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
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
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
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
gives ground for stating this to be the reason of its practise 2. This was not only practised at Ierusalem but at Antioch and not only among and by the Jews but elsewhere and by others It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they ordained Elders in every Church Object 4. Imposition of hands was used by the Apostles in a miraculous way and it did conferre the holy Ghost and gift of Tongues c. and therefore as the miracle is ceased so ought the ceremony to cease As in extream Unction c. Answ. 1. The giving of the holy Ghost and conferring of extraordinary gifts was one but not the only use which the Apostles made of Imposition of hands And as praier is still to be continued in the Church though it did sometimes conveigh extraordinary blessings Act. 8.15 16 17. Act. 9.40 Iam. 5.14 15. because it had other ordinary ends and uses So is Imposition of hands to be continued upon the same account Answ. 2. We never read of the holy Ghost given by Imposition of hands in Ordination That gift which Timothy received by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no other then the gift of Office Neglect not the gift i. e. Neglect not the office If Timothy had had power by laying on of hands to have conferred due qualifications for the Ministry why doth Paul require him to lay hands suddenly on no man and why must he be so carefull to see them first fit in case his laying on of hands would fit them There needed not such triall of their gifts in case a touch of his hands could have gifted them This proves clearly That there was no extraordinary gift conferred in Ordination 3. There is a double Imposition of hands The one miraculous and extraordinary which consisted in healing the sick and conveighing the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit And this was temporary and is now ceased as extream Unction is The other is ordinary Such is the Imposition of hands in Ordination and therefore to be perpetually continued in the Church We reade not only that Paul who was an extraordinary Officer but that Presbyters who were ordinary Officers imposed hands upon Timothy And the example of the Primitive Churches were intentionally left upon record for this end that they might be binding patterns in like cases in after ages And this seems to be one singular ground and reason of the Writing of the Acts of the Apostles That the Apostles acts in the Primitive Churches might be our Rules in succeeding ages Obj. 5. To what purpose then is Imposition of hands used if the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost be not conveighed thereby Answ. 1. We use it because the Apostles did use it in an ordinary way without giving the holy Ghost as well as in an extraordinary way because there is the same standing reason and because the Apostle bids us 1 Tim. 5.22 Sufficit pro universis rationibus Deus vult 2. We use it not as an operative Ceremony but as a Moral sign so declare publickly who the party is that is solemnly set apart to the work of the Ministry 3. We use it as it is a Rite and Ceremony by which the Office is conveyed 1 Tim. 4.14 4. We use it as it is a consecrating dedicating and offering up of the party unto the Lord and his service as in the Old Testament hands were laid on for this end 5. We use it as it is an Authoritative and Ministerial Benediction of the party ordained as it was used by Iacob in his fatherly blessing of Ephraim and Manasses and by Christ in his blessing and praying over the little children Mat. 19.15 Mark 10.16 And thus we have made out the Divine Right of Imposition of hands and our Exhortation to our people is That they would not stumble at that way of Ordination which hath so much of God in it nor be easily led aside into by-pathes by the seducers of this Age. And that they would not rest contented with Ministerial Examination though that ought to be and that in all exactnesse nor with Ministerial approbation nor yet with Authoritative Mission without this Apostolicall Ordinance of Imposition of hands CHAP. XIII Wherein the fourth Assertion about Ordination is proved viz. That ordination of Ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie OUr last Assertion is concerning the persons who are by Divine Authority appointed to ordain and it is this That Ordinâ—tion â—f Ministers ought to be by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery For this we have an expresse Text 1 Tim. 4.14 which that we may the better understand we will give a brief Answer to some few Questions Quâ—st 1. What is meant by the word Presbytery Answ. By Presbytery is not meant the Office of a Presbyter but Collegium fâ—oâ— confessâ—â— Presbyterâ—rum a Colledge or company of Presbyters For as Mr Rutherford well observes The Office hath no hands And the word is used but in two other places Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 In both which it must necessarily be taken for the Officers and not for the Office For the Office of Elders could not meet together as in that placâ— of Luke nor could the Oâ—â—â—ce of Elders beaâ— witnesse to Paul as in that place of the Acts. Besides as Mr Hooker well saith Not onely reason doth reject but the very ear would not relish such an unsutable sense Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Office How harsh and unpleasant is such an expression Here Calvin is brought in by some who are in other things his utter enemies to countenance this interpretation And Mr Gillespy reckoneth it as one of Calvins few for they were but very few mistakes But looking upon his Commentary upon the place we finde these words Presbyterium qui hîc collectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum rectè sentiunt meo judicio They who think Presbytery in this place to be a Noun collective put for a Colledge of Presbyters do think rightly in my judgement And therefore though he thinks the other interpretation non male quadrare which was his errour yet he is not to be reckoned amongst those that deny that by Presbytery is meant an Assembly of Presbyters Quest. 2. Whether this Presbytery was a Presbytery of Bishops or of single Presbyters Answ. To this we shall give this short reply That in Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one as we shall have occasion hereafter to prove And therfore we answer That it was an Assembly of Bishops that is of Presbyters Quest. 3. Whether this Presbytery were Congregational or Classical Answ. Mr Hooker of New-England confesseth That he never yet heard any Argument that did evince either by dint of undeniable evidence And for our parts we do not conceive it necessary as to our purpose to disquiet the Reader with
