you that the state of the question is mistaken by too many For it is not whether the word Bishop and the word Presbyter doe in Scriptures signifie one and the same Function not yet whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be of one and the same Order in Scripture But the question rightly stated is this Whether there be an Order in Scripture distinct from the Order of Presbyter and Superiour to that Order 20. To quarrell about names and words had not wont to be the custome of the Church of Christ for plaine it is that we speak not alwaies as the Scripture speakes The Scripture calls i Sacramentum hoc magnum eâ—â— So S. Hierom reads Eph. 5.32 Matrimony a Sacrament if we beleive S Hierom the Latine Fathers from whom we borrow the word Sacrament and yet we call it not so The Scripture never calls Baptisme or the Lords Supper a Sacrament and yet we call them both so and custome hath appropriated that name to them and yet no corrupt custome I hope The reason is because we define a Sacrament to be an outward and visible signe of an inward and spirituall grace given unto us ordained by Christ himselfe 〈◊〉 … ron in 〈…〉 7. as a meanes whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof Now Baptisme and the Lords Supper make good this definition which Matrimouy doth not 21. Neither doth the same word in Scripture signifie alwares the same Office and Order no not in the same place and verse If question be made whether there were but one High-Priest at one time in the Iewish Church we answer positively but one That is but one strictly and properly so called And yet we find many High-Priests at the same time S. Mar. 14.1 S. Luc. 22.2 S. Ioh. 11.47 But we say not that all these were High-Priests strictly and properly so called not Pontifices simpliciter but secundum quid in respect of their brethren who were under their charge And these are called the chiefe or principall Fathers of the Priests 1. Chron. 24.6 31. 22. Not in the same place and verse For S. Mat. 26.3 we find many High-Priests and one High-Priest Many High-Priests assemble together unto the Palace of Caiphas the High Priest k S. Mat. 26.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet but one of these was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly the High-Priest l Heb. 9.7 no other but he but that one might go into the Sancta Sanctorum the holyest of all m Num. 8. â— Lyra in Num. 8.5 None of them but he onely could Ordaine or Consecrate a Priest and n 1. Chron. 24.18 none of them but he had jurisdiction over all the Sonnes of Levi. 23. Thus we finde one Bishop and many Bishops in Asia and Creet Titus is the Bishop of Creet and yet in that Citty there were many Bishops For he that is called a Presbyter v. 5. is called a Bishop v. 7. Thus was it in Asia But the title of Bishop even in those times was appropriated to Timothy and Titus as is evident in the Postscripts to those Epistles wherein the former is called Bishop of the Asians and Titus Bishop of the Cretians These are they that were truly and properly named Bishops of those Churches In Scripture we find them termed so it cannot be denyed Beza is my witnesse who met with no Manuscript without these Postscripts And I hope Beza is no abettor of corruptions in Scripture 24. Timothy and Titus were ordained by St Paul and by him for ought any man can say they were called Bishops I am certaine they are called so by the Spirit of God or Beza hath abused us And these that are thus called so in those places were for their time the only Bishops of those Churches These had Iurisdiction spirituall over all Persons in those severall Churches not only over Lay-men and Deacons but over the Presbyter-Bishops also even to convent censure silence and to cast them out of the Church These Bishops also had the right and power of Ordination which the Presbyter Bishops never had 25. What were they in those times distinguished only by right and power and not by titles No such matter Those whom we now call Bishops were at the first named Apostles But those whom we now call Presbyters or Priests were then indifferently stiled Bishops or Presbyters If I prove not this I deserve blame but if I shall make this Assertion good I shall doe the truth and you service and I hope yee will doe the truth and your selves that honour as to lay the censure where the fault is even upon those that have misled you 26. My first witnesse shall be Theodoret who certifies us that o Theodorer in Philip. 1.1 while St Pauls Epistles were writing the same Persons were called both Presbyters and Bishops but those who are now named BISHOPS were then called APOSTLES But in processe of time the Title of APOSTLE was left to those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 APOSTLES properly and truly so called And the name of BISHOP was appropriated to those who heretofore were called APOSTLES With Theodoret accords St Hierome who testifies that p Hieron in Gal. 1.19 The Apostles ordained Apostles Calvin saith as much upon 1. Cor. 4.9 So here are more Apostles then twelve or thirteene 27. Would you know who are the Apostles that these speake of The Scriptures tell us of q Gal. 1.19 St James of r Philip. 