chiefly to the twelve and caused him to descend visibly even to the view of all the beholders upon their heads in the likenesse of cloven tongues of fire which for any thing we read he did not to the seventy In the thirteenth of the Acts Verse 1. we may behold this distinction with our eyes where Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul are called Prophets and Teachers and not Apostles for I thinke as yet Saul was not joyned to the number of Apostles at least hee was not accounted one so Paul makes this distinction when he takes to himself the honour to plant the Gospel and to lay the foundation and makes Apollos a waterer only and a builder upon the foundation Paul plants saith hee Apollo waters but God gives the increase 1 Cor. 2.6 Moreover Acts 8. we see a manifest distinction in Philip the Evangelist who converted the Samaritans and baptized them but Peter and John behoved to be sent out of Ierusalem to lay on hands and conferre the Holy Ghost but my opponent may say that Philip was a Deacon and one of the seven mentioned Acts 6. I answer we read of Philip the Apostle and of Philip the Deacon and why not a third Philip an Evangelist read Acts 21.8 he that was Deacon was there after advanced to be an Evangelist Alwayes wee gaine thus much that Deacons must preach and administer the Sacrament of Baptisme and therefore they are not Lay-men That Deacons are not Lay-men but Preachers and a third order of Church Governours it is evident Acts 6. for as soon as there was any need of men of that office that was when the number of the Disciples was multiplied they were chosen and elected by the Apostles yea they were elected too before the Apostles went out of Jerusalem separated themselves to preach the Gospell to all Nations for they behoved to be helpers of the Apostles and to assist them in the work of Ministery to have a care of the poore under them and to baptize new converts at their command that so the Apostles might give themselves to prayer and the Ministerie of the Word Acts 6.4 The truth of this may be seen Acts 10.48 where the Apostle Peter gives commandement no question to the Deacons to baptise Cornelius and those who were with him so we may see 1 Cor. 1. that the Apostle Paul attributes the care of Baptisme to others then the Apostles where he saith that hee was not sent to Baptize it being chiefly the charge of the Deacons but to preach the Gospell not that he might not baptise for wee see the contrary in the words but because the Apostles gave themselves chiefly to Prayer and the Ministery of the Word and committed the care of Baptisme to the Deacons and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper to the Evangelists called hereafter Elders as may be gathered out of 1 Cor. 10.11 We see also Col. 1.1 a manifest distinction between Bishops and Deacons for the Apostle writes to them as their chiefe Bishop and Overseer for as yet the Apostle reserved the chief care of that Church to himself although some think that Epaphroditus was chief Bishop of that place howsoever we see two Orders here of Church-men and I hope none will deny but the Apostle was in order and degree above them we see them also made mention of in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus over whom Timothy and Titus are placed as their chiefe Governours so that it is more then evident that Christ and the Apostles continued three Orders of Church Governours under the Gospell But I know that it will be objected that there should be but two Orders of Church Governours now under the Gospel because Christ himselfe appointed but two Apostles and Evangelists both of them called at first Disciples only distinguished by their number twelve and seventie Answ Christ appointed but two indeed because hee supplyed the room of the High Priest himself neither would hee have any more during his own Ministery he was chiefe Governour of the Church himselfe and hee would have no Suffragans as long as he lived Where the King is present himself he needs not a Commissioner nor a Vice-roy Again had Christ chosen three Orders in his owne time then there should have been foure Orders of Church Governours all the while of Christ his Ministery upon earth First Christ himselfe for I hope no man will refuse Christ for one and for the chief too and the other 3 ordained by Christ Now our blessed M. Saviour because he would keep Analogie so farre as I can conceive with the number and degrees of Church Governours under the Law he would choose but two and leave the third to be added by the Apostles after his departure which they did with all diligence as we may see Acts 6. That our Saviour used this analogie in this I will prove by other particulars wherein he observed the like analogie and first in the number of the Sacraments as his Father appointed but two under the Law Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe so hee appointed but two under the Gospell Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord the one to succeed in place of Circumcision the other in place of the Paschall Lambe And againe as Circumcision did represent unto us the guilt of sin so our Saviour would have Baptisme to represent to us remission of sins And as the Passeover represented to the people of Israel their bodily deliverance from the bondage of Egypt so our Saviour would have his last