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
Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirm are inextricable Some say That Titus was Bishop of Crâ—te some say Archbishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say That Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say That Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say Polycaâ—ps was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Buâ—olus and another That Aristâ— was first Some say That Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time And how can these Catalogues be unquestionable that must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one against another Learned Iunius speaking of that great controversie about the succession of the first Bishops or Presbyters of Rome whether Linus was the first or Clemens or Anacletus hath this remarkable passage That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time ruling the Church in common But the following Writers fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church fell into these snares of tradition because they supposed according to the custome of their own timeâ— that theâ—e could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time which iâ— quite crosse to the Apostolic all times Thirdly This is also to be considered That they that made the Catalogues spake according to the language of the times in which they lived in which there was a distinction between Bishops and Presbyâ—ers and therefore call them who went before them Bishops whereas indeed they were not so in a proper sence Nor can the Bishops of after-times be said to succeed them any otherwise if so much then Caesar is said to succeed the Roman Consuls Fourthly These Catalogues do resolve themselves into an Apostle or an Evangelist as at Rome into 〈◊〉 at Alexandria into Mark at Ephesus into Timothy aâ— â—retâ— into Titus Now it is certain That the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be said to be Bishops in a formal sence For they had an universal Commission and their Offices were extraordinary and they had no successors properly in idem Officium Indeed Bishops or Presbyteâ—s did succeed them in some part of their work but not in their Office Ordinary Offices succeed Extraordinary not in the same line and degree as one Brother succeeds another in his inheritance but as men of another Order and in a different line They are we confesse called Bishops by Ecclesiastical Writers but that was onely by way of allusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have formerly shewed We will conclude this Proposition with part of a passage out of the conference of the Reverend Presbyters at the Isle of Wight where they say And left your Majesty might reply That however the Catalogues and Testimonies may varie or be mistaken in the order or times or names of those Persons that succeeded the Apostles yet all agree that there was a Succession of some Persons and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern these Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinary and temporary Officers were by Ecclesiastical Writers in compliance with the language and usage of thir own times called Bishops and so were eminent men of chief note presiding in Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches called by such Writers as wrote after the division and distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence according to your Majesties description invested with power over Presbyters and people to whom as distinct from Presbyters did belong the power of Ordination giving Rules and Censures we humbly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim yet if these from whom you draw and through whom you derive it be found either more then Bishops as Apostles and extraordinary persons or lesse then Bishops aâ— meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopal Government mentioned by your Majestie in their own hand it will follow that all your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal acceptation of the word Episcopus Proposition 8. THat whatsoever may be said of Episcopacy out of Antiquity yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the Learned in all ages That there are but Two Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ Bishops and Deacons according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the Bishops and Deaconâ— that is the Presbyters and Deacons Of this opinion iâ— Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarpâ— in his Epistle to the Philâ—delphians as we have shewed Thiâ— also iâ— the opinion of most of the School-men Lombard saith Whereas all the seven Orders are spiritual and sacred yet the Canons think that two onely are called Sacred Orders by an excellency to wit the order of Deaconship and Priesthood because the Primitive Church so far as we can read had onely these two and of these only we have the Apostles precept Bonaventâ—râ— saith That Episcopacy iâ— no order but an eminency and dignity The like saith Aâ—reâ—lus upon the 4. Sent. distinct 24. Navâ—rrus saith That it is the common opinion of the Divines That Episcopacy is not an Order but an Office See more of this in Forbesii Iâ—â—nicuâ— lib. 2. cap. 11. And in the Addition of M. Mason to his defence of the Ministry of the Church of England where there are very many authors cited to prove That Presbytery is the highest Order of Ministry is not a different order but a different degree of the same Order See also D. Bloâ—deâ— Sect. 3.135 where he sheweth out of divers Councells that under the name of Priests and Levites the whole Gospel-Ministry were comprehended In our own Nation that blessed man Mr. Wickloffe did judge that there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers in the Church to wit Presbyters and Deacons And Iohn Lamberâ— a Martyr in his answer to Articles objected against him saith As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church when vertue bore as Ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God then Bishops and Deacons that is Ministers as witnesseth besides Scripture Hierome in his Commentariesupon the Epistles of Paul But we shall give one instance instead of many that might be added In the year 1537. there came out a Book called The Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod set forth by the authority of the Kings Majestie and approved by the whole Parliament and commanded to be preached to the
of the chiefe heads of this large discourse but because we have been overlong we feare already we shall forbeare it and conclude with that saying of the Apostle Consider what wâ— have said and thâ— Lord give you understanding in all things CHAP. IV. Containing the 2. Proposition and proving it by clearing from Scriptures and other Tâ—stimonies that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one THat the call to the Office of the Ministry which our present Ministers doe now recâ—ive sincâ— the abolishing of Episcopacy is lawfull and valid FOr this you must know that this way of making of Ministerâ— doth not essentially differ from the former but is the same for substance onely this iâ— more â—urified and refined and agreeable to Scriâ—ture-pattern The formeâ— wâ—s by Bishops that did claim a greater power in many thingâ— thâ—â— waâ— due uâ—â—o thâ—m by 〈…〉 by Bâ—shops also buâ— they are Scripâ—â—â—e-Bishopâ— that 〈◊〉 Preâ—byters There are some among us and these not a few tâ—â—t do so Idolize a Bishop over Presbyters as that they â—ffirm â—ll Ordiâ—â—tions to be null and void that are made by the Presbyteâ— Bishop withouâ— a Bishop over Preâ—byâ—ers For their sâ—tisfaction if possiblâ— and for our own peopleâ— edification â—nd instruction we will briâ—fly undertake two things 1. To prove that a Bishop over Presbyters is an Apocryphall not a Canonical Bishop that a Bishop and a Presbyter are Synonymâ—'s in Scripture 2. We will speake something about the Aâ—tiquity of Episcopall Government and concerning the judgmeâ—t of the anâ—ient Church â—bout it 1. We shall undertake to prove That according to the Scripture pattern which is a perfect rule both for doctrine â—nd government a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one not onely in name but in office And that there is no such Officer in the Church ordained by Christ as a Bishop over Presbyters