2.25 Epaphroditus an Å¿ 1. Cor. 49. Apollo who in their severall places are expresly galled Apostles Witnesse the Greeke Text the originall Lancuage of those Epistles And St Hierome justifies that t Hieron Câ—tal c. 4. this St James was Bishop of Hierusalem but none of the Twelve as too many ignorantly conceive but u Hieron in Es 17. decimus tertius Apostolorum the thirteenth Apostle None of those that were immediatly ordained by Christ himselfe he was * Hieron in Catal. c. 4. ab ipsis Apostolis ordainatus ordained by the Apostles suddenly after our Saviours Passion x Theodoret. in Phil 2 25. Epaphroditus likewise was Bishop of Philippi and y Hieron in Tit. 3. â—3 Apollo Bishop of Corinth Apostles in Scripture Language but Bishops in the Church Language None of these were ordained by our Saviour but by his Apostles yet z Walo Messal p. 43.44.244 these were of the same Order and Power with their Ordainers and clearly of a different Order from Presbyters You shall heare what your deare friend Wale Messalinus speakes a Apostolorum tempore Apostolos ipsos veros juisse Ecclesiarum Episcopos Episcopos autem qui tunc fic nominabaÌ„tur in Presbyterorum ordine stetisse quales nunc Episcopis subditi sunt Walo Messal p. 355. In the time of the Apostles the APOSTLES themselves were the TRUE BISHOPS of those Churches But they who in those times were called BISHOPS were of the same Order with
PRESBYTERS such as now are SUBJECT TO BISHOPS This he confesseth to be the common opinion of the Greeke Fathers and surely they were as well skilled in Scriptures and Church History as any Elders in your divine Assembly 28. The reason why the Church of God so universally alter'd this Title of Apostle into Bishop is given by Theodoret and this it is b Theodoret. in 1. Tim. 3.1 That the name APOSTLE might be reserved to those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 APOSTLES verily and indeed to those that were ordained by Christ himselfe Well the end of this appropriation was that the Church might settle and continue that necessary distinction betweene the Apostles ordained by Christ the Apostles ordained by man and Presbyters 29. If this distinction had not been setled in time how should we have been able to know an Apostle properly so called from an Apostle improperly so called What a strange confusion would have overspread the face of the Church if Epaphroditus Timothy and Titus had still been called Apostles c Ib. as Theodoret justifies they were in the Primitive times If all of that Order had reteined the same Title how should we have been able to distinguish Saint Peter from Peter the Apostle of Alexandria St Paul from Paul the Apostle of Antioch and St John from John of Hierusalem Thus we should have had not onely d 2. Cor. 11.13 false Apostles but Hereticall and Atheisticall Apostles which would have brought that Holy and Reverend name into contempt How should we have knowne by whom the Canonicall Epistles had been written For the Titles runne thus The Epistle of Paul the Apostle The Epistle of Peter the Apostle of John the Apostle c. So then if this distinction had not been provided corruption upon corruption must have followed for Epistles have been written by more Pauls then one and those Pauls Apostles too 30. The distinction then was necessary and though the Title were alterd the Order was not nor yet the Office The Fathers conceived not that they offer'd the least affront or derogation to St James in calling him Bishop whom the Scripture had honoured with the Title of Apostle If they had deemed so either they would not have given him that appellation or they would never have called his Episcopacy e Rusin histi l. 2. c. 1. Primatûs gloriam the glory of the Primacie and f Euseb hist l. 2. c. 1. an honour of no meane esteeme Neither had Timothy and Titus the lesse honour or power because they were called Bishops What the Apostles could doe which was of ordinary Jurisdiction and power and necessary for the preservation of the Church that could they Walo Messalinus shewes much ingenuity in this acknowledgement g Walo Messal p. 62. EPISCOPI SUMMUM in Ecclesiastico ordine GRADUM obtinent ut olim tennere qui APOSTOLI vocabantur BISHOPS hold the CHIEFE DEGREE in the Ecclesiasticall order as heretofore they did who were called APOSTLES But Apostles and Presbyters were never reckoned to be of the same Order The distinction is plaine Act. 15.6.23 Where it is said that h Act. 15.6 The Apostles and Presbyters came together to consider of this matter And i Ib. v. 23. The Apostles and Presbyters send greeting This is readily acknowledged by St Hierome and Walo Messalinus as is manifested § 71. 