Supper to represent to us our spirituall deliverance from the bondage of sin and Satan When our Saviour instituted Baptisme hee devised no new Ceremony but took that Ceremony of Washing which the Jews used in their Purification appointed it to represent our spirituall washing from sin So likewise in the Institution of the other Sacrament hee did not devise any new Ceremony to represent his Death and Passion but took the last part of the Paschall Supper and appointed it for that usâ—e The custome of the Iews was after the Supper was ended and the Paschall Lambe caten hee that was Master of the Feast tooke as many pieces of bread as there were people present at the eating of the Lamb and there behoved to be between the number of ten and the number of twenty for there might not be fewer then ten nor more then twenty and gave every one a piece saying these words This is the bread of affliction which your Fathers eat in the wildernesse and thereafter hee took the Cup and gave it to them saying This is the cup of affliction which your Fathers dranke in the wildernesse Now our Saviour Christ reserved the same Ceremony for the Text saith that first he took bread and after that He had given thanks he brake it and gave to every one a portion and said This is my body which is broken for you Doe this in remembrance of mee And in like
grace That inferiour Bishops cannot be the Apostles Successors first by Scripture and next by demonstrative Reasons Beside many other places of Scripture read but Acts 15.2.4.6.22.23 where yee shall finde Apostles and Elders cleerly distinguished I intreat you to see the places and I doubt not but ye shall receive satisfaction and farther I remember not that ever I heard any Divine affirme Elders and inferiour Bishops to be in rank and degree with the Apostles but that all Divines ancient and moderne accounted Elders to bee inferiour in degree to the Apostles but I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons That Presbyters did not succeed the Apostles My first Reason I will form thus They that were inferiour in degree to the apostles were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree But Presbyters were inferiour in degree to the apostles And therefore Presbyters were not the apostles successors in that same order and degree The Proposition I take for granted for I hope no man will deny it I prove the assumption first by the cōsent of all the divines that ever were in this World next by the cleer evidence of Scripture throughout all the book of God where the Apostles who were chiefe Bishops and Over-seers both of the Pastors and the people are cleerly distinguished from inferiour Bishops who only have the oversight of the people as is evident by the Apostle Paul his directions to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. My second Reason I will form thus If Elders be the Apostles Successors then that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is committed to them by the Apostles as amply as they themselves had it But that same power and authoritie necessary for the government of the Church is not committed unto Elders as amply as the Apostles themselves had it And therefore Elders are not the Successors of the Apostles If any man deny the Proposition I will aske him how it can be possible that Elders can be the Apostles Successors unlesse they succeed them in that same Power and Authoritie Truly it is beyond my capacitie to conceive and understand it I know they cannot succeed them in those things that are extraordinary but in their ordinary power and authoritie and that which is perpetually necessary for the Government of the Church of Christ under the Gospel they must succeed them and they be their successors I prove the Assumption Any one of the Apostles might ordaine Elders so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus Acts 19. any one might ordain Bishops so Paul ordained Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet for Timothy it is cleer 2 Tim. 1.6 any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to preach the Gospel any where as is evident throughout all Pauls Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles and which I think no Divine will deny any one of them might prescribe Rules and Laws to inferiour Elders so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. to Archippus Col. 4.17 who by the declaration of all the Ancients was Bishop and so superiour to an Elder any one of Apostles might Command Rebuke Censure and correct Elders at their own pleasure as is most evident in Scriptures and in particular in Saint Paul his Epistles now those things no Elder can do by himself and therefore That some ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had is not committed to inferiour Bishops but to Superiour Here it may be objected That by this Reason Bishops Superiour cannot be the Apostles Successors because they doe not exercise their power and authoritie without the concurrence of the inferiour Bishops they joyne with them in the Ordination of Ministers so they should also in the exercise of Jurisdiction Answer There is no warrant for this in the Scripture it is true wee read the Apostles tooke the concurrence of Ministers in decision of doubts and controversies and also in Ordination so Paul saith that Timothy was ordained by the Presbyterie