This appears evidently 1. From Titus 1.5.7 where the Apostle leaves Titus in Creet to ordain Elders in every City and then shews how these Elders are to be qualified and adds the reason of his advise For a Bishop must be blamâ—lâ—ss This For is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or causall and sheweth clearely not onely the Indentity of names but of office between an Elder and a Bishop otherwise his argument had not onely been a false reasoning and failed in forme having foure termes but in â—ruth had been no reason at all If a Chancellour saith Smectymnuus in one of the Universities should give order to his Vice-Chancellour to admit none to the degree of Bachelour in Arts but such aâ— were able to pâ—â—â—ch or kâ—ep a Divinity Act For Bachelours in Diâ—inâ—â—y 〈…〉 so What reason or equity were in this So if 〈…〉 so Had â— Bishop been an Order or Calling â—istinct from oâ— superiour to a Preâ—byâ—er and not the same this had been no more rationall or â—quall then thâ— former Theâ—efore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle must needs intend the Elder mentioned in the fifth veâ—se To this purpoâ—â— speâ—keth Gâ—rrard de Minisâ—â—rio Ecclâ—stastico Ex hoc loco manifestum eosdem dici fuissâ— Episcopos qui dicebantâ—â— eâ—ant Prâ—sbytâ—ri aliâ—◠〈…〉 in textu Apostolicâ— connexio quam tamâ—n particul◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diserâ—è ponit Quâ—â—ui◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hac forest Illi constiâ—uâ—ndi sum Prâ—sbytâ—ri qui sunt sâ—ne criminâ— quia Episcopum cujus Officiuâ— potestas jâ—risdictio grâ—dâ—s diffâ—rt à Prâ—sbytâ—ro 〈◊〉 esse fine crimine From this placâ— it is manifâ—sâ— that the same were called and were Bishops who were callâ—d and wâ—re Prâ—sbytâ—rs otherwise there would bâ— no connexion in the Text of the Apostlâ— which yet the caâ—sall particle for evidently makes out For what juncture of râ—â—son would be in this They are to be made Presbyters who are blamelesse because a Bishop whose office powâ—r jurisdiction and degâ—â—â— diffâ—â—â— from a Prâ—sbyter ought to blamelesse 2. The same is manifested Act. 20.17.28 Paul sends from Miletum to Ephâ—sus and cals the Presbyters of the Church and this he doth when he waâ— to leave them and never see their faces more vers 38. To these Elders he saith Take heâ—d thâ—â—â—fore unto your selves and to all the flock â—ver which the Holy-Ghost hath made â—ou over-sears or as it is in the Greek-Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath purchâ—sâ—d with his own blood From hence we gather 1. That Elderâ— are called Bishops And not onely so But 2. That the Apostle gives the whole Episcopall power unto them and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to feed by government â—s wâ—ll as by life and doctrine If it belongs to Bishops to ordâ—in Elders â—nd to exercise jurisdiction in 〈…〉 then this also belongâ— to Elders for thâ—y are Bishops and their duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ c. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof or as in the Greek performing the Office of a Bishop over the flock of God not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind Here again observe 1. That the Apostle cals himselfe a Presbyter and so doth Iohn 2 Epistle and 3. Epistle vers 1. and therefore the Presbyters are the Successors of theApostles 2. That Presbyters are called Bishops and that they have not onely the name but the Office of Bishops given to them for their work and office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders are not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is said Act. 20.28 But here they are comm anded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to perform all those Offices to the Church which belong to a Bishop which are to preach ordain and govern c. 4. We argue from 1 Tim. 3. where the Apostle makes but two standing ordinary Officers for the service of the Church Bishops and Deacons And therefore after he hath set down the qualification of a Bishop he presently propoundeth the qualification of a Deacon not at all interposing the qualification of a Presbyter thereby giving us to understand That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one in Scripture language And from hence we may safely argue after this manner They which have the same name and same qualification to their Office and the same Ordination and the same Work and duty required of them are one and the same Officer But a Bishop and a Presbyter have one and the same name as we have already proved from Act. 20. and 1. Pet. 5. and the same qualification to their Office as appears here and Titus 1.5 7. and the same ordination for ought we can read in Scripture and the same work and duty as appears from Act. 20.28 and 1 Pâ—t 5.2 and shall presently be more
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
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-Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans
For it is agreed upon on al parts That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles dayes And that Parishes were not united into Diocesses till 260. years after Christ. And therefore sure we are That there could not be Diocesan Churches and Diocesan Bishops formally so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And these were called The Church of the Citie and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Afterwards we conceive That believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Hierusalem and thus possible it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. Iohns time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed 1. That these meeting places were frequented promisâ—uously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or congregations in the Apostles dayes 2. That notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Hierusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8.1 15.6 22.16 And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 3. That this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common Councel of Presbyters or Bishops For the Apostles went about Ordaining Presbyters in every Church and Act. 20.71 Paul calls for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church unto thâ—m The like may be said of the other six Churches From all this we gather That the Asian Angels wâ—re not Diocesâ—n Bishopâ— but CongreCongregational Presbyterâ— seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more then one And though Polyâ—arpe by Tertullian and Irenaeus be called Bishop of Smyrna and Onâ—simus by others Bishop of Ephesus yet it is confessed by all That Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after even in Irenaus his time And therefore the question still remains Whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica that is Presbyters or phrasi Pontificia whether Bishops Antonomasticâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called or whether as we believe and have proved as we conceive sufficiently in a general sense as all Presbyters are called This is all we shall say about the Second answer Though for our parts we professe that we adhere unto the first answer That the word Angel is to be taken Collectively not Individually And so much in answer to the Scripture-argument drawn from the Asian Angels CHAP. VII Containing our Reply to the Answers given to our Scripture-arguments THe next thing we are to take in hand is to make brief replyes unto those answers that are given to some of our arguments for to some of them no answer at all is given brought against the jus divinum of Prelacy and for the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture The general answer that is returned unto all our texts of Scripture is That these texts do onely prove an Identity of names but not of Offices and that it is the great Presbyterian fallâ—cy To argue from the Samenesse of names to a samenesse of function But we answer 1. That it is of no small consequence that there is a constant Identity of denomination between a Bishop and â— Presbyter For the proper end of names being as Smectâ—ymnuus saith to distinguish things according to the difference of their nature and the supream wisdom of God being the imposer of these names who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices