Notion of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy as a superiour Order was first promoted in the Church of England by Arch-Bishop Laud. Dr. Holland the King's Professor of Divinity in Oxon was much offended with Dr. Laud for asserting it in a Disputation for his Degrees he checked him publickly and told him He was a Schismatick and went about to make a division between the English and other Reformed Churches This Prelate had inured his Tongue to say Ecclesia Romana and Turba Genevensis Cressy who apostatized to the Romish Church conceives that the reason why Episcopacy took no firm rooting in the Consciences of English Subjects before Archbishop Lauds time was because the Succession and Authority of Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Orders received from the Roman Church was never confidently and generally taught in England to be of Divine Right His Disciples since have rectified that Errour by obliging all the Conforming Ministers to subscribe That Episcopacy is a distinct Order and that it is manifest in God's Word that it is so This goes beyond the determination of the Council of Trent And to make the Fabrick lasting which was built upon this new Foundation all Ministers must be sworn to support it and that they will not remove one Stone out of the Building by any endeavours to alter the Government as established in Church and State The Substance of this Oath as it relates to Ecclesiastical Government is the same with the c. Oath which was imposed in the year 1640. only it includes also the Civil Government and requires Passive Obedience and Non-resistance in all Cases whatever which rendred it acceptable to the Powers then in being and gave them incouragement to trample upon Fundamental Laws and Constitutions as presuming upon the security of an Oath that neither they nor any commissioned by them must be resisted upon any pretence whatsoever The Proofs brought for this distinction and superiority of Order are so very weak that scarce two of the Asserters of Episcopacy agree in any one of them No Scripture no primitive General Council no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers no not one Father of note in the first Ages speak particularly and home to this purpose The Point of Re-ordination began to be urged here in Arch-Bishop Laud's time his Influence was such and the Cause then in hand did work so powerfully upon good Bishop Hall himself that he adventured as Mr. Prin tells us to Re-ordain Mr. Iohn Dury though he had been before Ordained in some Reformed Church But from the beginning it was not so The old Church of England did not require Re-ordination as is now done In King Edward the Sixth his time Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and P. Fagius had Ecclesiastical Preferments in the Church of England but Cranmer whose Judgment of Episcopacy we have seen before never required Re-ordination of them He was most familiar with Martyr nether did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might Ordain Iohn à Lasco with his Congregation of Germans was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's Patent he to be Super-intendent and four other Ministers with him and though he wrote against some Orders of our Church was with others called to Reform our Ecclesiastical Laws In Queen Elizabeth's time Ordination by Presbyters was allowed as appears by the Statute of Reformation c. 13 Eliz. cap. 12. It cannot refer to Popish Ordinations only if at all For 1. the words are general Be it enacted that every person which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy Word The Title of Minister of God's holy Word is rarely used among the Papists and in common use among the Reformed Churches The Ministry with the Papists is a real Priesthood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests And it 's an old Maxim Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit 2. The Subscription seems to intend those that scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies which the Papists do not For the assent and subscription required is to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments By this they gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to Subscribe all the Articles absolutely because the Approbation of the Homilies and Book of Consecration were included in them which are no Articles of the Catholick Church but private Articles of the Church of England as Mr. T. Rogers observes Therefore the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of Faith and of the Sacraments By the way I cannot but take notice of the following Clause in that Statute If any Person Ecclesiastical shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented before the Bishop of the Diocess or the Ordinary or before the Queen's Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical shall persist therein and not revoke his Errour or after such Revocation eftsoons affirm such untrue Doctrine such maintaining or affirming or persisting shall be just cause to deprive such Person of his Ecclesiastical Promotions And it shall be lawful to the Bishop of the Diocess or the said Commissioners to deprive such a Person so persisting and upon such Sentence of Deprivation pronounced he shall be indeed deprived Quaere Whether the Profession of Arminianism be not directly contrary to the Seventeenth Article of Predestination and Election to the Tenth Article of Free-will and to the Thirteenth of Works preparatory to Grace and if so Whether the Guilty do not deserve Deprivation by this Statute The best of it is they are like to meet with favourable Judges who will not be over-strict to mark the Errours of those who do but write after the Copy they have set before them Surely the Case is altered from what it was formerly It was Baro's unhappiness that he lived in a peevish Age for when he delivered himself unwarily in favour of those Opinions the Heads of the University of Cambridge sent up Dr. Whittaker and Dr. Tindal to Arch-Bishop Whitguift that by the interposition of his Authority those Errours might be crushed in the Egg. Hereupon Baro being obnoxious to this Statute was expelled the University and the Lambeth-Articles were made which come nothing short of the Determinations of Dort But tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis But to return from this short digression some that were Ordained by Presbyters were admitted to the Publick Exercise of their Ministry and had Preferment in the Church of England without Re-ordination in Queen Elizabeth's time Mr. William Whittingham was made Dean of Durham about 1563. though Ordained by Presbyters only Mr. Travers Ordained by a Presbytery beyond Sea was Seven years Lecturer in the Temple and had the Bishop of London's Letter for it In his Supplication to the Council printed at the end of Mr. Hooker's Eccl. Polit. he saith One reason why he was Suspended by Arch-Bishop
whether Peter Euodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one and the other Paul At Alexandria where the Succession seems to run clearest the Original of the Power is imputed to the Choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution as we observed already 7. If there were any certainty in this Succession the Fathers ascribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bishops Ignatius saith concerning them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of the Apostles Irenaeus affirms the same Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successionem Presbyteriorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur Traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Though the truth is when the Fathers insist upon the Succession of Bishops or Presbyters they are not to be understood of the Succession of Persons but principally of the Succession of Doctrine which the first Bishops or Pastors of Churches kept inviolable as received from the Apostles Otherwise the Succession of Persons without the Orthodox Doctrine is no note of a true Church as among the Arians where they had a Succession of Bishops and yet no true Church Pietatis successio proprie successio aestimanda est namque qui eandem fidei Doctrinam ejusdem quoque Throni particeps est qui autem Contrariam fidem amplectitur adversarius in Throno etiam Censeri debet Atque haec quidem nomen illa vero rem ipsam veritatem habet successionis Now the Succession of true Doctrine being wanting in the Popish Church the other of Persons is an empty Name to circumvent the Simple Object 3. Ischyras was Deposed because he was Ordained by Colluthus a Presbyter of Alexandria Thus Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy p. 91 92. and Bilson's Perpetual Government cap. 13. Answ. Colluthus Ordained as a pretended Bishop constituted by Meletius Arch Bishop of Thebais and therefore was commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter as he had been formerly Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by them that were reported to be the Authors himself also is reckon'd by Austin amongst the Hereticks and his Ordination was a notorious breach of the Canons it was sine titulo extra fines and nulli vicinorum nota all which Circumstances make it uncanonical Dr. Field saith That when Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void it 's to be understood acoording to the rigour of Canons in use in their Age which appears saith he by this that Ordinations sine Titulo were null Conc. Chalc. Can. 6. The Reverend Author of the Naked Truth thus Answers Bishop Hall's Objection about Colluthus and Ischyras I am sorry saith he so good a Man had no better proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Niâ—e made a Canon wherein they declare that if any Bishop should Ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishops Diocess without his consent their Ordination should be null You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter therefore the irregular Bishop and the irregular Presbyter are of the same Order of the same Authority neither able to Ordain Object 4. It is objected out of Ierom Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione Answ. Ierom speaks of Canonical Restraints and not of Scriptural for the design of his Discourse is to prove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove it he confirms it by asking this Question What doth a Bishop more then a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating that this could not advance him to a superiour Order the Bishop and Presbyter being originally the same As if he would say The Presbyters perform the most transcendent Acts of Religion they are Ambassadors for Christ to preach the Gospel they administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper and what doth a Bishop more then these except Ordination which being no Sacrament is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree A Canonical Restraint cannot prejudice their inherent Power FINIS Books Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil PRactical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Iamaica England Sicily Malta Anno 1692. with a particular Historical Account of those and divers other Earthquakes by Iohn Shower Earthquakes explained and Practically improved occasioned by the late Earthquakes on Sept. 18. 1692. in London and many other Parts in England and beyond Sea by Tho. Doolittle M.A. The Duty and Blessing of a Tender Conscience plainly stated and earnestly recommended to all that regard Acceptance with God and the Prosperity of their Souls by T. Cruso The Christian Laver or a Discourse opening the Nature of Participation with and demonstrating the Necessity of Purification by Christ by T. Cruso Four Sermons on several Occasions by T. Cruso Barbarian Cruelty being a true History of the distressed Condition of the Christian Captives under the Tyrany of Mully Ishmael Emperor of Morocco c. by Francis Brooks The Mirrour of Divine Love unvail'd in a Paraphrase on the Song of Solomon by Robert Flemming V. D. M. * Perrin's Hist. p. 53 62. Hist. of the Vaudois c. 3 * Contra Waldens cap. 4. Walsing Hist. p. 339. * Dr. Stillingfl Iren. p. 393. †Hier. in Ep. ad Tit. * CommuniÌ„ Concitio Presbyterorum gubernabatur Ecclesia Hieron ubi supra ad Evagr. ‖ See La Rocque's Conform of Dâ—scipline cap. 1. art 3. Isa. 53. 12. Rom. 8. 36 37. Eph. 4. 11 14. Arg. 1. * 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †Rev. 2. 27 ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 1 Tim 3. Phil. 1. 1. †Acts 20. 17 28. ‖ Acts 14. 21 22 23. * Walt. Praef. de Edit Bib. Polygl p. 30 40. ‖ 1 Tim. 5. 17. †1 Pet. 5. 1. Object * Spens contra Bucer Answ. †Acts 20. 28. ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Eph. 4. 11. * Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. †1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Object Answ. 1. ‖ Vid. Turr. Sophis inter Sadeel Op. p. 598. * Eph. 4. 11 ‖ Euseb. Hist. 111. 34. * In Eph 4. †1 Tim. 5. 22. ‖ 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. * 1 Tim. 4. 14. †Acts 14. 23. ‖ 1 Tim. 1. 3. 4. 13 14. * 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. †Whitt contr 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16. ‖ Cypr. Ep. 64 68. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. 4. 13. †1 Tim. 5. 13. ‖ 1 Pet. 4. 15. * 2 Tim 4. 9 10 11. †Heb. 13. 23. ‖ Acts 20. 17 28. * Acts 20. 4 5 6 7 13 14. * Ib. v. 25. †1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1.