but there was no direction from Christ for so doing it pleased the Apostles to take their concurrence which they needed not to have done and therefore they did sometimes exercise their Episcopall power by themselves alone as wee may see in the Acts of the Apostles and 2 Tim. 1.6 and many other places of Scripture and did very seldome crave the concurrence of Presbyters so that Bishops do not exercise their power without the concurrence of Presbyters it is not because they are commanded so to doe by Christ and his Apostles but their own voluntary yielding of their right and submitting of themselves to their own Ecclesiastick Laws and Canons of ancient Councels it is as cleer as the Sun That an Elder hath no power of Ordination or Jurisdiction granted to him in the Scriptures what he hath it is but by humane Ordination and hee hath not in any ways Supreame Power granted him by any ancient Councell This is most certaine That a Bishops Ordination is valid and good without a Presbyter and hath warrant from the example of the Apostles but a Presbyter to ordain without the command of a Bishop is not warranted by any example in Scripture nor the Canon of any ancient Councell and so my conclusion stands good That inferiour Bishops are not the Successors of the Apostles My third Reason is this They who were inferiour to those in dignitie and degree who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation were not the apostles Successors in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function But Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the apostles in place and estimation And therefore Presbyters were not Successors to the Apostles in all the parts of the Ministeriall Function The Proposition I know will be granted I prove the assumption That Presbyters were inferiour in dignitie and degree to those who were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation Timothy and Titus were inferiour to the Apostles in place and estimation so were all the Evangelists as all Divines acknowledge and yet those were Superiour in dignitie and degree even in the judgment of those who oppose the doctrine delivered in this Treatise That Timothy and Titus were superiour to Presbyters I shall prove it by and by but I will use one Argument yet for the ordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists and this it is briefly Either the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists were ordinary callings or else we have no ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution But this were absurde to say that we had not ordinary Ministers of the Gospel by Christs institution And therefore it is as absurd to say that the callings of Apostles and Evangelists are not ordinary callings I desire all those who oppose this doctrine to loose this knot Now it remayneth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place of the Apostles and in place of Evangelists inferiour Presbyters
and neither of things present nor by-past Thirdly the High Priest as he was chiefe Governour he could not be a type and figure of Christ because if there had been but two ranks of Church Governours one of them behoved to be chiefe and so still there should have been a chiefe Governour And lastly the order that was among Church Governours was not Ceremoniall but Morall and as necessary for the Government of the Christian Church as the Jewish for God is the God of Order now I am sure as well as he was then now nothing that was Morall was typicall and therefore Aaron was not a type and figure of Christ as hee was chiefe Governour of the Iews Now I will shew you in what respect hee was a type and figure of Christ First as the High Priest was one man he did typifie Christ as the one High Priest of our profession and therefore Christ would not commit the chief Government of the Church to one any more but to many in one and the same rank and order Next the High Priest his offering of one Sacrifice once in the yeere within the Veil was a Type of that only one propitiatorie Sacrifice once offered up for the sins of the quick and the dead by our Saviour Christ Thirdly the High Priest his once in the yeere only entring within the Veil was a type of our Saviour his once entring into Heaven to make intercession for us For these respects then AARON was a type and figure of Christ but no ways in relation to his Government for the Reasons before alleaged I have another Reason yet that moves mee to think that there can be no fewer then three Rankes of Church Governours now under the Gospel and it is this The number of Three is mysticall as is evident by many examples both in Scripture things above Nature Naturall things and Spirituall things In Supernaturall things wee see the truth of this assertion in the Divine Essence which subsists in the number of three Persons which is the mysterie of all mysteries in the Divine Essence also there are three Communicable properties Goodnesse Power and Wisdome to these three all the rest may be referred as Life Love Justice c. three incommunicable properties Simplicitie Eternitie Ubiquitie of These no creature is capable According to this similitude the faculties of the Soul were formed by God himselfe for the Soule hath three chiefe faculties Judgement Memory and Will yea the renewed minde consisteth of three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charitie