nor mistake the proper end of imposition of names nor want variety to expresse himself the argument taken from the constant Identity of Denomination is not so contemptible as some would make it 2. But we answer further That our argument is not drawn from the Identity of denomination onely but also from the Identity of Office it is this They that have the same name and the same office and the same qualifications for their office and the same Ordination to their office they are one and the same but so hath the Presbyter and Bishop Ergo This we proved from Titus 1.5.6.7 1. Tim. 3. and other places never yet answered More particularly To that place Act. 20.17 28. where the Apostle commits the government of the Church of Ephesus unto the Presbyters of that Church whom he there calls Bishops c. It is answered That these Elders were not meer Presbyters but Bishops properly so called And though they were sent for from Ephesus yet they are not said to be all of Ephesus But they were all the Bishops of Asia called from divers parts and gathered together at Ephesus and from thence sent for by Paul to Milâ—tum To make the new-minted answer seem probable They bring the 25. verse where it is said And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more This must needs relate say they to all the Bishops of Asia amongst whom he had gone preaching the Kingdom of God And so also they bring the 31. verse Therâ—fore watch and remember that â—y the space of three years I ceased not to warne every one night and day with tears Now with whom did Paul spend his three years Not with the Elders of one City of Ephesus but with all the Bishops of Asia And therefore they conclude that this was Pauls Metropolicall visitation not of a few Elders of one City but of all the Asian Prelates To all this we reply 1. That this interpretation is a manifest wresting of the text contrary to most of the ancient Fathers to Hierom Theodâ—ret Chrys. c. and contrary to many Councells and purposely found out to avoid the deadly blow that this text giveâ— to Episcopacy by divine right 2. There is no sufficient ground to build that conjecture upon That the Bishops of all Asia were gathered together at Ephesus when Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesvs The text saith that Paul from Miletum sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Of what Church Surely of that Church to which he sent and that was Ephesus He sent not for ought we read for any other Elders neither is there any mention of any other Elders then present at Ephesus 3. The Syriack translation reads it He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus So Hierom Presbyteros
Ecclesiae Epâ—esinae So concilium Aquis-granense 4. If the Apostles by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation brought by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwaies useth the singular number as the Church of Hirusalem the Church of Corinth c. But when it speakes of provinces in which were many Cities then it useth the Plural number As the Churches of Iudaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1.11 According to this observation If the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of All Asia he would have said The Elders of the Churches But because he saith the Elders of the Church it is evident he meanes onely The Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so by consequence it is as evident That by Elders the Apostle understands meer Presbyters not Bishops in a distinct sense unlesse our brethren will confesse That there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus which is wholly to forsake theircause and to confesse that which we affirm that the Bishops of Ephesus were true Presbyters and the Presbyters true Bishops 5. Whereas it is said That Paul sent not onely for the Bishops or superintendents of Ephesus but of all Asia We demand who was the Bishop of Ephesus that Paul sent for Surely it was not Timothy For Timothy was then present with him and needed not to have been sent for and yet Timothy was according to our Brethrens judgement the first Bishop of Ephesus And if Timothy was the first Bishop then surely there was none in Ephesus for Paul to send for and if Ephesus at that time had no Bishop which was the Metroplis of all Asia How came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their Motheâ— Church as they call it 6. But sixtly We desire it may be proved That there were any Bishops over Presbyters in Asia when Paul was at Miletum This is taken for granted by Episcopall men But this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very thing which is in question We say That the Bishops of Asia were of the same nature with the Bishop of Ephesus that is they were Elders and Presbyters of the Churches to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the care of teaching and governing c. 7. As for that which is gathered from the 25. verse it beares no weight at all with it For these words All ye relate onely to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that were then present Should a man say unto ten Members of the House of Lords and ten of the House of commons and say unto them All ye are now dissolved would it imply a presence of all the Lords and all the Commons because the speech concerned them all and was true of them all who â—nows not it would not So it is here c. As for that which is hinted from the 31 vers it doth not â—t all prove that which it is brought for For if we look into Act. 19. we shall find that Paul spent most of his three years at Ephesus oâ—â—ly and not in other parts of Asia Ephesus was the chief City of Asia and greatly given to Idolatry and there Pâ—â—l fixed his habitation It is the observation of Hiroâ—â— That Paul tarried 3. years at Ephesus in praedicatâ—ous Evangelis assiduns 〈◊〉 Minister â—t Idâ—lolatriae arcâ— destructa facile miâ—orum urbiâ—â—â— faâ—a superstitioâ—â—s convellâ—â—et A daily and stroâ—uous Minister in the Preaching of the Gospel That by destroying the chief fort and castlâ— of Idolâ—try hâ— might the â—asilier demolish the temples and the sâ—â—â—â—stitions of the lessâ—r Cities The teâ—t it self â—entioneth two years and three Moneths And therefore this verse doth not at all prove that all the Bishops of Asia were present with Paul at Miâ—etum So much for the Justificâ—tion of our â—gument drawn from Act. 20.17.28 2. Whereas we have proved from Phil. 1.1 That there â—re but two ordinary â—nd stâ—nding Officers constituted by Christ in his Church c. To this divers answers are given and some of them quite contrary one to the other 1. First it is said by some That though in the place cited there be but two Orders of the Ministry mentioned yet it doth not follow but that there may be mention in other Scriptures of â—nother standing Officer We desire that these Scriptures may be produced We say That there is no mention in any place of any others and we add That there is no mention of any Rules for Ordaining any others or of any way of Mission for any others no Qualifications for any others And therefore that there is no other standing Officer in Christ's Church of his appointing 2. It is confessed by others That the Bishops in Philippi were meer Presbyters and that the Apostles in the Churches which they planted did not at first appoint any Bishops but Presbyters onely to whom they gave the power of Preaching but reserved in their own hands the power of Governing till towards the latter end of their lives This conceit though it be frequently urged and much insisted on by the learnedest of our Brethren yet that it is but a meer conceit appears 1. Because that when the Apostles placed Preaching Presbyters over the Churches they did not only give unto them the power of Teaching but also of governing They are called Rulers and Governours and their charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have proved at large Our Saviour Christ committed both the Keyes as they are called The Key of Doctrine and Discipline into the hands of Preaching Presbyters And whom the Apostles did constitute Teachers the same they made also Rulers and Governours 2. Because that when Paul took his solemn leave of the Elders of Ephesus and was never to see their faces more he did not set a Bishop over them to Rule and govern them But he left the power of government in the hands of the Elders Charging them to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost had made them Bishops both by Doctrine and Discipline 3. This answer doth yeeld thus much That the Apostles at first did place Presbyters in the Churches by them planted and that to these Presbyters he gave the power of Teaching and as we have proved the power of governing also Now it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove a Super-institution of a Bishop over Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times which we are sure they cannot do It is evident they did the quite contrary at Ephesus And therefore we may safely conclude That there was no such Officer in the Apostles dayes 4. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing To this it is well answered by the reverend Divines in their humble answer c. That the Apostles could no more devest