A PLEA FOR Scripture Ordination OR TEN ARGUMENTS FROM Scripture and Antiquity PROVING Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid By I. O. Minister of the Gospel To which is prefixt an Epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores Hieron in Ep. ad Tit. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for I. Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil over-against the Royal Exchange 1694. THE PREFACE THE Cause which these Papers Vindicate is not that of a Party as some unthinking People may imagine but of the Reformation in General which has been propagated and supported in its most flourishing Branches by the Ministry here pleaded for The Ancient Vaudois or Waldenses those eminent and faithful Witnesses against Antichristian Usurpations have had no other for near 500 years past The first guides of the People from Mystical Egypt were Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters These are they that gathered the first Fruits unto God under the Conduct of these the persecuted WOMAN FLED thâ—ough a Sea of Blood into the Wilderness by their Ministry she hath been fed and nourished these make the first Figure among the Witnesses that prophecy in Sackcloth they have gone in mourning from one Generation to another When others have assumed Beauty for Ashes the Oyl of Ioy for mourning the Garment of Praise for the Spirit of heaviness these have been fed with the Bread of Tears have been filled with bitterness and made drunk with Wormwood They have been Men of Sorrows and acquainted with grief They have been sore broken in the place of Dragons and covered with the Shadow of Death yet have they not forgotten the Name of their God or stretched out their hand to a strange God It 's by the Ministry of these that the Truth prevailed the Eyes of Nations were opened and vast Multitudes reduced to the Obedience of the Gospel They seal'd their Ministry with their Blood and Heaven sealed it with the most glorious success Rainerius one of their Tormentors complains of them that they had spread through all Countries and crept into every Corner Walsingham our Country-man tells us how the Lolards as they were here called had fill'd our Land and had their Ministers Ordain'd by Presbyters without Bishops that they justified these Ordinations and asserted an inherent Power in Presbyters to put forth all Ecclesiastical Acts without distinction We may rationally presume that their practice was uniform in other Countries and had we exact Records of their Church Administrations we should find innumerable Instances of Ordination by Presbyters among them but the account they give of themselves is so very imperfect that had not their Enemies transmitted to Posterity a Narrative of their Actions and Sufferings though very partially we should have known little of them We have no reason to think that those blessed Worthies did either alter their Judgments or supersede their Practice concerning Ordination by Presbyters and therefore I take it for granted that the same Ministry continued among them until the begining of the Reformation Here in England several of the Bishops were eminently instrumental in promoting the Reformation which gave them a deserved esteem in the thoughts of all good men especially of the poor Lolards to whom that great Change was a Resurrection from the dead By this means the Bishops continued their stations in the Church and were entrusted with the principal management of Ordination which their Popish Predecessors had ingrossed into their hands long before But though Matters were thus settled they were far from Claiming to themselves a superiour Power over Presbyters or stamping a Ius Divinum upon their Office They acknowledged the identity of Bishops and Presbyters that Ordination by Presbyters was valid and that Episcopacy was a bare Constitution of the Civil Magistrate for the better governing of the Church All this will be fully proved in the following Discourse Thus it was in England but in the forreign Churches it was quite otherwise there the Bishops were implacable Enemies to the Reformation which gave the Presbyters an Opportunity of re-assuming their inherent Power of Ordination and of laying aside the pretended superiour Order of Bishops as those who had appropriated to themselves the just Rights of Presbyters and divested them of the inseparable Priviledges of their Order and had been so far from answering the first design of their Constitution of being a Remedy against Schism that partly by their Arbitrary Impositions and partly by their boundless Ambition they had miserably torn and divided the Christian Church for several Ages before and contributed to the establishment of the usurping Bishop of Rome For these and other Reasons they rejected Bishops from having any part in their Church-Government This they committed to the Presbyters as their ancient Right If a Popish Bishop happened to be Converted to the Protestant Religion he was not capable of Exercising his Ministry among them no not as a Presbyter until he submitted to a new Ordination This Establishment enraged the Roman Prelates and drew forth their strongest Efforts to assert their tottering Hierarchy and to overthrow the Reformed Ordinations Therefore the principal and leading Antagonists we have to do with in the present Controversie are the Papists especially the Iesuits who with one Mouth condemn Ordinations by Presbyters With us it 's a very small thing that we should be judg'd of Man's day we acquiesce in that Judgment which will dispense Rewards and Punishments not according to the disputable Modes of Mens entrance into the Office but as they have faithfully or otherwise discharged the Duties of the Sacred Ministry Happy they whose Record is on high whose Witness is in Heaven whose Testimony is in their own Bosoms and in the Consciences of those that hear them I leave the following Discourse to recommend it self unto thee Read with observation weigh every thing in an even Ballance and let the Impressions of Truth form an Impartial Judgment I. O. TO THE READER THE indispensible use of a Gospel Ministry must appear to such as at all consider the ignorance of Mankind in the way of Eternal Life the innate aversion to the terms of Reconciliation with God the Mystery of Gospel Revelations the subtle and unwearied Attempts of Seducers against the Truth the backwardness to improvement in Grace and a Life according to the Rules of Christianity which even they discern who are not utter Strangers to the Impresses of a Divine Power by the Word in the illumination of their Minds and renovation of their Wills Yea further who would sustain the Labour and Hazards of this holy Calling or attend thereto with an assiduity requisite to the ends thereof if not by Office obliged Nay how would it enervate our Pleadings with Sinners and abate that Assurance given to Believers by the Word and Sacraments if we did not transact
into Swords and makes Ambassadors of Peace to become Heralds of War and the Fathers of Vnity Sons of Discord Of all Divisions those amongst Ministers have the saddest tendency of all the Divisions of Ministers those that concern their Ministerial Call are the most destructive It is not strange that Romish Priests should Condemn all Reformed Ministers without distinction that the spurious Offspring of the Scarlet Whore should conspire against the Seed of the Woman that the Ministers of Antichrist should reject the Ministers of Christ. Their unmerited Condemnation is our Convincing Justification But that which administers just cause of Sorrow is to behold Protestant Ministers uncharitably Arraigning one another Some unthinking Dissenters ignorantly condemn all that are Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers of Christ not considering that thereby they nullifie their own Baptism which most of them received from Episcopal Ministers if they are but meer Lay-men their Baptism is no Baptism and ought to be repeated in the Judgment of many This Principle naturally leads to Anabaptism On the other hand some Dignitaries of the Church of England condemn all that are not Ordained by Bishops as no Ministers and so they Anathematize all the Reformed Churches that have no Bishops they affirm their Ministry and Sacraments to be meer Nullities and that there is no Salvation to be had in their Communion and therefore that it is safer to continue in the Roman Church as if the empty Name of a Bishop were more necessary to Salvation then an interest in the great Bishop of our Souls the Lord Jesus and an Idolatrous Heretical Church under the Conduct of Antichristian Bishops were preferrable to an Evangelical Orthodox Church without them But these severe Judges that pass a damnatory Sentence upon the greatest if not the best part of the Reformed Churches are worthily deserted by all sober and moderate Church-men Others of that Communion own Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid but they look upon them as Schismatical where Bishops may be had We have no Controversie with these about the validity of Ordination by Presbyters but about the Charge of Schism which we conceive falls upon the Imposers of unscriptural Conditions of Ordination Others allow Ordinations by Presbyters in the Forreign Churches who have no Bishops but they Censure such Ordinations for Nullities where Bishops may be had as in England Our present Controversie is with these For the stating of the Point in difference we 'l consider 1. Wherein we are agreed 2. Wherein the real difference lies Our Agreement We agree 1. That Christ hath appointed a Ministry in his Church A Gospel Ministry is not of Humane but of Divine Original It belongs to Jesus Christ to institute what sort of Officers must serve in his House 2. We agree that the Ministry is a standing Office to continue in the Christian Church to the end of Time Matth. 28.19 20. 3. That no Man ought to take upon him the Sacred Office of a Minister of the Word without a lawful Calling or Mission Rom. 10.14 15. Ier. 14.14 Heb. 5.4 4. That Ordination is always to be continued in the Church Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.21 22. 