31. Agreed upon it is that Apostles and Presbyters are not the same if then Bishops properly and strictly so called be of the same Order with the Apostles it followes necessarily that our Bishops and Presbyters are not of one and the same Order or Function Neither hath corrupt custome but Scripture it selfe made this distinction The second Proposition That the Title of Bishop hath been by him by this one assumed as in other things so in the matter of Ordination 32. FIrst appropriated and ascribed and then assumed Not first assumed and then appropriated If then any fault be fall it must upon the times wherein that custome prevailed or upon the Persons that ascribed this Title to that one not upon the Bishops for they assumed it not it was first appropriated to them by your owne confession But it was appropriated and ascribed unto them in corrupt times truly no lesse then 1600 yeares since and assumed or rather retained to this day And lawfull it is for me to assume as you please to speak that what ever it be which hath k See §. 23 24. c. upon so just grounds been appropriated to me as this Title was to the Order Apostolike For it was done either by the Apostles themselves or by their Orthodox Schollers How can yee say then that l Ordin p. 2. it was not meet 33. But before I passe further I cannot but take notice that you who have so highly cryed out upon Et Caetera have slipt into the same error for In other things is neither better nor worse but a plaine c. which ought to have been avoided by such wise men as have condemned it with so much detestation Secondly you say in the matter of Ordination Herein had you consulted with your Assembly men certainly you would have strook out matter for the Greeke and our Reformed Churches use no matter or element in Ordination We use a Forme of words and Imposition of hands onely such Learned men cannot but know this Matter was either ignorantly or superfluously put in 34. But why hath the Title of Bishop been assumed in Ordination Does the Title Ordaine Is that sufficiem a Phrase not easily construed it needs a Commentary from some of your Divines In the mean time I shall guesse at your meaning which I conceive to be this He to whom custome hath appropriated the title of Bishop hath assumed Ordination to himselfe This being your meaning I shall make bold to say that this assertion is not true 35. The Bishops assumed not they took not this power of Ordination to themselves it was conferr'd upon them with their Orders It is so innate so inherent to that Order which we now call Episcopacy that no other Order may Ordaine Not Deacons so you say not Presbyters so m Epiphan haer 75. Epiphanius and n Hieron ad Evagr. Ep. 85. S. Hierom and with them all Antiquitie In the New Testament this power is only given to the Apostles or Bishops strictly so called and executed by them only It was given to the Apostles in o S. Mat. 10.8 Gratis accepistis gratis date freely ye have received freely give so p Ambros de dignit Sacerdot cap. 5. S. Ambrose so q Hieron in loc S. Hierome so r Apud Balsam p. 1085. Gennadius Patriarke of Constantinople with the whole Synod of his Patriarchate to Bishop Titus Tit. 1.5 to Bishop Timothy 1. Tim. 5.22 and to Bishop Epaphroditus by Walo Messalinus confession p. 58. 36. Practised it was only by Apostles or Bishops properly so called in Scripture
Christ and his word Therefore Apostles onely or Bishops strictly so called have power to ordaine The Major is firme and agreed upon The Minor onely is doubted of I shall addresse my selfe therefore to justifie the Minor 52. That the power of Ordination is neither given to nor executed by any meere creature in the New Testament but onely to and by Apostles or Bishops strictly so called who are of the same Order with Apostles is evident by our Saviour's Commission immediatly issuing from himselfe and explained by Saint Paul 53. Our Saviour's Commission to his Apostles was this * S. Mat. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A gift yee have received give this gift so the Greekes but we freely yee have received freely give what yee have received That is saith Gennadius Patriarch of Constantinople x Apud Balsam p. 1085. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me you have received this dignity of Priesthood freely yee have received it freely give it Neither is this the sence of Gennadius alone but of 73 Bishops more that concurre with him in this Exposition If these be not enough I can tell you of y Ambros de dignit Sacerd. c. 5. Saint Ambrose z Hieron in Mat. 10.8 Saint Hierome and others that concurre with him in the same opinion 54. This Commission was given to the Apostles them onely he called v. 1. and those onely at that time he sent with that Commission v. 5. But given it was not to the Seventie and hence it is that not onely their number but their names also are precisely set downe v. 2 3 4. that so there might be no mistake at all in the Commission And as it was given to the Apostles onely so was it executed by them and others of their ranke but not by the Seventie