grounded upon a Ius Divinum but upon prudential reasons and arguments And the chief of them was as Hierom and divers after him say in remedâ—â—m Schismatis ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur For the remedy of Schisme and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out of the Church Now that this prudential way invented no doubt at first upon a good intention was not the way of God appeares as Smectymnuus hath well shewn thus Because we read in the Apostles daies there were divisions Rom. 16.17 and Schismes 1 Cor. 3.3 11.18 yet the Apostle was not directed by the Holy Ghost to Ordain Bishops for the taking away of those Schismes Neither in the Rules he prescribes for healing of those breaches doth he mention Bishops for that end Neither doth he mention this in his directions to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders as one end of their Ordination or one peculiar duty of their office And though the Apostle saith Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiâ—â—t inter vos yet the Apostle no where saith Oportet Episcopos esse ut tollantur haereses quae manifestâ— fiunt There must be Bishops that those Heresies which are manifest amongst you may be removed 2. Because the Holy Ghost who could foresee what would ensue thereupon would never ordain that for a remedy which would not onely be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into the saddle For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schisms there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Archbishops and one Pope over all unlesse men will imagine that there is a danger of Schisme only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops which is contrary to reason truth history and our own experience Hence it is that Musculus having proved by Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 Titus 1.5 1 Pet. 5.1 that in the Apostles times a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he addes But after the Apostles times when amongst the Elderâ— of the Church as Hierome saith Schismes arose and aâ— I verily think they began to strive for Majority by little and little they began to choose one among the rest out of the number of Elders that should be above the rest in a higher degree and called Bishop But whether that device of man profited the Church or no the times following could better judge then when it first began And further addeth That if Hierome and others had seen as much as they that came after they would have concluded that it was never brought in by Gods Spirit to take away Schismes as was pretended but brought in by Satan to wast and destroy the former Ministry that fed the flock Thus far Musculus Sadeel also hath this memorable passage The difference between Bishops and other Ministers came in for remedy of Schisme But they that devised it little thought what a gate they opened to the ambition of Bishopâ— Hence also Dr. Whiâ—akers asking How came in the inequality between Bishops and Presbyters answereth out of Hierome That the Schisme and faction of some occasioned the ancient Government to be changed which saith he how ever devised at first for a remedy against Schisme yet many holy and wise men have judged it more pernicious then the disease it self and although it did not by and by appear yet miserable experience afterward shewed it First ambition crept in which at length begat Antichrist set him in his chair and brought the yoak of bondage upon the neck of the Church The sense of these mischiefs made Nazianzâ—n wish not onely that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place but also that there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no principal dignity to wit in the Church of which he is speaking But now saith he Contentions about the right hand and the left about the higher and the lower place c. have bred many inconveniencies even among Ministers that should be Teachers in Israel Proposition 6. THat there is a widâ— and vast difference between the Bishops of the Primitive times and the Bishops of later times as much as between ancient Rome and Rome at this day A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter or Episcopus Praeses as a Moderator in a Church-Assembly or a Speaker in a Parliament that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum and had neither power of Ordination nor of Jurisdiction but in common with his Presbyters Ambrose upon the 1 Tim. 3. saith That there is one and the same Ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Dr. Reynolds saith That when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Gost had made them Overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In the which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop For as the name of Ministers common to all them who serve Christ in the stewardship of the mysteries of God that is in preaching of the Gospel is now by the custome of our English speech restrained to Elders who are under a Bishop So the name of Bishop common to all Elders and Pastors of the Church was then by the usual language of of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over Elders From which quotation it appeares that in the judgment of learned Dr. Reynold A Bishop at his first appearing was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President or Moderator of the Presbytery D. Blondel a man of vast Reading indeavours strenuously to make it out That when Episcopacy first came up in the Church the custome was to choose the Eldest of the company of the Presbyters whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the first of those that were ordained to be their Bishop or Moderator And after his decease the next in age succeeded him not advanced in degree of Ministry or power above his Brethren but onely in order and dignity as being the first Presbyter This opinion is agreeable to that passage out of St. Ambrose if that Book be his where he saith Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recâ—dente uno sequenâ— ei succederet Sed quia ceperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad Primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio ut
Reverend Fathers the Chorepiscopi had an intrinsecal power to Ordain derived to them from Christ. For a licence doth not confer a power to him that hath it not but onely a faculty to exercise that power he hath And this is the Conclusion that D. Forbes drawes from this practise of these Councels Surely saith he The Church would not have granted this power to the Chorepiscopi Nisi judicasset validam esse eam Ordinationem qua per solos pâ—ragitur Presbyteros It cannot be denied but that Pope Damasus made a Constitution for the abolishing of this Office of the Chorepiscopi But it seems this constitution was not put in execution in all Churches for above 200. years after Isidore Hispalensis who lived Anno. 630. in libro de Officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 6. speaks of these Chorepiscopi as yet continuing in the Church and saith Chorepiscopi id est Vicarii Episcoporum juxta quod Canones ipsi testantur instituti sunt ad exempla 70. Seniorum tanquam Sacerdotes propter solicitudinem pauperum Hi in vicis vitis constituti gubernant sibi commissas Ecclesias habentes licentiam constituere Lectores Subdiaconos exorcistas Presbyteros autem Diaconos Ordinare non audeant praeter conscientiam Episcopi in cujus regione praeesse noscuntur Hi autem