5. That Ordination is the Solemn setting apart of a Person to some Publick Church-Office 6. That every Minister of the Word is to be Ordained by Imposition of Hands and Prayer with Fasting Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 5.22 7. That he who is to be Ordained Minister must be duly qualified both for Life and Ministerial Abilities according to the Rules of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.6 7 8 9. In these things which comprehend all the Essentials of the Ministry whatever more we are fully agreed The main difference is about the Persons Ordaining We say Ordination may be perform'd by meer Presbyters Some of our Brethren of the Episcopal Persuasion say That no Ordinations are valid but such as are done by Diocesan Bishops The common Cry against Protestant dissenting Ministers is That they are no true Ministers of Christ but Intruders and false Prophets And why so Not because they are not Orthodox in their Doctrine for they have subscribed all the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England Nor can they charge them with Insufficiency or Scandal for they are generally Persons of approved Abilities exemplary Conversations and great Industry in the Lord's Vineyard who seek not their own things but the things of Christ. They are willing to be tried by the Characters of Gospel Ministers Where lies the defect then why in this they are not Ordained by Bishops They derive not their Power from such Diocesans as pretend to an uninterrupted Succession down from the Apostles They were Ordained by meer Presbyters that have not the Ordaining Power and none can communicate that to another which he hath not in himself Our Case then in short is this Whether Ordination by meer Presbyter's without Diocesan Bishops be valid The Question needs but little Explanation By Ordination I mean the setting of Persons apart by Imposition of Hands for the Sacred Office of the Ministry By Presbyters I understand Gospel Ministers who are called to the Oversight of Souls and to whom the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed By Diocesan Bishops I intend that Species of Church Officers which claim to themselves a Superior Power of Order and Jurisdiction above Presbyters and to be the sole Pastors of several hundreds of Congregations having Parish Priests under them who have no Power of Discipline in the Church By valid I mean not what the Old Canons make so but what the Scriptures determine to be so Those Sacred Oracles which are of Divine Inspiration and not Arbitrary Canons of weak Men's devising are the Foundation of our Faith and the infallible Standard by which Truth and Errour must be tried The Question being thus explained I affirm That such as are set apart with Imposition of Hands for the Office of the Ministry by Gospel Ministers without the Species of Church Officers who claim a superior Power over Presbyters are regularly Ordained and their Ordination is valid according to the Scriptures This Truth I hope to demonstrate by the following Arguments CHAP. II Presbyters have power to Ordain because they are Scripture Bishops The Syriac Translation useth not different Names If there be a difference the prebeminence belongs to the Presbyter Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered 1. The Iesuits urge this against the Protestants 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops 3. The Government of Ephesus was in the Presbyters of that Church 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians as he doth in other Epistles 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them he made no mention of Timothy for his Successor though he were present 6. He did not reside at Ephesus 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church but a Parochial or Congregational The Asian Angels no Diocesan Bishops Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches from
Bishops so well that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are Parishes in England as the Jewish Synagogues had to which St. Iohn alludes when he calls them Angels of the Churches In sum If Presbyters be Scripture Bishops as we have proved and Diocesan Bishops have no footing there as hath been evinced then our Ordinations are Iure Divino and therefore valid CHAP. III. Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in Scripture St. Paul and Barnabas Ordain'd by Presbyters Their Ordination a Pattern to the Gentile Churches Acts 13.1 2 3. vindicated Turrianus's Evasion confuted Timothy Ordained by Presbyters 1 Tim. 4.14 explained The Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously THAT Ordination of which we have Scripture Examples is valid but of Ordination by Presbyters we have Scripture Examples therefore Ordination by Presbyters is valid The Major I hope will not be denied it carries its own Evidence with it to such as are willing to be guided by the practise of Apostolical Churches which is the first and best Antiquity The Minor I thus prove St. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained by Presbyters Acts 13.1 2 3. so was Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 These two Instances deserve a more particular consideration Concerning the first in Acts 13. these two things are evident 1. That Luke speaks of Ordination he mentions the separating of Paul and Barnabas to a Ministerial Work by Fasting and Prayer with the Laying on of Hands and what more can be done in Ordination It 's true they had an extraordinary Call before Gal. 1.1 yet being now to plant the Gospel among the Gentiles they enter upon their Work at the ordinary Door of Ordination Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was for this reason That the Lord hereby might set down a Plat-form of Ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles to future times 2. The Ordainers were Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2. Now Teachers are ordinary Presbyters who are distinguished from Prophets and other extraordinary Officers both in 1 Cor. 12.28 and in Eph. 4.12 Every Presbyter is a Teacher by Office Turrianus the Jesuit thinks to avoid the force of this quotation by affirming the Prophets mentioned in this Ordination to have been Bishops and the Teachers to have been meer Presbyters and that these Presbyters were Paul and Barnabas who were now created Bishops But this is a most ridiculous evasion Was St. Paul the chief of Apostles but a meer Presbyter was he inferior to Lucius Niger and Manaen Apostles were superior to Prophets much more to Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. The Prophets here could not be Bishops because they were extraordinary Officers and there were more then one in this Church and in the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 14.29 Neither is there any ground in the Text of this distribution that Teachers should refer to the Ordained and Prophets to the Ordainers This is a meer fiction of the Jesuit to support the Cause of Prelacy If any say This separation of Paul and Barnabas was not to the Office of the Ministry but to a special Exercise of it I answer it doth not alter the Case For here are all the outward Actions of an Ordination properly so called Fasting Prayer with Imposition of Hands to a Ministerial Work Now the Question is Who have power to perform these Actions here the Presbyters do it They to whom all the outward Actions of Ordination belong to them the Ordaining Power belongs as he that hath power to wash a Child with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost hath power to Baptize for what else is baptizing but washing with Water in the Name of the Sacred Trinity for special Dedication to God He that hath power to set apart Bread and Wine for Sacramental use hath power to Administer the Lord's Supper So here they that have power to dedicate Persons to God for the Work of the Ministry by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of Hands have power of Ordination It 's true a Lay-Patron may give one power to exercise his Ministry that cannot give the Office but can he do this by repeating all the solemn Acts of Ordination Can he use the same form of Ordination with the Ordaining Bishop Can he lay hands upon the Person ordained and by Fasting and Prayer devote him to God in the Publick Congregation I think none will affirm it If he cannot invest a Person by repeating the whole form of Ordination because he is a Lay-man and hath not the Ordaining Power therefore they that can use the form of Ordination have power to Ordain The Bishops would not like it if all those that are Ordained by them in Scotland should be declared uncapable of Exercising their Office there until they were admitted by a Classis of Presbyters with solemn Imposition of Hands It would scarce satisfie them to say That the Presbyters imposed Hands only to impower the Person in the Exercise of his Office and not to give the Office it self when they performed all the outward Actions of Ordination which are the ordinary means of conveying the Office I proceed to the second Instance of Ordaining Presbyters mentioned in 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Here Timothy is Ordained by the Presbytery nothing can be more express then this Testimony Two things are usually objected to this Scripture Object 1. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the Office of Presbytery and not the Colledge of Presbyters saith Turrianus the Jesuit who is followed by some Protestants I answer The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in this sense in the New Testament it always signifies a Company of Presbyters see Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 Presbyterium is used by Cyprian for a Consistory of Elders Lib. 2. Ep. 8. 10. Cornelius Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Cyprian saith Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque c. The Office of Presbytery is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. What sence can be made of the Text according to this Interpretation Neglect not the gift given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the office of Presbytery Hands belong to the Persons and not to the Office Nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Genitive Case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neglect not the gift of the office of Presbytery for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come between Thus the Text M 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To refer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would invert the natural order of the words which is not to be done without evident necessity otherwise the Scriptures may be made a Nose of Wax and the clearest Expressions wrested to a contrary sense by such Transpositions and Dislocations 3. But suppose