which are the three dimensions of every Christian soule the bodily Substences of all creatures are composed of Three Longitude Latitude and Profunditie without the which the Creatures can have no Subsistence There are also three degrees of Life Vegetative Sensitive and Rationall and all these in analogie to the three Persons of the Godhead it were easie to shew you divers resemblances between them if it were necessary and to the purpose It was more then the light of Nature that taught Aristotle to esteeme the number of three to be the perfectest number of all numbers yea to be all in all Qui dicit tria saith hee dicit omnia qui dicit ter dicit omnifariam He that saith three saith all and he that saith thrice saith always But to come to the Scriptures saith not Iohn 1 John 5.7 8 that there are three things that beare witnesse in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one and that there are three things that beare witnesse on earth the Spirit the Water and the Bloud and these three agree in one Christ loved three Disciples above all the rest with whom he conversed most familiarly Peter James and Iohn to them he shewed himselfe in his glory at the Transfiguration and also in his greatest agonie and humiliation in the Garden of Gethsemanie Our Saviour fulfilled his Ministery in the space of three yeeres hee lay three days in the Grave three times appearred to the eleven after his Resurrection and many mo then these are to be found in the New Testament In the Old Testament you shall finde many numbers of three wherein some mysterie may be found wee read of three only that went to Heaven bodily Enoch Elias and Christ to teach us that salvation both in body and soule is obtained under all the three kinds of Church Government for God hath governed his Church three severall wayes since the Creation one way before the Law another way under the Law and a third way under the Gospell The Worship of God hath been also of three severall formes according to the severall ages of the World Three men saved in the floud of Noah of whom the World hath been replenished the second time Sem Ham and Japhet Three great Patriarchs out of whose loins the Church of God did spring Three great Sabbaths the seven dayes Sabbath the seven yeers Sabbath and the yeer of Jubilee Three great Feasts the Feast of Tabernacles Easter and Pentecost Three ranks of Church Governours the high Priest inferiour Priests and Levits and a number more so that I say if there be any number mysticall it is the number of Three wee have not so great reason to call Seven Mysticall as for Nine it is only thought Mysticall because it contains thrice three But here my opponents will reply That they keep this analogie of three for they also maintain three Degrees of Churchmen preaching Elders Lay-Elders and Deacons who are all Governours of the Church and preaching Elders the chiefe Governours I answer if preaching Elders be the chiefe Governours then according to the Replyers opinion who maintains that the High Priest was a Type and figure of Christ as he was chief Governour of the Church they must be cashiered for wee cannot have chiefe Governours now under the Gospel according to my opposites tenet and so it will follow we must have no publike Ministery at all nor no publike Government neither but private in every man his own Family or rather every man must doe according as hee is moved by the spirit I answer further that those three Orders are neither Christs nor his Apostles Ordinance for any evidence that I can see in Scripture no not so much as any shew or appearance As for Lay Elders I can not find them once named in all the Scripture although the Apostle Paul doth particularly make mention of all Church Governours under the Apostolicall Order in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus he particularly declares what preaching Elders and Deacons must be how they must be qualified before they enter into holy Orders but never one word of Lay Elders Deacons indeed he nominates but not Lay Deacons but such as must preach the Gospel and baptise at their Superiours direction and therefore the Apostle Paul requires that Deacons keep the mysterie of Faith in a pure conscience which cannot be required of Lay men such a measure of knowledge as is understood
company of Presbyters Acts 8.14 and 11.22 and 15.6 7 8. to the 30. and 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Answer These things were done in the infancie of the Church before the Government was established and so can be no rule for after ages some will so answer I answer further there is not a word there that will confirme Presbyteriall government for none of the meetings spoken of in those places consist of persons having the like and equall authoritie but all that was done in them was done by Apostolicall power by the power of the Apostles they were convened together by the Apostles moderation those meetings were governed by their authoritie all things were concluded they had full and absolute power in their own hands although it pleased them to do nothing without the consent of their Brethren of an inferiour Order yee will find all that I have said true if yee will be pleased to see the places But most cleerly it appeareth 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. where the Apostle