à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent ordinantur Observe here That Isidore translates those words of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gentianus Hervetus Absque urbis Episcopo but Praeter conscientiam Episcopi Quae versio optime explicat mentem Concilii saith Forbesius estque ipso rei usu exequutione firmata ut nimirum possent Chorepiscopi etiam Presbyteros Diaconos ordinare permittente licet non simul ordinante Episcopo loci But how will it be proved may some say That these Chorepiscopi were onely Presbyters and not Bishops For if this can be clearly made out it will undeniably follow That according to the judgment of Antiquity Presbyters had not onely the inward power but also the outward exercise of Ordination for a long space Now that these Chorepiscopi were meer Presbyters appeares 1. Because they were to be ordained but by one Bishop à solo Episcopo civitatis cui adjacent saith the Councel of Antiochia But by the Canons of the Church A Bishop properly so called was to be ordained by three Bishops 2. Because they were to be subject to the Bishop of the City So saith the Canon Ab Episcopo Civitatis cui subjicitur fiat Chorepiscopus Now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flock assigned to him for which he is to give account to God 3. Because they could not nay they must not dare to exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop Conâ—il Ancyr saith Non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo pâ—rmissum fuerit Concil Antioâ—h saith Non audeat praeter conscientiam Episcopi None of this would have been said if they had been Bishops in a Prelatical sence 4 Because they were Bishops in villis regionibus and therefore as some think called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But according to the Canons of the Church Bishops in â— proper sence were not to be made unlesse in great Cities nâ— vilâ—scaâ— nomen Episcopi as Damasus argues when he pleads for the abolition of the Chorepiscopi 5. Because thiâ— power was afterwards taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves as Leo epist. 88. witnesseth which to us is a firm argument to prove not only that they once had it but that they had it as Presbyters For if they had it as Bishops the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them 6. We might bring an argument ad hominâ—m because they are said Concil Nâ—ocaesar Can. 14. to have been appointed in the Church after the manner or in imitation of the Seventy Now according to the opinion of the Hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles not the Seventy 7. We might also here urge the authority of Leo epist. 88. who saith That the Chorepiscopi juxta Canones Neocaesarienses sive secundum aliorum Patrum decreta iidâ—m sunt qui Presbyteri and of Isidore Hispalensis before mentioned and of Damasus epist. 5. To whose sentence Concil Hispal Can. 7. doth subscribe and also of Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. who saith Neither should it seem strange to our adversaries that the power of Ordination should at some times be yeelded unto Presbyters seeing their Chorepiscopi Suffragans or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops and are no Bishops according to the old course of Discipline do daily in the Romish Church confirm children and give Orders And again Seeing that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans as they call them being not Bishops but onely Presbyters do daily with good allowance Ordain Presbyters and all other Episcopall acts But we forbear multiplying of argumentâ— These are sufficient to prove That they were but single Presbyters And that therefore single Presbyters did Ordain even during the prevalency of Episcopacy To avoid the strength of this argument Bellarmine invents novum quoddam antea inauditum Chorepiscoporum genus He saith That there were some of them that were meer Presbyters and others that were veri nominis Episcopi And that the Councel of Antiochia speaks of the last in the beginning and of the first sort in the latter end But certain it is that the Canon speaks of Chorepiscopi in generall without any distinction throughout the whole And the scope of Damasus his letter is to prove that all the Chorepiscopi whatsoever their Ordination was were nothing else but Presbyters We shall not undertake to answer Bellarmine at large because it is done to our hands by that learned man so often mentioned who though a lover of Episcopacy yet surely he was a very Moderate and meek spirited man and hath fully answered all that is brought by Bellarmine against what we have asserted The Reader may view him if he please for his further satisfaction There is another whom we forbear to name that saith That the Chorepiscopi of whom the Canon speaks were Bishops But he addeâ— Though they were Bishops yet they were Bishops made but by one Bishop and Bishops meerly Tituâ—an and sine Cathedrâ which is all one as if he should say They were not properly Bishops For according to the Canons then in force A Bishop properly so called was to be made by 3. Bishops â—nd if he were Ordained sine titulo his Ordination was null and void We will conclude this discourse of the Chorepiscopi with a passâ—ge out of Gabriâ—l Vasquez Postquam proposuisset istud Bâ—llarmini somnium â—aec
fully proved Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Officer 5. This is further manifested from Phil. 1.1 To all thâ— Saints in Christ Iâ—sus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and Dâ—acons Here again note 1. That a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one For by Bishops cannot be meant Bishops over Presbyters for of such there never was as our Episcopal men say but one in a City 2. That there are but two Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ of divine institution Bishops and Deacons And that therefore a Bishop over Presbyters is not a plant of Gods planting nor an Officer appointed by Christ in his Church 6. We argue From these very texts in which the holy Ghost doth on purpose set down all the several sorts of Ministry which Christ hath Ordained in his Church As 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 12. Rom. 12.6.7 8. When Christ went up to Heaven he left extraordinary and ordinary Officers for the perfecting of the Saints and for the work of the Ministry c. But here is no mention made of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter much lesse of a Bishop superiour to a Presbyter in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Here are Apostles Prophets and Evangelists who were extraordinary Officers and temporary and had no successors properly in â—undem gradum And here is mention of Pastors and Teachers who are the onely ordinary standing and perpetual Ministers But no mention of the Pope by which argument our learned Protestant Divines prove him to be none of Christ's Ministers nor of Patriarches nor of Archbishops or Bishops distinct from Pastors and Teachers 7. All distinct Officers must have distinct works and operations nam operari sequitur esse and they must have distinct Commissions But Presbyters have the same commission with Bishops and the same work and operation Ergâ— they are the same with Bishops That they have the same Commission appears from Ioh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you This was said to all the Apostles equally and to all their successors indifferently And whose sins you forgive are forgiven c. This is common with Bishops to all Presbyters So Matth. 28.20 Go Teach all Nations Baptising them c. and lo I am with you alway unto the end of the world This is common to all Presbyters And as for their work and operation The Presbyters are called Rulers Governours and Overseers in Scripture 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Tim 5.17 1 Thess. 5.12 Heb. 13.7.17 24. And the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven are committed to them Matth. 