the Church of England the Ceremonies iâ— seems being to some Men of more value then the great Gospel-Duty of Charity That Charity which â— King of the Roman Communion impower'd them to receive though of another Religion was denied them by Protestants of the same Religion â—â— they did not conform to that Hierarchy which had no power over them as being Natives of another Kingdom and no way subject to our Constitution See the first Brief for the French Protestants Besides that the French Ministers hold Ordination but a Ceremony and may be reiterated twenty times â—â— there be occasion and in their Necessity some of them have acted according to this Principle 4. We may judge of the forreigâ— Churches by their Confessions which are the most Authentick Testimony oâ— their sense about Episcopacy The French Confession asserts an equality of Power â—n all Pastors Credimus omnes Pastores â—bicunque collocati sint eâdem aequali â—otestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno â—llo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Iesu Christo. This is the more considerable because no Man is â—o be Ordained a Minister or admitted Elder or Deacon in the French Churches â—ut he must subscribe the Publick Conâ—ession of their Faith and also the Constitutions agreed on at Paris commonly known by the name of their Discipline See Durel p. 52. La Rocque's Conformity of the French Discipline cap. 1. art â— cap. 3. art 1. The Dutch Confession speaks the â—ame thing Caeterum ubicunque locoâ—um sint Verbi Dei Ministri eandem atâ—ue aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem â—um authoritatem qui sunt aeque omnes Christi unici illius Vniversalis Episcopi Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri By readâ—ng the Acts of the Synod of Dort I â—nd that Session 144. notice was given â—hat it was the will of the States that â—he Belgick Confession of Faith should â—e read and examined by the Synod the Exteri being also present Upon the reading of this 31 Article that asserts the parity of Ministers the Bishop of Landaff in his Name and the Name of his Brethren made open Protestation That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange Conceit of the parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ he declared his own and his Brethrens utter dissent in that point No dislike was shewn to this Article asserting the parity of Ministers by the Deputies of any other Reformed Church besides the English by which we may judge what their Sentiments were in this point So that the Reformed Churches do neither need Bishops nor desire them for they make all Ministers equal CHAP. V. Our Ordination better then that of Rome which is accounted valid in the Church of England because in Roman Ordinations 1. Their Ordainers are incapable as wanting Scriptural and Canonical Qualifications 2. The manner of Ordaining grosly Superstitious and Vnscriptural 3. The Ordained not Elected by the People Sworn to the Pope 4. Their Office Idolatrous Their Ordinations are by Bishops ours without answered THAT Ordination which is better then that of the Church of Rome is valid but Ordination by meer Presbyters is much better then that of the Church of Rome Therefore 't is valid The Major will not be denied by the Church of England because she owns the Ordination of the Church of Rome and doth not re-ordain their Priests The Minor I prove Ordination by Presbyters is better then the Ordinations of Rome because in the Church of Rome I. The Ordainers are incapable and that upon these Accounts 1. They have not Scriptural Qualifications Paul's Bishop must be found in the Faith Popish ordaining Bishops are studious Maintainers of corrupt Doctrine and Enemies to the Faith as is acknowledg'd by all Orthodox Protestants Paul's Bishop must be apt to teach Popish Bishops are for the most part illiterate unpreaching Prelates and justified herein by their own Writers Paul's Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife Popish Bishops forbid to marry and yet allow Fornication Paul's Bishop must be a lover of good men Popish Prelates are not such for they mortally hate the sincere Professors of the Gospel and are all sworn to contribute their Endeavours for their Extirpation under the Notion of Hereticks The words of the Oath are these Haereticos Schismaticos Rebelles eidem Domino nostro Papae vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar impugnabo i.e. I A. B. do swear that I will to the utmost of my endeavour prosecute and destroy all Hereticks Schismaticks and all other Opposers of our Soveraign Lord the Pope and his Successors Shall the sworn Enemies of the Reformation be received as Ministers of Christ and the Ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no Ministers Tell it not in Gath publish it not in the streets of Askelon lest the uncircumcised triumph But I proceed A Bishop indeed must be a Pattern of Humility and Self-denial to the Flock Romish Bishops are Lords over God's Heritage have Dominion over their Faith and bind them to blind Obedience Now if the Ordinations of such usurping Monsters as these that have nothing but the empty name of Bishops be valid as the Church of England saith they are how much more are the Ordinations of Orthodox faithful Gospel Ministers or Bishops to be judg'd lawful Can any thing be more absurd then that the Ministers of Antichrist should make true Ministers and the Ministers of Christ make false Prophets by one and the same Ordaining Act. It 's the received Doctrine of the Church of England that the Pope is Antichrist See Homily against Idolatry part 3. p. 69. and the sixth part of the Sermon against Rebellion p. 316. 2. They derive their Power from the Pope who hath no right to the Universal Headship either from Scripture or true Antiquity The very Office of a Pope is contrary to the Prerogative and Laws of Christ and consequently is a most Treasonable Usurpation II. The manner of their Ordaining is Unscriptural and Superstitious They ascend to the Priesthood by several Steps or Degrees which have no footsteps in the Sacred Writings They make them 1. Ostiarij or Door-keepers whose Office is to ring the Bell to open the Church-Vestry and the Priest's Book Espencaeus a Popish Writer sheweth out of Chrysostom that it belong'd to the Office of a Deacon to admit into the Church and shut out Then 2. they make them Lectores Readers whose work is to read and sing the Lessons and to bless the Bread and all the first Fruits In the primitive Church this was not a distinct Office for in some places 't was the Office of a Deacon in some of the Minister and in some it belonged to the Bishops to read the Scriptures especially on Festivals 3. The next step is that of Exorcists whose pretended Office is to cast out Devils in a feigned imitation of the miraculous Operations
a Bishop and the other a meer Usurper and all his Administrations must be null and void for want of this Ceremony Let the Spirit of God indue a Man with never such excellent Gifts for the Ministry it shall be in the power of a Prelate to exclude him that he shall be no Minister of Christ though he devote himself to the Work and be solemnly set apart for it nay more it will be in his power to make a Minister of another Person whom the Holy Ghost never designed for that Office by any real work of Sanctification upon his heart or conferring upon him any tolerable degree of Ministâ—rial Abilities They that can believe such Fancies may please themselves therewith Christ gave us another Rule to discern between false and true Pastors Matth. 7. 15 16 20. Ye shall know them by their fruits that is by their Doctrine and Conversation The Reformers vindicate their Ministry against the Papists by this Argument Christus hanc nobis regulam praefâ—â—verit quâ possimus falsos à veris Doctoribus discernere nempe eos à suis fructibus esse dignoscendos cur eq non contenti alias praeterea temerè pro arbitrio confingamus Itaque judicetur tum de pontificiis tum etiam de nostris Pastoribus ex Doctrinâ quae verus est fructus atque etiam si placet utrorumque vita in disquisitionem vocetur Quod si fiat certò speramus Deo favente nos facilè in hâc causâ fore superiores We are very willing to put our Case to the same Issue to be judged according to this Rule of Christ by our Doctrine and Conversation CHAP. VI. Presbyters Power of Ordination prov'd from their Imposition of Hands in Ordination not as bare Approvers Turrianus Heylin J. Taylor c. confuted Two other Objections answered THose that have power to impose Hands in Ordination have power to Ordain but Presbyters have power to impose Hands in Ordination therefore to Ordain The Minor viz. that Presbyters may impose Hands will not be denied 'T is required by the Old Canons Omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant Chrysostom was charged in a Libel put in by Isaacius how justly is not certain that he Ordained Ministers without the Concurrence of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Biblioth v 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 27. Edit Aug. Vindelic 1601. However the Presbyters continued to lay Hands with the Bishops even in the darkest Ages of the Church as might be proved by several Instances if necessity required But this is so undeniable that to this day the Presbyters are admitted to joyn with the Bishop in imposition of Hands in the Church of England And in the present Church of Rome also all the Presbyters that are present are required to lay Hands with the Bishop The Major will be deny'd that though they impose Hands they have not the Ordaining Power I thus prove it That which is an Ordaining Act bespeaks an Ordaining Power but imposition of Hands in Ordination is an Ordaining Act therefore \h The Major is evident for Actus praesupponit potentiam As to the Minor If imposing of