by his power and authoritie coÌ„mandeth the Corinthian Ministers to excommunicate the incestuous person in an open assembly or rather to intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced for thus he speaketh For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alreadie as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus I hope this meeting was enjoyned by the Apostle upon an extraordinary occasion nothing was done but by his speciall appointment Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyteriall Government there seems something to be in the words for Parochiall If there had been Parishes and Lay-elders in those days and truly if I were not of that judgement That the Calling of the Apostles were an ordinary Calling and to be continued with the same latitude of power and authoritie in their Successors untill the end of the World I might easily be moved to approve of Parochiall Government but never of Presbyteriall and truly if the Callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetuall Government of Gods Church Parochiall Government is that which hath greatest shew of warrant in the Scriptures as for Presbyteriall it hath not so much as any shew at all in the whole book of God Now follows that I cleere the doubts and first I know it will be objected That by this doctrine I condemne all the Churches of Christ that are governed after that manner Ans I condemne not the Churches but the Government Some perhaps may reply That since I make Episcopal government to be Christs institution I charge them with a very grosse errour I answer Let them see to that I cannot call evill good nor good evill unlesse I make my selfe lyable to the curse pronounced neither will any thing excuse them except necessity for both Gods Law and mans Law doth dispence with it but because there is no necessitie let men beware for Ego liberavi animam meam Furthermore it will be alleaged That Timothy and Titus and the Bishops of old were not like our Bishops They had not that power and authoritie nor that Lordly Government that Bishops have now They were not Barons Lords Earles Princes in such kind as they are now They had not power over the bodies and estates of offenders as Bishops have now They might not punish with the Civill Sword as well as the Spirituall Ans In Episcopall Government there are two things The one is Spirituall and de jure divino by divine right The other is Civill and de dono humano of humane gift and by the donation of Kings and Princes That is their Civill Honour their Civill Power their Temporalities their Revenues as to be Barons in Parliament to judge in causes Temporall to inflict temporall punishment all these they have by the free gift of Kings and Princes and many Kings have been very liberall in this kind to Churchmen and not without warrant from God neither according to that of the Apostle The Elders that rule wel are worthy of double honour and in speciall they that labour in the Word Doctrine 1 Tim. 5. And why should any man be offended to see Honor given to Church-men May not Kings and Princes give honour to any subject they please or are not Churchmen capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospell aswell as they were under the Law As to the first I think no man will deny but Kings and Princes may advance such of their Subjects as they please it is their speciall prerogative I make no question of it And truly I see no more reason that any man should make question of the other but that Churchmen are as capable of Civill Honour and Power now under the Gospel as they were under the Law it is forbidden in no part of the New Testament I am sure hath God forbidden Ministers to give their advice to Kings and Princes for the better correcting of Vice and Sin and for managing all things in the State so that God thereby may be the more glorified and the Kingdome of Jesus Christ advanced or hath God forbidden Princes to crave their advice It was well said of a Divive That it is well with the Church when godly Prophets hang as precious Earings at the Princes eares Erasmus said well in an Epistle to Iohn Alasco If we had moe Bishops like Ambrose we should have more Emperours like Theodosius But I would aske any man this question Have not Christian Kings as great need of the concurrent Counsell and Assistance of the Governours of the Church now as the Kings of Israel had under the Law and was there ever any religious King among the Iews who had not conâ—inually the High priest to second him in all his affaires was not Aaron next unto Moses was not Eleazar next unto Iosua Had not David Zador and Abiather continually in his company Was not Azariah next unto Salomon and did not Ioash that which was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Iehoida lived and was not Hilkia chief Counsellour to Iosia and Amaria chief Judge under Jehosaphat Truly I hold this for a sure ground That what ever was done under the Law not being commanded by God then it is as lawfull for us now under the Gospell to doe the same except it be forbidden us and wee need not doubt but it will be as well approved by God now as it was then But which is more yet If any thing be commanded by God under the Law which is not ceremoniall and typicall it is then much more lawfull I think for us to do now Did not the Lord himselfe command the people of