16.19 The Scripture puts no distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter nor gives us any the least hint to make us believe That the key of doctrine should belong to the Presbyter and the key of Discipline to the Bishop Ordination is performed by the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 Jurisdiction likewise is given to the Presbyters For they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when the Apostle saith to the Church of Corinth Do not ye Iudge them that are within and put ye away from among your selves that wicked person And when Christ saith Tell the Church These texts cannot be understood of a Biship distinct from a Presbyter For one man cannot be called a Church which signifieth a company And the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians not in the singular but in the plural number Nor can they be understood of the whole Congregation promiscuously For the Apostle saith expresly That the punishment executed upon the incestuous person was inflicted by many not by all And by the Church of which Christ speaks and to which scandals are to be brought must of necessity be meant a Ruling and Governing Church And it is most clear in Scripture That private members are not Church-rulers For the Apostle puts a distinction between Saints and Rulers Heb. 13.24 Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the Saints If all were the eye where were the hands and feet And therefore these texts must be understood of the Presbytery From hence then it followes If jurdifiction and Ordination Oâ—dination belong to the Presbyter as well as the Bishop then a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same office 8. We might add That the Scripture acknowledgeth no superiority or inferiority between officers of the same kind For thâ—â—gh we read that one order of Ministery is said to be above another yet we never read that in the same Order of Officers there was any one superior to others of the same order We believe That the Apostles were above the Evangelistâ— And the Evangelists above Pastors and Teachers and Pastors and Teachers above Deacons But we likewise believe That there was no Apostle above â—n Apostle but that they were all equal in power and jurisdiction no Evangelist above an Evangelist no Deacon above another and so by consequence no Presbyter by divine right over other Presbyters 6. Lasâ—ly If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture the greater honour and preâ—â—inence must of necessity be given to the Presbyter above the Bishop which we believe will never be granted For according to our Prelatical Divines the office of a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters is to rule and govern and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the Sacraments Now sure we are That preaching and administring the Sacraments are far more excellent works then ruling and governing And the Apostle saith expressely That they that labour in word and doctrine deserve more honour then they that Rule well 1. Tim. 5.17 Hence we argue If there be a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter either he is equal or inferior or superior Our Adversaries will answer That he is superior But this cannot be For superiour Orders must have superior acts and honour belonging unto them above their equalls or inferiours But Bishops have not For preaching is an act above Ruling and most worthy of double honour and so is administring of the Holy Sacraments And therefore the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop and â—rgo a Bishop is not superior and ergo there is no Bishop at all in Scripture distinct from a Presbyter This is all we have to say out of Scripture for the Identity of a Bishop and a Preâ—byter and that this may not seem to be our own private judgment or that we do herein hold any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the Catholique Church or our own Church of England we shall crave leave to set down what hath been the opinion of the Church of Christ and also of our own Church concerning the divine right of Episcopal government First we will begin with St. Ierome who upon the first of Titus hath these words A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same and before there were through the Diveâ—â— instinct divisions in Religion and
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
themselves of power of Governing then as Dr. Bilson saith they could lose their Apostleship Had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more parted with their power of Governing then they did in setting up Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours Bishops had the power of Governing in Ordinary committed to them as well as the office of teaching c. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commitâ— the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus and yet reserve the power of Governing viz. in ordinary in his own hands who took his last farewell of them as never to see them more As the reserving of that part of the power of Governme nt called Legislative in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties judgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops at Ephesus and Creet to whom the Apostle gives rules for ordering and governing the Church So likewise there is no reason why the Apostle reserving of that part of the power of Government called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought m eet should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at first then that they never did There is a third answer given which is quite contrary to the second and that is that these Bishops of Philippi were Bishops in a proper sence and that at that time when the Apostle wrote his Epistle there were no single Presbyters at Philippi 1. This answer is quite contrary to the sence that Hierom Theodoret and Theophylacts and others give of this text 2. This answer supposeth that there were more Bishops then one planted in one City by the Apostles which is quite contrary to the judgment of Episcopall divines and quite destructive of the Episcopal Hierarchy Theodoret sayth that the Apostles by Bishops understands single Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Otherwise it had been impossible for many Bishops to go vern one City And so also Theophylact The Apostle calls Presbyters Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there were not many Bishops in one City And the truth is To affirm That there were many Bishops in one City in the Apostles dayes is in plain English to grant the cause and to say That the Apostolicall Bishops were mere Presbyters 3. Another text brought by us to prove the Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter was 1. Tim. 3. where the Apostle reckoning up the qualifications of a Bishop passeth from Bishops unto Deaconâ— leaving out the qualifications of Presbyters there by giving us to understand that Presbyters and Bishops are all one To this it is answered That because Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus who were Bishops therefore there was no need to write any thing concerning the choice or qualification of any other sort of officers then such as belonged to their Ordination and inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons onely and no Bishops 1. This answer would have some weight in it if it could be proved That Timothy and Titus were Bishops in a forâ—all sence or if there could be found any rule for the Ordination of an Hierarchicall Bishop or for the qualification of him in some other place of Scripture but we are sure that neither the one nor the other can be made out 2. It is reasonable to think as our Divines at the Isle of Wight say the Apostle when he passeth immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon in the place forementioned would have distinctly exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whether the Bishop over Presbyters or the Presbyter Bishop to have avoided the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the Eschocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house 3. According to the judgement of Episcopal men as our divines do well observe Bishops might then have ordained Bishops like themselves for there was then no Canonâ— forbidding one single Bishop to Ordain another of his own rank and there being many Cities in Creete Titus might have found it expedient to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities So that this answer fights against the principle of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops 4. This answer is opposite to all those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been made by the Apostle Arch-Bishops