Hands in Ordination be not Actus ordinans what is it I should be glad to see one Instance given in the Apostles times of Persons laying on Hands in Ordination that had no Ordaining Power If imposition of Hands in Ordination be no evidence of an Ordaining Power how come the Bishops to urge that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man in favour of Timothy's Ordaining Power and thence to infer he was Bishop of Ephesus Timothy might lay Hands for Ordination and yet have no Ordaining Power and so be no Bishop of Ephesus Thus they unwarily undermine their own Foundations It 's a meer Subterfuge and indeed such as betrays the Cause to acknowledge that Presbyters may perform all the outward Acts of Ordination but not as Ordainers 'T is as if one should say a Presbyter hath Power to apply Water to a Child in Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost but he hath no power to Baptize He may set apart Bread and Wine and distribute it to the People according to Christ's Institution but he hath no power to Administer the Lord's Supper If Presbyters imposing of Hands signifie no Ordaining Power what doth it signifie Turrianus the Jesuit saith it signifies their Approbation of the Bishops act non Excludantur Presbyteri ab impositione manûs approbante sed ab ordinante He is followed herein by many of our own Dr. Heylin saith The Presbyters Hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the Party ordained but only testifie their consent unto the business and approbation of the man To the same purpose speaks Dr. I. Taylor But that cannot be the meaning of it for they could signifie their approbation some other way without imposition of Hands their saying Amen to the Ordination Prayer would be a sufficient expression of their Consent The Peoples approbation was required in primitive Ordinations who never were admitted to lay Hands with the Bishop The Consent of the People was required in the Ordination of Deacons yet did they not lay Hands on them If no more be intended by it then a bare approbation how come the Bishops alone to lay Hands upon Deacons without their Presbyters Hi cum ordinantur solus Episcopus eis manum imponit But this signification is deserted by a Learned Bishop who saith I think rather they dedicate him to God for the Ministry which is conferred on him by the Bishop This specious Evasion is equally disserviceable to the present Point with the former Where in all the New Testament have we any ground for this distinction How can it be said that the Ministry is conferred by the Bishop first and afterwards the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God when both Bishops and Presbyters do lay Hands together Can he be ordained and dedicated to God as two distinct Acts the one inferiour to the other and that in the same moment of time by the same Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and by the same words How comes the Bishops Hand to confer the Ministry more then the Presbyters not by any inherent virtue in the one more then in the other not from any Institution of Christ or his Apostles appropriating an Ordaining or Minisher making Power to the Bishops Hand and a bare dedication to the Ministry actually conferred to the Presbyters Hands The Scriptures of the New Testament make no mention of such distinct significations of that Ceremony and therefore they cannot be ex instituto and it 's plain they are not ex naturâ rei Might not the Presbyters dedicate the Person to God without the laying on of Hands Can there be no dedication to God without laying Hands on the Persons so
by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them is valid but Ordination by Presbyters is performed by Persons who have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them Therefore it is valid The Major I prove Either Ordination is an Act of the Exercise of the Power of the Keys or of some other Power but of no other If any other it 's either of a Secular Power or of an Ecclesiastical but neither of these Not an Ecclesiastical for there is no Ecclesiastical Power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the Power of the Keys not of a Secular Power for that belongs not to Ministers That the Keys do contain in them the Power of Ordination is acknowledged by Papists and Protestants particularly by Cornelius à Lapide Chemnitius Bucer Chamier Nomine clavium significatur omnis potestas Ecclesiastica Suppl Cham. lib. 4. c. 4. Traditio Clavium saith Camero Symbolum est potestatis atque auctoritatis collatoe Isa. 22.22 Rev. 3.7 Clavium traditione Doctorum apud Iudoeos inauguratio veteri instituto peragebatur The Keys delivered to the Jewish Teachers included the power of Ordination for as we observed before Every one regularly Ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples Maimon The Minor is in part granted by all to wit That Presbyters have the Key of Doctrine that they have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order also as some distinguish them I thus prove They that have the Key of Doctrine have also the Key of Jurisdiction and Order but Presbyters have the former therefore they have the latter The Major I thus prove Christ gave the Keys together and did not divide them therefore they that have the Key of Doctrine have the Key of Jurisdiction and Order To thee I give the Keys saith our Lord Matth. 16. 19. Io. 20.23 He did not give one Key to one and both to another he gives no single Key to any Person but Keys and so whatever these Keys serve for We know no distribution of the Keys but what is grounded upon Scripture He that hath the Keys of a House or Castle delivered to him hath power to admit or exclude Persons as he seeth cause Except there be a Limitation in his Order or Commission his power extends to all Persons without exception Christ here doth not limit the power of the Keys therefore if Presbyters may admit Church-Members into the House of God by Baptism they may admit Church-Officers by Ordination CHAP. IX All that have the Power of Order may confer it acknowledged by Arch-Bishop Usher and Dr. Fern. Bishops and Presbyter's have the Power of Order equally Proved 1. By the Ancient Fathers 2. By Schoolmen Lombard Bonaventure c. 3. By the Canonists Gratian Joh. Semeca c. 4. By Councils as that of Aquisgranum Hispalis Constance Basil. Bishops not expresly determined a superiour Order in the Council of Trent 5. This is acknowledged by the Old Church of England in the Canons of Elfrick and by J. Wicklef Lambert the Martyr the Provincial Synod of 1537. Cranmer Juel Morton Bilson c. This Truth is owned by the now Bishop of Salisbury and by the Bishop of Worcester Ordination by Presbyters allowed in the Old Church of England Instances of it ORders conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equal with the highest Bishop are valid but Orders conferred by Presbyters are conferred by such as are in Orders and have the power of Order equally with the highest Bishop Therefore Orders conferred by Presbyters are valid As to the Major it 's founded on that Maxim frequently used by Arch-Bishop Vsher Ordinis est conferre Ordines a Man that is in Orders quoad Presbyteratum may coeteris paribus confer Orders it being like Generation or Univocal Causation This Maxim is acknowledged by Dr. H. Fern in his Compendious Discourse p. 115 116 117. If among the Papists Men of an inferiour Order do make the Pope and among our selves Bishops do make Arch-Bishops how much more may Men of the same Order give what they have that is Ordinem Sacerdotii as the School-men call it Why may not Presbyters make Presbyters as Physicians make Physicians All Ranks or Orders of Beings generate their own kind but the impotent Order of Presbyters must prove extinct if the favourable Influences of a superiour Order do not propagate it by a sort of equivocal Generation Must Presbyters be reckoned amongst those Monsters in Nature that cannot perpetuate themselves by Propagation The Minor That Bishops and Presbyters have the power of Order equally will be acknowledged by most Protestants and Papists The Scripture no where mentions any distinction of Order among ordinary Ministers Neither do we read there but of one kind of Ordination then certainly there can be but one Order of Presbyters or Gospel-Ministers properly so called for two distinct Orders cannot be conferred in the same Instant by the same words and by the same actions Let a Man shew me from Scripture that Timothy or Titus or any other were Ordained twice made first Presbyters then Bishops which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct Characters This Point of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters hath the Consent of the Fathers School-men Canonists Councils and of the Old Church of England 1. As to the Fathers Blondel in his Apology for Ierom's Opinion quotes most that are considerable who unanimously affirm the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Polycarp Irenoeus Clemens Alexandrin Ierom Austin Hilarius Isidore c. may be seen at large in the said Learned Author To which I could add several more if it were needful 2. The Judgment of the Schoolmen is the same in this Point The Master of the Sentences saith Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt He adds Excellenter Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari censent Diaconatus sc. Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis proeceptum Apostoli habemus Bonaventure in 4 sent dist 24. q. 1. A. 1. Episcopatus deficit ab Ordine c. includit necessariò Ordinem perfectissimum sc. Sacerdotium With whom agree Durand Dominic Soto Aureolus c. who all Comment upon Lombard's Text. See Aquinas's Supplem quaest 37. Art 2. Mr. Fran. Mason in his Defence of the Ordinations of Ministers beyond the Seas hath more Quotations of Schoolmen 3. To this Opinion some Canonists subscribe Gratian Sacros Ordines dicimus Diaconatuâ— Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur Iohannes Seâ—eca in his Gloss on the Caâ—on Laâ— â—â—â—unt quidem quod in Ecclesia primâ primitivâ Commune erat Officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant Communia Dist. 95. c. olim Et Officium erat Commune sed in secunda primitivâ caeperunt distingui Nomina Officia c. Gloss. in Dist.
