdiction These things make Canonical Nullities Can any Man know who was the Bishop that was the Root of his Succession A great part of the Christian World is uncertain what Apostles did first Convert their particular Countries which were it known would not yet resolve the Point Conscience will not be satisfied with saying Let others disprove my Succession It must have positive Grounds of Satisfaction that I am a true Minister of Christ. So that this Notion serves only to perplex Ministers and People with insuperable difficulties about their acceptance with God and to leave Christianity it self upon such precarious Foundations as will be in the power of every Critick in Church-History to shake if not to overturn How is it possible That plain illiterate People should know this Succession which is learnt only by reading of the Greek and Latine Fathers the length and obscurity of which wearieth the wisest Men and which oftentimes contradict themselves Ought not the Consciences of the meanest to be satisfied in the Call of their Ministers Must they act in a Matter of so great importance by an Implicit Faith What Rule shall they judge by not by the Line of Succession that will but lead them into an inextricable Labyrinth Our Saviour hath left us a better Rule By their Fruits ye shall know them 6. Let it be further considered That the Catalogues that are brought by some of the Ancients of the Successors of the Apostles were made by Conjecture Nor is this Succession so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing intended A List would be expected of Apostolical Successors not only in the Great Patriarchal Churches but in all others planted by the Apostles as Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the Seven Churches of Asia and not only at Ephesus which has not been yet produced Though in the Patriarchal Churches the beginning of the Line is as obscure as the Head of Nilus At Rome 't is not certain whether Linus Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckon'd first And as for Antioch 't is far from being agreed
the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said Do the work of a Bishop would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Episcopal Power Who could do the Work of a Bishop but a Bishop In like manner we say None can do the work of an Evangelist but an Evangelist Evangelists were extraordinary Officers above Pastors and Teachers The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by Eusebius They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word of Faith they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures or dain'd Pastors committed to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church and they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass over unto other Countries and Nations With whom agrees Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Learned Prelate of the Church of England conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles the Presbyters to succeed the Prophets and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists and if so the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Ordaining Power for Timothy an Evangelist assumed it whose Successors they are If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Divinum of English Episcopacy Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him Lâ—y hands on no man suddenly Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him It may as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him for the Apostle bids him be instant in season and out of season in preaching the Word If it be said Preaching is common to Presbyters but so is not Ordination it 's gratis dictum and a begging of the Question Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise He did not assume the power of Ordination into his own hands but takes the Presbytery with him He joyned Barnabas with him if not others in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there for Paul did not injoyn him to be resident there but besought him to abide there till he came which he intended shortly to do The Apostle sent him to Corinth Philippi Thessalonica furnished without doubt with the same powers which he had at Ephesus otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Churches and was he Bishop of these places also Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episcopal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation c. which Dr. Whittaker Divinity Professor in Cambridge undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters his words are these Ex Apostoli mente According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Accusation is to acquaint the Church with the Crime Which not only Superiors but Equals yea and Inferiors also may do The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bishop are they therefore Superior to him Cyprian writes to Epictetus and the People of Assura not to admit Fortunatianus to be Bishop again because he had denied the Faith He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols III. When Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus where we find several Presbyter-Bishops before what became of them were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters that they must no more Ordain or Govern but be subject to Timothy 'T was thought no small punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form and 't was for some notorious Crime What Crime were these guilty of IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor and so not subject to him any more how comes he to promise to come shortly to Ephesus himself What had Paul to do in Ephesus now if he had settled a Successor there and had no power over him or his Church He forbids others to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 busie bodies in other mens matters and would he himself be such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are condemned and shall we make Paul of this number It 's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians long after the first Epistle to Timothy and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches except that to the Galatians It 's a certain Evidence he was neither Bishop there nor Resident there We find him long after this at Rome and invited by the Apostle thither that he might be helpful to him in the Ministry from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Churches of Iudea and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also The truth is he was no fixed Officer in any one place but went up and down sometimes as Paul's Companion sometimes as his Messenger to settle the Churches as other Evangelists did If Non-residency hath such a Patron and Timothy hath taught Men to leave their Churches year after year and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus when the first Epistle was written to him he was none at all for that Epistle is made the Foundation of his Episcopal Power He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there He commits to them the oversight of the Church as the proper Bishops of it without the least mention of Timothy though he was then present The whole Episcopal Power is given to the Presbyters befor their supposed Bishop's face or if he had not been there at that time how comes Paul to be so regardless when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more as not to name his Successor was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy If he had not been qualified for this Office now he might have given the Presbyters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at Ephesus How then comes the Apostle to over-look him and to fix the Government in the Presbyters of that Church He told the Elders of Ephesus at Miletus that he had not spar'd to declare unto them