of Ephâ—sus and Crâ—â—tâ— If they were Arch-Bishops then their Office was to constitute Bishops in a proper sence There is one of no little note among our Prelatical Brethren that stoutly maintains this and till our Brethren be reconciled among themselves we need make no other reply to this answer 5. Whereas out of 1 Pet. 5. we proved That the Elderâ— are not onely called Bishops but have the whole Episcopal power committed unto them being commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feed and take the Episcopal charge of the flock of God To this it is said That by Elders are meant Bishops in our Brthrens sense Because These Elders are required to feed the flock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as being Lords over Gods heritage So it is translated But say some it must be translated Not as being Lords â—ver the Clergy committed to your care which hints unto us say they That these Elders were Bishops over Presbyters and not meer Presbyters This Interpretation is Novel and not to be found for ought we can discern in all Antiquity and we believe our more Moderate Brethren are ashamed of it and therefore we will be very brief in answer to it All that we shall say is 1. That though after the Apostles dayes there came in this Nominal distinction between the people and their Ministers insomuch as the people were called Laici and their Ministrs Clerici yet it is evident that in the Apostles dayes there was no such distinction The people of God are in this very Epistle called an holy Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 and a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 And Deut. 32.9 The Lords portion and the lot of his inheriâ—ance And if the Reader wil be pleased to view al the translations that have been of this text he will never find it translated As being Lords of the Clergy but as being Lords of Gods heritage 2. We answer That the Apostle as if on purpose he had intended to have fore-armed us against this misunderstanding of the words in the latter clause of the verse he sheweth what he maeneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as Lords over Gods heritage but as being ensamples to the flock The latter is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the sense of the whole verse can be no other but this That the Elders be careful not to
Lord it over Gods heritage that is Gods flock but to be examples unto them We shall not trouble the Reader with any other answers to our arguments These that we have mentioned being the most material Onely for the conclusion of this discourse we shall crave leave to take notice That there is a Doctor a high Prelatist of great esteem for learning amongst some men that in a late Book of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresover the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a Prelatical sense For a Bishop is superiour to Presbyters in Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meer Prâ—sbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say That the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes This Author on the contrary saith That the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop And that there were no single and meer Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not think it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in Justification of these Paradoxes Onely we desire it may be considered 1. That these assertions are contrary unto Antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren do so highly magnify and boast of in this controversie and for receding from which as they sâ—y we do they do most deeply charge us 2. That they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy And therefore till our Brethren can agree amongst themselves we need not spend time to answer the private opinion of one Doctor 3. That whosoever will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant 1. That there were more Bishops then one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring down a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter 2. That there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters 3. That Ordo Presbyteratus is not jure divino For if neither Christ nor his Apostles Ordained the Office of a Presbyter Then is the Order of Presbytery a meer humane invention Which is an assertion that even the worst of Papists will abominate Bellarmine himself saith That a Bishop that is not first a Presbyter is a meer figment and an empty Title 4. The Author himself in Justification of this his opinion is forc'd to confesse 1. That the Ephesius Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Mileâ—â—â— were all the Prelates of Asia 2. That the Bishops of Philippi whom Paul salutes Chap. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith That Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica 3. That Timothy was Arch-Bishop of Ephesus and that when Paul sets down the qualifications of Bishops though he mentioneth no qualification but such which are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speak of Bishops in a prelatical sence and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour c. That is saith this Author the Bishops that rule well c. Thereby holding out this great error that a Bishop that rules well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bidâ— Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery that iâ— saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder c. and not receive an accusation against an Elder c. This is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meer Presbyters 4. That Titus also was Arch-Bishop of Creet and that he received no commission from St. Paul to ordain single Elders but onely for ordaining of Bishops in every City It seems this Author slights the postscript where Titus is called the first Bishop of Creet and slights all those ancient Fathers that are cited by his own party to prove that he was Bishop of Creet But he must be an Arch-bishop and so must Tymothy be also or else these assertions of his will fall to the ground Now that they were neither Bishops nor Archbishops hath been sufficiently proved as we conceive in the former discourse 5. Fiftly and lastly those Paradoxes are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the jus divinum of Episcopacy and would further manifest it if we thought it necessary For when the Apostle saith Iames 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church c. who is there that can be perswaded to believe That all these Elders were Bishops in the sense that Bishops are taken in our dayes is this the proper work of Bishops to visit the sick and besides If the Apostles by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call the Elder s of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our Brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons Besides when it is said Act. 21.18 Paul went in with us unto Iames and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopal men that this Iames was at this time Bishop of Hierusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Hierusalem will this answer consist with our Brethrens judgment So likewise when it is said Act. 15.4 And when they were come to Hierusalem they were received of the Church and of thâ— Aâ—pstles and Elders We demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Hierusalem to which place they are said to come And if so Then we ask further what is meant by the Elders Must it not be answered That by Elders are meant the Elders of Hierusalem And then let any man tell us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelaticall sense especially according to the sense of our Brethren who make Iames to be at this time the onely Bishop of Hierusalem Add further It is said Act. 14.23 when Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11.30 They sent relief to the Elders c. Can any Imagin that this Relief was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordained no Presbyters in any Church but onely Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacy is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and Godly and Moderate Christians But we forbear So much for our Scripture-proof and for our Justification out of the Word
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.