95. c. Legimus in verb. postea Arch-Bishop Vsher appeals to this first primitive Church in Matters of Doctrine and why may not we appeal to it in point of Discipline as well as Doctrine See many more Canonists quoted in Mr. Mason ubi supra 4. Some Councils also attest to this Truth The Council of Aix le Chapelle owns the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Sed solum propter authoritatem summo Sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est To the same purpose speaks the Council of Hispalis or Sevil. Concil Hispal 2. Can 7. In the Councils of Constance and Basil after long debate it was concluded that Presbyters should have decisive Suffrages in Councils as well as Bishops because by the Law of God Bishops were no more then Presbyters and it 's expresly given them Acts 15. 23. In the Council of Trent all the Spaniards with some others moved that the superiority of Bishops de jure Divino might be defined next morning came into the Legats Chamber three Patriarchs six Arch-Bishops and eleven Bishops with a Request that it might not be put into the Canon that the Superiority is de jure Divino because it savoured of Ambition and it was not seemly themselves should give Sentence in their own Cause and besides the greater part would not have it put in At length the Opinion of the Spaniards prevailed and was inserted into the Canon though in such ambiguous words as might not offend the other Party The words of the Canon are these Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non habere potestatem confirmandi ordinandi vel eam quam habent illis esse cum Presbyteris Communem anathema sit This Decision was made 1. In opposition to the Lutherans This Reason was given by the Arch Bishops of Granata in the Congregation held Octob. 13. 1562. and of Zarah as also by the Bishop of Segovia 2. In favour of the Pope for they were afraid that if the Divine Institution and Superiority of Bishops were denied the Popes triple Crown would soon fall off his Head So the Bishop of Segovia If the power of the Bishops be weaken'd that of the Pope is weaken'd also To the same purpose said the Arch-Bishop of Granata being assured that if the Bishops Authority were diminished the Obedience to the Holy See would decrease also The very Council of Trent doth not expresly determine Bishops to be a Superiour Order to Presbyters and the general definition which they make of their Superiority above Presbyters and of their sole power of Ordination and Confirmation is in opposition to the Protestants and in favour of the Pope Which puts me in mind of a passage in the Council of Constance where that blessed Man of God Mr. Iohn Wickleff was condemned for a Heretick and his Bones ordered to be taken up and burnt One of the Articles for which he was condemned was this Confirmatio juvenum Clericorum Ordinatio locorum consecratio reservantur Papae Episcopis propter cupiditatem lucri temporalis honoris 5. This Doctrine hath been maintain'd also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant The Judgment of the Church of England in the tims of Popery we have in the Canons of Elfrick ad Wolfin Episc where the Bishop is declared to be of the same Order with the Presbyter Haud pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad Ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandúmque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem Ordinem quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi The ancient Confessors and Martyrs here were of the same mind It is said of that eminent Confessor Iohn Wickleff that tantum duos Ordines Ministrorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaconos Iohn Lambert a holy Martyr saith In the primitive Church when Vertue bare 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 The same was the Judgment of Tindal and Bannes The Protestant Church of England was of the same mind The Institution of a Christian Man made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by King and Parliament and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom mentions but two Orders Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons In Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum aut distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcorum To which agrees the MS. mention'd â—y the now Bishop of Worcester setting forth the Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer That Bishops and Priests were â—ne Office in the beginning of Christs Reâ—igion The Bishop of St. Asaph Thirlby Redman Cox all imployed in that Conâ—ention were of the same Opinion â—hat at first Bishops and Presbyters were â—he same Redman and Cox expresly â—ite the Judgment of Ierom with approâ—ation The Learned Bishop concludes his Discourse of Arch Bishop Cranmer thus We see by the Testimony of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Presbytery of Divine Right but only as a prudent Constitution of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE for the better governing of the Church The same Arch-Bishop Cranmer was the first of six and forty who in the time of King H. 8. affirmed in a Book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Our Learned Writers against the Papists are of the same mind Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology proves against Harding that Aerius could not be accounted a Heretick for holding that Bishops and Presbyters are all one Iure Divino and â—ting Ieróm c. concludes in thesâ— words All these with many more holy Fathers together with the Apostle St Paul for thus saying must by Harding advice be held for Hereticks The same is affirmed by Bishop Morton in his Cath. Appeal by Bishop Bilson against Seminaries Dr. Whittaker Resp. ad Camp Rationes Dr. Fulk upon Tit. 1. 5. Dean Nowel Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic Dr. Burnet Bishop of Salisbury in his Vindication of the Church of Scotland his words are these I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same Office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church The first branch of their power is their Authority to publish the Gospel to manage the Worship and to dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and Presbyters are equal sharers p. 331. The truth is this
Whitgift was because not lawfully called in Whitgift's Opinion to the Ministry nor allowed to preach according to the Laws of this Church But Mr. Hooker in his Answer wholly waves that and Replies only to the Contests between them The French Church in Thred-needle-street was allowed by the Queen as also the Dutch Church In the Year 1684. a Quo Warranto was brought against them In King Iames the First his time the like allowance was made unto Ministers Ordained by Presbyters The famous Mr. Iohn Camero who was Ordained in France came hither in the Year 1621. and set up a Divinity-Lecture in a private House in London â—â— the Permission of King Iames the 〈◊〉 and a License from the then 〈◊〉 of London Before the Consecration of the three Scottish Bishops at London Andrews Bishop of Ely said They must be first Ordained as having received no Ordination by a Bishop Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury maintain'd That thereof there was no necessity seeing where Bishops could not be had the Ordinationâ— given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted if there was any lawful Vocation in most of the Reformed Churches This applauded to by the other Bishops Ely acquiesced and the three Bishops were consecrated Thus we see the Judgment and Practise of the Old Church of England in King Edward the Sixth's time in Queen Elizabeth's and in King Iames the First his time they required not Re-ordination as the New Conformity doth since the Year 1660. They acted from Catholick Principles that comprehended the Forreign Ordinations asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Object Aerius is branded for an Heretick by Austin and Epiphanius for affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be the same So Bishop Hall in his Divine Right of Episcopacy Part I. pag. 64. Answ. The great mannagers of this Objection are the Papists as we observed before from whom some Defenders of Episcopacy have borrowed it That Aerius was a Heretick is past doubt but he is so called by the Fathers because he was an Arian Epiphanius saith he did Arium ipsum dogmatum novitate superare Austin saith in Arianorum haeresin lapsus which is more then a favouring of it as some interpret their words Several of our Learned Writers against Popery have justified him against the Charge of Heresie for holding the equality of Bishops and Presbyters Chemnit exam Conc. Trid. part 4. CHAP. X. Instances of Ordination by Presbyters in the Primitive Church 1. At Alexandria 2. At Scetis by Paphnutius 3. By the Presbyters mentioned by Leo the Great 4. By the Captive Presbyters beyond Isther 5. By the Boiarii 6. By the Presbyters Ordained by Meletius 7. By the Presbyters mentioned by Hilary the Deacon 8. By Andreas Presbyter de Hostia 9. By the Chorepiscopi 10. By the Presbyters at Hy. Objections answered 11. By the Ancient Waldenses 12. By Wickliff's Followers in England 13. By the Presbyter of Taprobane THAT Ordination which was valid in the Primitive Church is valid now But Ordination by meer Presbyters was valid in the Primitive Church Therefore it is valid now The Major will be granted The Minor I prove 1. The Presbyters of Alexandria made their Bishops for almost two hundred years together Ierom having shewed at large from the Epistles of Peter Paul and Iohn That Bishops and Presbyters were the same at first he adds Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligunt ex se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocant Note here 1. That Ierom undertaking to shew the Original way of making Bishops of Alexandria would leave nothing out that was material in the Constituting of them 2. He mentions no other way of Constituting them but this by the Presbyters 3. He brings this as an Argument of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters that Presbyters at first made Bishops A Bishop in Ierom's Opinion is that to the Presbyters that an Arch-deacon is to the Deacons As an Arch-deacon chosen out of the Deacons is but a Deacon still though the chief Deacon so a Bishop set over Presbyters is but a Presbyter still though the chief Presbyter Is Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus The other Comparison of an Army making their General is not between the power of a General and that of a Bishop but it respects only the manner of their Creation As a General is made by the consent and choice of an Army so Bishops had their first being from the Presbyters consent 4. He ascribeth to the Presbyters the election the placing him in a higher degree and the naming of him a Bishop Neither do we read of any other Consecration Polydor Virgil confesseth that anciently in the making of a Bishop there were no Ceremonies used but the People met together to give their Testimony and Suffrage in their Election both Ministers and People did pray and Presbyters gave Imposition of Hands 5. He saith the Custom was changed from the time of Heraclas and Dionysius What Custom not the Election of a Bishop by Presbyters and People for that continued long after Therefore it must be the Constitution which afterwards was done by neighbouring Bishops in the way of Consecration This Testimony of Ierom is seconded by a more full one of Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals thereof saith according to Selden's Translation in his Comment p. 29 30. Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteros cum Hananiâ qui semper manerent cum Patriarchâ adeò ut cùm vacaret Patriarchatus eligerent unum è duodecim Presbyteris cujus capiti reliqui undecim 〈…〉 eumque benedicerent Patriarcham eum crearent dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est Patriarcha ita ut semper extarent duodecim Neque desiit Alexandriae insâ—â—â—utum hoc de Presbyteris ut scilicet Patriarchae crearentur è Prsebyteris duodecim usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alexandrini qui fuit ex numero illo 318. Is autem vetuit nè deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent decrevit ut mortuo Patriarchâ convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham Ordinarent Decrevit item ut vacante Patriarchatu eligerent sive ex quacunque regione sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris sive aliis ut res ferebat virum aliquem eximium eumque Patriarcham vocarent atque ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius quo creari solitus à Presbyteris Patriarcha successit in locum
Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in side eruditi sunt Iohn Fordon justifies this Custom as agreeable to the primitive Church Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti sidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos Ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitivae Bishop Vsher cites this last with approbation De primord Eccl. Brit. p. 798 799 800. These Authors call the ancient Inhabitants of Scotland by the name they were known by in their days Object Some to elude these Testimonies deny that there was any Conversion of the ancient Inhabitants of that part of Brittain which we now call Scotland before Palladius his time or neer it The South-Picts they would have converted not till A. D. 432. the North-Picts in the Year 560. Answ. I deny not but there might be a more general Conversion of that Nation at those times the Christian Religion which was over-grown with Heathenism and other Errors might be revived and recovered to its primitive Lustre by the preaching of Nennianus and Columba Indeed Bede saith Erat autem Columba primus Doctor fidei Christianoe transmontanis Pictis ad Aquilonem He was the first he knew of who lived two hundred years after the said Conversion For he ends his History with the year 766. It is acknowledged that they were mixed with Scots or Irish at this time a barbarous People and in all likelyhood Heathens who having made themselves Masters of all must needs bring Christianity to a low ebb in that Country The converting of these to the Christian Faith was the first Conversion that Bede knew of But that Christianity was much more early in that Kingdom is proved by Dr. Cowper a Scotch Bishop He affirms the Conversion of the North Part of Brittany to be as early if not earlier then the Conversion of the South Part. He proves out of Dorotheus Synops. and Nicephor II. 40. that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospel in Brittain where he was Martyr'd and Interr'd This was An. 44. Christi He proves out of Baloeus Fleming c. that Ioseph of Arimathea came into Brittain about the Year 35. He proves out of Theodoret that Paul after his Deliverance under Nero came into Brittain Cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. And then brings in the Papists objecting What is this to Scotland He answereth What Good or Evil especially in Religion hath come to the one hath been found by manifold experience easily derived to the other He saith further out of their own Chronicles That A.D. 124. when K. Lucius embraced the Christian Faith in the South part of the Isle in that same year Donald King of the North part of it became a Christian and that when A. 300. under Dioclesian the Church of South Brittain was persecuted by his Deputies many fled to Crachlint or Cratilinth King of Scots who did lovingly receive them and assigned to them the Isle of Man and erected there a Temple dedicated to Christ called otherwise Sodorensis Ecclesia He quotes also that known place of Tertullian adv Iud. c. 7 8. Britannorum loca Romanis inaccessa Christo subdita sunt Now what part of Brittain he means saith the Bishop your own Cardinal Baronius will declare unto you It 's evident saith Baronius that Britannia was divided by a Wall built by Adrian c. that part within was possest by the Romans the other without Britanni liberè possederunt qui saepe muros illos egressi Romanos praeliis provocarunt For this cause saith he Petrus Cluniacensis vocat Scotos antiquiores Christianos Cent. 3. c. 3. 2. c. 2. Thus far the Bishop I would further be resolved in these Queries 1. When the Fathers mention Ioseph of Arimathea Simeon Zelotes c. to have preached the Gospel in Brittain what reason have we to exclude North-Britain from partaking in the Blessing The whole Island Scotland and England was then called Britain It is most reasonable to think that those Apostles and Apostolical Men that came into this Land did cause the joyful sound of the Gospel to be heard in every part of the Island North as well as South When we consider their Zeal unwearied Endeavours together with the wonderful Success attending their Ministry it is not likely that Scotland remained long in Heathenism after the Conversion of South-Brittain And can it be imagined that the Christians of South-Brittain were so cruelly uncharitable as not to endeavour the propagation of the Gospel among their Country-men and Neighbours of North-Britain especially under King Lucius in whose time Christianity may be supposed to be the publick Profession of the Land To this add that a great part of that we call Scotland now belonged then to the Dominions of the British Kings who doubtless endeavoured the planting of Christianity among all their Subjects 2. If the Inhabitants of North-Britain received their first Conversion by Men sent from Rome as Bede suggests how comes it to pass that for so long a time after they kept their Easter after the Eastern manner and not after the Roman When the Saxon-Roman-Bishops imposed Conformity in this particular they opposed them for a long time and Bishop Colman who came from Scotland left his Charge rather then Conform about the Year 664. The Picts and Britains were as rigid Nonconformists as he in this Point and are termed by Wilfride at a publick Disputation obstinationis eorum complices Their Bishop Dagamus refused all Communion with the Roman Bishops and would not as much as eat with them in the same House As the Roman Bishops were growing in greatness and arriving towards the Perfection of the Man of Sin they sent their Bishops to most Nations to bring them to a dependence upon them so they did send Palladius to Ireland Nynias to Scotland Austin to England Vivilo to the Boiarians as we observed before Bede himself acknowledges that the first Bishop the Scots had was Palladius though they were Christians before Palladius ad Scotos in Christum credentes à Pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae Celestino primus mittitur Episcopus He did not make them Christians but found them so It is objected further out of Bede That Britain in Palladius's time had such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire Answ. Bede acknowledges that the British and Scotch Bishops were many of them Ordained only by one Bishop They were not then such Bishops as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire for in other parts of the Empire they were Ordained by three Bishops according to the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice It 's an evidence that they thought themselves not obliged by General Councils But suppose there were such Bishops here as were in all other parts of the Roman Empire as it is not very unlikely but the Church-Government of Britain being a Province of that Empire might be in some degree modelled according to the Forms used in other parts of the Empire The
their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops They maintain all Ministers to be in a state of parity and their Presbyters imposed Hands for Ordination These were the Fathers and famous Predecessors of the Protestants who bore the heat of the day They had the honour to be first Witnesses against Antichrist and are to this day as the Bishop of Salisbury calls them The purest Remains of primitive Christianity From them the Fratres Bohemi had their Succession of Ministers for they sent Michael Zambergius and two more for Ordination to the poor Waldenses who never had a Bishop among them but in Title only In compliance with their desires two of their Titular Bishops with some Presbyters that had not so much as the Titles of Bishops made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops giving them power of Ordination We dislike not that for Orders sake the Exercise of this Power should be ordinarily restrained to the graver Ministers provided they assume it not as proper to themselves by a Divine Right nor clog it with unscriptural Impositions XII Wickliffs followers here in England held and practised Ordination by meer Presbyters and least any should think they did so of necessity for want of Bishops it 's to be noted that they did it upon this Principle that all Ministers of Christ have equal power as the Popish Historian saith who complains how all parts of England were full of those People and that the Prelates knew of these things but none were forward to prosecute the Guilty except the Bishop of Norwich XIII In the Island of Taprobane or Zeilan as 't is now call'd there was a Church of Christians govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon without any Superiour Bishop to which he or his Flock was subject This Island is above two thousand Miles in compass a Province big enough for a Bishop yet had none in Iustin the Emperour's time which was about the Year 520 but was under the Jurisdiction of a Presbyter Ordain'd in Persia who in all likelyhood Ordain'd his Successor and would not be at the trouble of sending for one to very remote Countries By this Passage it appears that Bishops were not thought Essential to Churches no not in the sixth Age and that meer Presbyters have power of Jurisdiction and consequently of Ordination The Fathers in the second Council of Carthage A. D. 428. did observe that until that time some Dioceses never had any Bishops at all and thereupon Ordained they should have none for the future They would never have made such a Canon had they concluded the Government by Bishops to be Iure Divino CHAP. XI Objections against Ordinations by Presbyters answered 1. That it is against the Canons So is Episcopal Ordination 2. It destroys the Line of Succession answered in Seven Particulars 3. The Case of Ischyras consider'd A Passage in Jerom explained I Will briefly reflect upon the most material Objections that are made against the Ordination I plead for Object 1. Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops is condemned by the Old Canons Answ. 1. Many things are reserv'd to the Bishops by the Old Canons meerly to support their Grandeur For this reason the Consecration of Churches the Erecting of Altars the making of Chrysm the Reconciling of Penitents the Vailing of Nuns c. were appropriated to the Bishops All this is ingeniously acknowledged by the Council of Hispalis Let the Presbyters know that the power of Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See by virtue of novel Ecclesiastical Constitutions They add that this was done to bear up the dignity of the Bishops For the same reason the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops were restrained from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch For the same reason 't was decreed in the Council of Sardis A. D. 347. That no Village or lesser Town must have a Bishop nè vilescat nomen Episcopi 2. Episcopal Ordinations also as they are now managed will prove Nullities by the Old Canons The Ancient Canons call'd the Apostles which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at Constantinople do depose all Bishops that are chosen by the Civil Magistrate Can. 29. If any Bishop obtains a Church by means of the Secular Powers let him be deposed and separated from Communion with all his Adherents This Canon is revived by the second Council of Nice which the Greeks call the Seventh General Council All our English Bishops are chosen by the Magistrate and not by other Bishops or the Presbyters and People of their Diocess The King 's Writ of Conge d'Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to choose their Bishop is only matter of form for the King chooseth properly and the Dean and Chapter cannot reject the Person whom he recommends nor are they the just Representatives of the Clergy and People of the Diocess whose Suffrages were required of old in the designation of a Bishop Can. 6. Forbids Bishops to intermeddle with Secular Affairs upon pain of Deprivatiion Let not a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon assume worldly Cares and if he doth let him be deposed Bishops at this time were not Judges in Civil Matters nor Ministers of State as being a thing inconsistent with their Office 2 Tim. 2.4 Can. 80. adds A Bishop must not engage in Publick Administrations that he may give himself to the Work of the Ministry Let him resolvedly decline these or be Deposed for no Man can serve two Masters The Church of England doth not observe the Canons of the first General Councils which some would have us believe are the measures of her Reformation next the Scripture The fourth Canon of the Council of Nice requires the Ordination of a Bishop to be by all the Bishops of the Province at least by three with the Consent of the absent Bishops expressed in writing I never knew the Consent of all the Bishops of the Province required much less expressed in Writing before the Consecration of English Bishops Can. 5. Requires Provincial Councils twice a year This is not observed Can. 6. and 7th establish the Rights and Priviledges of Metropolitans Quaere Whether Austin the Monk whom the Pope made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did not wrongfully invade the Rights of the Brittish Bishops over whom Pope Gregory could give him no just Power notwithstanding his pretended Grant mentioned by Bede which are not restored to this day and if so whether this doth not make a Canonical Nullity in the whole Succession of English Bishops who derive their Line from that usurping Prelate Can. 15 and 16th forbids Ministers to remove from the Church in which they were Ordained I might mention several other Canons in this Council which are not observed as the third the eleventh the fourteenth which in the Greek is the eighteenth the nineteenth and twentieth which forbids kneeling upon the Lord's days No more are the Canons of the Great
Quia Concilii Nicaeni Operâ quod celebrandum curaverat Ecclesiae pacem restituerat Arrianorum impias controversias compescuerat Constantius added one more and there were but five Temples in that great City that was little inferior to Rome in the days of Iustinian See Gentiletus his Exam. Concil Trid. lib. 5. sect 48. Some of our greater Parishes have as many Chappels or Places of Publick Worship as there were Temples in Constantinople which are but a small part of an English Diocess But the Learned Mr. Baxter and Mr. Clarkson have so fully proved the English Species of Episcopacy to be destructive of the Scripture and Primitive Form that until they be solidly answered we will take it for granted that it is a Humane Creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did and owes it's being to the meer favour of Secular Powers who can as easily reduce it to it 's primitive Nothing Some have pretended to make Bishops of the seven Asian Angels when they have proved their power of Jurisdiction and the extent of their Diocesses to be the same with ours they shall be heard The state of Ephesus one of the seven Asian Churches we have seen already by which we may guess at the rest The Church of Smyrna another of the seven Churches of Asia consisted of a single Congregation that ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all follow the Bishop as Iesus Christ doth the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as God's Commandment Let none mannage any Church matters without the Bishop And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Bishop is there let the Multitude be even as where Christ is there the Catholick Church is it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize or to make Love-feasts Here it is evident 1. That the Multitude which were the Bishops Flock ordinarily worshipped God together 2. That they did this under the conduct of their respective Bishop who was ordinarily present with every Church Assembly 3. That he was the ordinary Administrator of Baptism to his Flock which he could not do had it been as large as our present Dioceses 4. That the same Assemblies had a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons For the same Multitude is to follow the same Bishop Presbyters and Deacons and how could one Parish follow all the Presbyters of all other Parish Churches of a Diocess whom they never knew Ignatius's Epistle to Polycarp who was then Bishop of Smyrna makes it more evident that he was Bishop of a single Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keep frequent Congregations inquire after all by name despise not Men-servants and Maid servants I leave it to such as are willing to understand the Truth to consider how great Polycarp's Church then was when the Bishop himself was to look after every one by name even the Men-servants and the Maids We find by Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelphians another of these Churches that the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia had no larger a Diocess then those of Ephesus and Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Study therefore to use one Eucharist or Eucharistical Communion for there is one Flesh or Body of our Lord Iesus Christ which is represented in the Sacramental Bread and one Cup which is Sacramentally given into the union of his Blood one Altar one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants Nothing can be more full than this Testimony They are all to joyn in one Assembly for the Eucharist and there must be but one Altar for this Communion and one Bishop and one Presbytery with the Deacons with him and such a Bishop is a Parish Minister or Rector assisted by his Curates and Deacons the latter of which were originally instituted to serve Tables Acts 6. II. Tyconius's old Exposition mentioned by Austin hath not been yet disproved which is this That by the Angels are meant the whole Churches and not any single Persons Aug. lib. 3. 30. de Doctr. Christian. The whole style of the Text countenances this Exposition for as every Message begins with To the Angel so it endeth with To the Churches III. In the Contents of our authorized Bibles they are expounded Ministers By which we may understand the sense of the Old Church of England agreeable to many of the Ancients such as Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Bede Haymo and many more Scripture is it 's own best Interpreter we find there that the Church of Ephesus over which one of these Angels presided had several Bishops in it and all the other Churches had several Ministers in them as will be acknowledg'd by our Antagonists Now these other Ministers are included either under the name of Candlesticks and so reckoned among the People which is absurd or under the name of Stars and Angels Many may be intended by one Angel as afterward by one Beast cap. 13. and one Head cap. 17. It 's remarkable that it is spoken of the Candlesticks the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches but of the Stars it 's said indefinitely the seven Stars are the Angels not seven Angels of the seven Churches IV. Angel is a name of Office and not of Order as is agreed by the Learned it is a strange Consequence To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus therefore the Angel was a Bishop and had Authority over other Ministers St. Iohn placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ himself and the Angels further off at a greater distance shall we therefore say that the Presbyters are more honourable then the Bishops the Inference is much more natural then the other if Angels be Bishops as our Adversaries affirm St. Paul prefers the preaching before the ruling Presbyter V. It 's observed by many Chronologers that Timothy was alive when the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was written and shall we think that he had left his first love whom Paul so often commends for his Zeal and Diligence in the Work of God VI. To put this matter out of doubt St. Iohn a Jew calls the Ministers of Particular or Parochial Churches the Angels of the Churches in the style of the Jewish Church who call'd the Publick Minister of every Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church They call'd him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop of the Congregation Every Synagogue or Congregation had its Bishop or Angel of the Church Now the Service and Worship of the Temple being abolished as being Ceremonial God transplanted the Worship and Publick Adoration used in the Synagogues which was Moral into the Christian Church to wit the Publick Ministry Publick Prayers reading God's Word and Preaching c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel were the very same the Angel of the Church and the Bishop which belong'd to the Ministers in the Synagogues We love