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-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
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
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
we can do our selves Frastra â—it per plura c. If this Doctrine were true the Apostles needed only to have preached and to have converted the people to the faith and when they had done to have said We have now done our work you may now elect and ordain your Officers your selves the power to do these things belongs to you But the Apostles did quite contrary and therefore certainly Ordination is not the peoples but the Ministers Office Adde thirdly that which to us seems to be of weight That all that is written in the Epistles concerning the Ordainers and the qualification of the ordained c. is all written in the Epistles unto Timothy and Titus who were Church-Officers In the other Epistles which were written unto the Churches there is no mention made of these things which doth abundantly prove unto us That the work of Ordination is a work belonging to Ministers and not to the people Lastly We might argue from the nature of Ordination It is a potestative and authoritative mission It is an eminent act of Jurisdiction not onely confirming a Minister in that Office which he had before by Election but conveying the very Office-power of preaching and administring the Sacraments It is that as we have said which gives the essentials of the Ministerial Call And therefore by the rule of the Gospel it belongs to Officers and not to private persons The Scripture doth accurately distinguish between Church-Rulers and private believers Heb. 13.17 24. 1 Thess. 5.12 Private persons can with no more lawfulnesse convey power to another to administer the Sacraments then they can themselves lawfully administer the Sacraments Church-power is first seated in Christ the head and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to Church-Officers And they alone who have received it from the Apostles can derive and transmit it to other Ministers And though we freely confesse That all Church-power is in the people finaliter objective that is for their use and benefit according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.22 All things are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas all are yours i.e. for your service and salvation yet we are farre from thinking that all things are theirs formally and originally that is of their making and authorizing Or that they that are not Ministers themselves can derive the Ministerial Office to others This we beleeve to be both against Scripture and reason The serious consideration of these things is of marvellous concernment for the people of our age upon this one account especially because there are a generation of men risen up amongst us that renounce and disclaim all Ordination from Ministers as unwarrantable and Antichristian and take it up from the people as the only way of the Gospel herein committing amongst many other these three evils 1. In renouncing the Ordinance of Christ and calling that which is truly Christian Antichristian 2. In setting up a new way of Ordination which hath not the least footing in the New Testament or in all Antiquity 3. In plunging themselves into this inextricable difficulty for he that renounceth Ordination by Ministers as Antichristian must of necessity renounce not only our present Ministry but all the Ministers and Churches in the Christian world he must turn Seeker and forsake all Church-communion as some in our unhappy dayes do For all Ordination by the people is null and void as being not only not grounded upon Scripture but against Scripture And to intrude into the Ministerial Office without Ordination is as the sinne of Corah and his company as we have formerly shewed Our desire is that these particulars may be duly weighed by all sober Christians It will not be amiss here to consider what is said against this Thesis by the Elders of New-England In four things they agree with us 1. They say Church-officers are to be ordained 2. And to be ordained by Imposition of hands 3. That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be performed by those Elders 4. That where there are no Elders if the Church so desire Imposition of hands may be performed by the Elders of other Churches But they differ from what we have asserted when they say In such Churches where there are no Elders Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the Brethren chosen by the Church thereunto For the proof of this they bring a Reason and a Scripture The Reason is If the people may elect Officers which is the greater and wherein the substance of the Office consists they may much more occasion and need so requiring impose hands in Ordination which is the lesse and but the accomplishment of the other Answ. 1. If this Argument were valid it would follow that people might ordain their own Ministers not only when they want Elders but when they have Elders For if Election give the essence to a Minister and Ordination only an adjunct we see no reason why they that give the essence should not also give the adjunct And why an adjunct should belong to the Officers in that Church to whom the essence doth not belong But 2. We say That Scripture-light being Judge Election is not the greater and Ordination the lesse It is possible that it is upon this ground that some men have made so slight of Ordination that so they might entitle the people thereunto But we have abundantly shewed 1. That Election doth not give the essence of the Ministerial Call That Election is only the designation of the person that is to be made a Minister not the making of him a Minister 2. That Ordination is that which gives the essence That it is an Authoritative appointing of a person to the Ministry and an actual investing him into the office That it is held forth in the Scripture as the greater and therefore not given to one and the same persons but this later referred to the more honourable persons as appears from Acts 6.3 5. Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 The Text they quote in the Margine for the proof of this is not out of the New Testament but the Old out of Numb 8.10 11. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel that they may execute the service of the Lord. Ans. 1. This Text doth not prove that for which it is brought but makes rather against our Brethren For they say That where there are Elders Imposition of hands is to be by the Elders and not by the people but in case of want of Elders But here Aaron and his sons were present And if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders which our Brethren will in no case consent unto 2. That the children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites But
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
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
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