summo Sacerdoti Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae disciplina vendicata concordiam solveret scandala generaret and afterwards he proves by Scripture texts that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same So also Concilium Aquisgran 1. Canon 8. Solum propter authoritatem Clericorum Ordinatio Consâ—cratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti Dr. Forbes professor at Aberdeen though a great friend and pleader for Episcopacy yet he saith Habent Presbyteri de jure Divino Ordinandi sicut praedicandi baptizandi potestatem quamvis haec omnia exequi debeant sub regimine inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus And Mr. Mason a known Writer in defence of Episcopacy saith also That a Presbyter as he is a Presbyter is indued with intrinsecal power and ability to Ordain and was restrained from the exercise of it onely by the Church for Disciplines sake and that when the Power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop the power of the Presbyter was not at that time utterly extinguished but onely restrained as the faculty of the flying of a bird when hiâ— wings are tyed What authority the Church had to tye these wings or whether the Church did well in tying them when the Scripture had left them untyed is not now under debate All that we produce this Authour for is to prove That the wingâ— of Presbytery were not cut off though they were tyed up and that according to the judgment of Episcopal Writers themselves Presbyters have an intrinsecal power of giving Orders The same Authour proves this his Assertion thus Because that a Bishop is intrinsecally inabled to give Orders not by his power of Jurisdiction but by his power of Order And because a Presbyter hath as much of the Sacrament and character of Order according to the Papists themselves as a Bishop and therefore every Presbyter hath an intrinsecal power of giving Orders Now that Episcopacy and Presbytery are one and the same Order of Ministry and that that which is added in Episcopal consecration whereby a Bishop is distinguished from a Presbyter is only a degree of dignity and eminency and is neither the Sacrament of Order nor imprinteth a Character he proveth by a world of witnesses even from Popish Writers From Lombard Aquinas Durandus Dominicus Soto Richardus Aureolus and divers otherâ— Tostatus saith It is in the consecration of Bishops as of the Pope in which there is not imprinted a Character seeing they are not Orders but dignities or degrees of Ecclesiastical preeminence Gerson saith Above Priesthood there is no superiour Order no not the function of a Bishop or Archbishop Armachanus saith A Bishop in such things hath no more in respect of his Order then every single Priest Although the Church hath appointed that such things should be executed by those men whom we call Bishops Aureolus hath a notable passage Every foâ—m in as much as it is in act hath power to communicate it self in the same kind therefore every Priest hath power to celebrate Orders Why then do they not celebrate them Because their power is hindred by the decree of the Church Whereupon when a Bishop is made there is not given unto him any new power but the former power being hindred is set at liberty as a man when the act of reason is hindered and the impediment is removed there is not given unto him a new Soul From all these things it appears that Presbyters have an intrinsecal power to Ordain Presbyters Proposition 4. THat even during the prevalency of Episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a Presbyter to Ordain without a Bishop A Presbyter had not onely an inherent power of Ordination but in some cases he did actually Ordain S. Ambrose upon Eph. 4. saith Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus Austine or whosoever was the author in quaestionibus ex utroque Testamento mixtim quast 101. In Alexandriâ per totam Aegyptum fi desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter Which words cannot be understood as a learned defender of Prelacy would have them of the consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo But it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination But howsoever it is not much material For Confirmation was restrained to the Bishop as well as Ordination and if the Presbyter might confirm si desit Episcopus then he might also Ordain Hierome saith of the Alexandrian Bishops Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. That the Presbyters for many years did Ordain their Bishops And certainly if it were not held unlawfull in Antiquity for Presbyters to ordain Bishops much lesse could it be held unlawful for Presbyters to Ordain Presbyters Dr. Forbes saith That in all those Churches which are governed by the Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops Valida efficax est Ordinatio quae fit per impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii Quin ubi est Episcopus possunt Presbyteri Ordinare consentiente licet non simul manus imponente Episcopo Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 39. tells us That Presbyters in some places and at some times did impose hands which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden there was so great exception taken at him for it that he left it free again And afterwards Not onely Armachanus a very learned and worthy Bishop but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times Presbyters may give Orders and that their Ordinations are of force c. And that Ordination by Presbyters was held lawfull and warrantable by the ancient Church appears further by these ensuing Arguments 1. Because the Chorepiscopi who were but single Presbyters had liberty by the Church to Ordain if they had a licence from the Bishop That they had liberty appears from the 13. Canon of the Councel at Aâ—â—yra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chorepiscopis non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare sed neque urbis Presbyteris nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit in alienâ parochiâ This Councel was held before the Councel of Nice in the year 314. And in the Councel of Antiochia which was Anno 341. Can. 10. It is decreed That the Chorepiscopi should not dare to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From these two Canons we may collect these two observations 1. That before these Councels the Chorepiscopi did Ordain Presbyters without any licence at all from the Bishop of the City Otherwise to what purpose are they inhibited 2. That after these Councels they might Ordain by vertue of a licence which sheweth evidently that in the judgment of these