not by the Disciples or Presbyters This is evident by Scripture and Church-historie By Scripture St Paul and St Barnabas were Apostles and they Ordaine Presbyters in every Church Act. 14.23 And Saint Paul ordaines Timothy 2. Tim. 1.6 By Church-historie a Hieron Catal c. 4. The Apostles ordained S. James Bishop of Hierusalem b Theodoret Dial. 1. S. Peter ordained Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and c Euseb hist l. 3. c. 17. S. John ordained many Bishops in Asia I make bold with Church History because you allow thereof and ordaine d Ord. p 6. that they who are desirous of Orders shall have triall made of their skill in Ecclesiasticall History 55. Titus and Timothy were Apostles also if we give credit to e Ignat. ad Ephes p. 226. Ignatius and f Theodoret. in 1. Tim. 3.1 Theodoret to them the same power of Order is committed which was to those g 2. Cor. 11. ◠chiefe Apostles To Titus h Tit. 1.5 For this cause left I thee at Creet that THOU SHOULD'ST ORDAINE PRESBYTERS or Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have appointed thee not as it shall please an Ordinance of Lay-men to appoint thee The same power is acknowledged to be in Timothy 1. Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man And in Epaphroditus by a good friend of yours who ingenuously confesseth that i Ad Philippenses Epaphreditū miserat ad Ecclesiam eorum consirmādam constituendos in eâ Presbyteros Episcopos Walo Messal p. 58. Saint Paul sent Epaphroditus to the Philippians to Ordaine Presbyters in that Church 56. Can you shew in Scripture or Ecclesiasticall Historie that the power of Ordination was given to or acknowledged to be in one or many Presbyters Can you prove that ever this power was exercised by one or many Presbyters and not censured for a nullity not disclaimed as never done 57. I question not but you will presently turne me to your old and often answered Argument 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecye with the LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESBYTERY Therefore Timothy was ordained by Presbyters and if Timothy then may others also This is the Crambe the old burre with which you hope at length to choke us 58. First I cannot but acknowledge that Timothies Ordination was orderly and legall Secondly I yeeld readily that others may be ordained legally and commendably as he was But withall I must tell you that Timothy was ordained either by S. Paul alone or by S. Paul with other of the Presbytery That he was ordained by S. Paul alone is the opinion of your great Master Calvin and he hath Scripture to justifie it Calvin's resolution is plaine and full k Calvin Instat l. 4. 〈◊〉 §. 16. Paulus ipse SE NON ALIOS COMPLVRES Timotheo manus imposnisse commemorat Saint Paul himselfe acquaints us that HIMSELFE NOT ANY MORE or other with him layed hands upon Timothy Exclusively himselfe not any other marke that 59. The text which confirmes this is cited by Calvin in the same place and this it is l 2. Tim. ◠6 Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee by the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS Evident it is that this was done by Saint Paul The truth is m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat ad Philadelph 〈◊〉 14. the Apostles in those dayes were called the Presbytery Witnesse Ignatius n Hieron Catal. ◠27 who lived in those times and your present friend Walo Messalinus in these words o Walo Messal p. 21. Apostoli Presbyterium Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae constituunt the Apostles were in those times the Presbytery of the Church at Hierusalem And what the Apostles were then and there they were also in other Churches where they came no question to be made of that And what power was in all the Apostles together in respect of any Ministeriall duty was in every one of them in particular and by himselfe Otherwise how could every single Apostle when their Colledge was dissolved and they dispersed into severall Countries for the worke of the Gospell performe his Office validly and effectually 60. But suppose the most that can be supposed either you must give S. Paul the lye or else you must confesse that Saint Paul was one of those that ordained Timothy So then to keep close to this president an Apostle or one of the same Order with an Apostle must have a chiefe hand in Ordination This serves to justifie the course of our Church but it condemnes your new Ordinance which authorizeth Presbyters alone without a Bishop or Apostle to ordaine 61. Timothy was ordained by an Apostle though perchance not by an Apostle alone and as Timothy so were all other ordained by Apostles or by such as were of the same Order with the Apostles and succeeded them in their Office p Hieron cont Montani insan Ep. 54. Et apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi in S. Hieromes time the Bishops held the Apostles roome and so they doe at this day In his time Bishops onely had the power of Ordination but not