provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom