You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
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
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. 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 Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders that are not Ministers THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many but also to each of them as single Presbyters And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters And the contrary opinion is precarious and not founded in Scripture As for that passage 2 Cor. 2.6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister is to draw a general conclusion from one instance or because a censure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth where there were many Ministers therefore it ought to be so in all Churches even where there is but one Minister Moreover if the true nature of a Church-censure were considered there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person For it is no more than authoritative declaring and judging in Christs Name that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and a charging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him Indeed those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. Tell the Church are to be considered and cleared For it is from hence argued that the Church being a collective name betokens a number and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal To which argument it may be first replyed That a Presbytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church than one Minister But the answer is that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing and therefore respects not the governed but the governing-part thereof which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presbyter The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church and saith chap. 5. v. 4 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person Now in these places he doth not explicitely direct his speech to the Elders but in all reason it must be expounded with respect to the governing-part of that Church the company of Presbyter Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Minister of the Gospel to the acts of Church-Discipline yet in point of expedience and prudence such as are no spiritual rulers or have no power formally spiritual may either by the appointment of the Magistrate or by the consent of Pastor and People be joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance and more satisfactory management of Church-affairs Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the matter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Assessors with the Bishops in Councils But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only § 16. Of the Office of a Deacon THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders 1. Presbyters who are also Bishops 2. Deacons as Phil. 1.1 To the bishops and deacons and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy having set forth the Office of a bishop passeth immediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture Clemens Romanus in his Epistle mentions but two orders bishops and deacons And Dr. Hammond grants That it cannot be proved that in Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters and concludes that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons and without presbyters vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30 and his Dissertation p 208 c. They that are agreed that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right are not agreed what it is yet all are agreed that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church but in what kind of assistance there is diversity of opinion Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor in receiving and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold that a deacon may preach and baptize and assist the bishop or elder in administring the Sacrament tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine nor lay on hands or ordain In the 6. chap. of the Acts if the institution of this office be there related we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is mentioned without any specification of the office In 1 Tim. 3.8 c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office yet something thereof may be signified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Let it be considered whether by degree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry and a step to a higher order therein Acts 8.5 we find that Philip one of the seven preached the Gospel in Samaria and his acts there are related as if he also baptized the converts v. 38. he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch and v. 40. he passed through and preached in all the cities till he came to Cesarea Now whether Philip did not these things not meerly by the common duty of a Christian but by determinate ordination thereunto it may be considered Some make two sorts of Deacons the deacon of tables and the deacon of the word But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the ordaining of the seven for ministring unto tables and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop Concerning this office I assent to Grotius That the deacons did serve the Presbyters as the Levites the Priests but the most laborious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor and
they but Christ makes the office and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office from which they cannot detract The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 If it be said that by the Presbytery is meant a company of Bishops it it granted that Presbyters and Bishops were all one If it be said they were a company of none but Diocesan Bishops that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them let it be proved from Scripture It is said by some That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain authoritatively and the Presbyters concomitantly founding the distinction on those two Texts 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim 4.14 it being said in the one That Timothy received the gift by the putting on of Paul's hands and in the other by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered 1. That the imposition of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6 might be in confirmation for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism and the following effects of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind argue so much 2. If any of a higher state than Presbyters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively and the presbytery but concomitantly our bishops cannot thence claim the sole authoritative ordination for Paul was of an order above them and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power eminently contained in his Apostolick office 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters it will follow by this distinction that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and concomitant ordination According to the hierarchical principle the bishop is enabled to give orders not by his power of jurisdiction but by his power of order Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sacrament of order as a bishop and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter and the truth is the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordination in the said Ordinal The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop Their imposition of hands is an authoritative benediction and dedication of the party ordained Let any instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that ceremony I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto To say it is only a sign of their giving consent is a poor evasion for the people give consent also If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop they cannot do it rightly if they have not an intrinsick power of doing it For the Bishops commission or license cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter which was not in him before at least radically or habitually § 24. Of a valid Ministry AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper as he doth not receive so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry whom he doth not call For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts and men can judg but by appearance Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Ministry may by his permission through the Churches mal-administration be called thereunto and being so called they abide therein by his permission till they be cast out by due reformation and so long their calling is valid as to external order And such are Ministers to others tho not to their own good and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission and the nullity of the office so between defects or corruptions in the office it self and the nullity thereof The Priesthood and Worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted yet it was true for the substance thereof but the Priesthood appointed for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance and a nullity Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion and some external acts of worship true and valid as circumcision and so retained something of a Church So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion and some thing of a Church and Ministry and ordinances The Ministry of the Popish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass is a nullity but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry it is not a nullity but their administration in those things is valid § 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers and they are not subordinate but collateral powers yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates and Magistrates to Ministers in divers respects according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them The Magistratical power is Imperial the Ecclesiastical is ministerial and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword not only in civil but in sacred things and the magistrate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word or his authoritative teacher The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right for it takes away none of his authoritty nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it but it is his benefit because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name and if he be not under that authoritative administration he is not under the blessing of the Gospel Howbeit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate as by dishonouring him to make him less capable of improving his office to the common good which the excommunicating of him would do but if magistrates whether of higher or lower rank be excommunicated nevertheless they must be obeyed The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof So that both powers are mutually
not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem and so to Rome for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome bear either in their inscription or some other passage the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians to the Philippians to the Colossians to the Hebrews and to Philemon Pauls beseeching of Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 2 Tim. 1.3 had been needless if he were then a setled bishop there Besides it is granted that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus when he was with Paul at Miletum yet that Church had then elders which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Therefore it cannot be that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had which nevertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy Spalatensis lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop that is an Apostle tyed to no seat 2. Titus was no fixed Bishop His travels we likewise find upon sacred record Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 An. 43 45. Paul returning to Antioch passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches Acts 15.41 from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having preached the Gospel and planted a Church he left Titus for a while to set in order the things that were left undone Tit. 1.5 An. 46. Paul injoins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3.12 an 51. but changing his purpose he sent for him to Ephesus where his Winter-station was 2 Cor. 1.8 thence he sent him to Corinth to enquire of the state of that Church His return from thence Paul expected at Troas and because there he sound not his expectation answered he was grieved in spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 Thence Paul passed into Macedonia where Titus met him and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7.5 c. an 52. Paul having collected the liberality of the Saints sends Titus an 53. again to the Corinthians to prepare them for that contribution 2 Cor. 8.6 And we do not find that after his first removal from Creet he did ever return thither After this we read that Titus was with Paul at Rome and went thence not to Creet but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 It is to be noted that after the time of Titus his being in Creet was the greatest part of his travels And if Titus did abide some years in Creet that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they resided long in one place according to the work to be done there as Paul abode three years at Ephesus 3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly these following things may be observed In the New Testament there is no instance of a setled Overseer or Pastor whose motion was so planetary as theirs and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet it is granted by the assertors of their supposed Episcopacy that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome Now the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written by Paul before his first going to Rome and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor Eccles p. 66 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops borrow their testimony from Eusebius and all that he saith is only that it is so written and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont and from Egesippus who is not extant It is observed that Eusâ—bius Irenaeus and others delivered what they received too securely 4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles in which they are stiled bishops whether they be canonical or authentick proof let it be considered It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus ordained the first bishop c. Did he know or mind that there would be a second epistle or bishop Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second by these words of distinction The first Epistle to Timothy Beza proves was not written from Laodicea but from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time nor till the more declining time of the Roman Empire In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy these words ordained first bishop c. is not in many ancient Copies saith Beza nor in the Vulgar edition nor in the Syriack Interpreter The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis as the postscript saith for had Paul been there he would have said I have determined here not there to winter And whereas it faith the first bishop did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess who hath some City and not a whole Region for his Sea Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians And the Scripture way of expression would be not the Church but the Churches of the cretians Church being used of a City with its adjacent Villages and Churches of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was Thus there is good ground to think that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles themselves 5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus are either such as concern all presbyters or such as are above the bishop of a particular church 1. Some precepts given them concern all presbyters To be instant in season and out of season belongs to all preachers of the Gospel As a bishop must be able to convince gainsayers so ought all presbyters The stopping of the mouths of subverters is by conviction and extends as well to doctrine as to definitive sentencing Mat. 22.34 and even definitive silencing was anciently by presbyters either alone or in conjunction with their bishops The authority given to Timothy That those who sin be rebuked before all belongs to presbyters and it is that which may be done by equals To lay hands suddenly on no man concerns presbyters to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands Nor doth this precept infer That a bishop hath power to ordain alone and it is granted that one bishop alone may not ordain a bishop Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any And in ancient times if a bishop or presbyter were accused the matter
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
de corona Militis c. 3. saith We take the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the hand of no other than of the President It is to be noted that in those times they received the Sacrament at least every Lords day And it is confessed by Episcopal Divines that this President was the bishop But if any say that he was a meer presbyter they must grant that a presbyter had the name of President and a governing power 7. It is much asserted among the Hierarchical Divines that anciently bishops only were allowed to preach And if this was so it was and could be but one single church that a bishop had as his immediate charge for we cannot imagine that there were churches which ordinarily had no preaching or in which preaching was not ordinarily allowed yea the presbyters might not baptize without the bishops command or consent This shews that each particular church had its proper bishop 8. That church in which divine worship was performed had also discipline exercised in it Tertul. Apol. c. 39. 9. The bishops church was no greater than that all the people could meet together and chuse their bishop In Cyprian's time at the ordaining of a bishop the next bishops came to the people for whom the bishop was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 4. Erasmus Edit to Felix a presbyter Nor let the people flatter themselves as free from the contagion of the sin when they communicate with a priest that is a sinner They ought to separate themselves from him seeing they chiefly have the power either of chusing worthy or refusing unworthy priests Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be made but under the conscience of the assisting people The custom is with us and almost throughout all provinces That to the celebrating of Ordinations all the next bâ—shops of the same province assemble with the people to whom the Praepositus is ordained To the same purpose we find much in very many of his Epistles This was the ordinary course of the first Ages for all the people to chuse their bishops and to be present thereat for which a multitude of testimonies may easily be produced 10. Apost Can. c. 5. shew that the bishop with his presbyters and deacons lived on the gifts of the same altar 'T was the custom of bishops and their presbyters to dwell together and be in common 11. The numerousness of the ancient bishops and their churches shew that those churches were of no large extent In the first council of Carthage it was decreed c. 11. That for examining every ordinary cause of an accused presbyter six bishops out of the neighbouring-places were to hear and determine and for every cause of a deacon three bishops It is reported that Patrick planted in Ireland three hundred sixty five churches and as many bishops In the Vandalick persecution six hundred and sixty bishops fled out of one part of Africa besides all that were murthered imprisoned and tolerated Many proofs hereof might be alledged but in general it sufficeth to note That a great number of bishops could on a sudden meet together in a Provincial Assembly as in the sixth council of Carthage two hundred and seventeen bishops were met And in the times of persecution under the heathen Emperors there were numerous Assemblies of bishops when they went in fear of their lives 12. The paucity of Presbyters in a Bishops Church shews that it was not very large In greater Churches they had a greater number of presbyters but in smaller they had often two sometimes one sometimes none The matter here considered touching the ancient form and state of a bishops Church will be further cleared in the following Sections § 2. Of the place where a Bishops Church anciently was and might be constituted THAT every City which had a competent number of Christians had a bishop with his Church is granted on all sides And that it was not a bishops seat which made that a City which otherwise would not have been so but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a bishop cannot reasonably be denied The Scripture useth the word City for any Town or Burrough Mat. 12.25 Mat. 23.34 Luk. 2.3 Luk. 7.11 Act. 15 21. Crete which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not have a Hundred cities in it unless such as our Burroughs and in every such city the Rule was to ordain elders or bishops Tit. 1.5 What argument from Scripture or reason can be brought why Worcester Glocester Chichester c. should be made Cities and seats of Bishops rather than Shrewsbury Ipswich Blimouth c In the first ages of the Christian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the same capacity of having Churches Theophilus Alexandrius Epist Pascal in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Bishops in very small Cities Zozomen saith that Spiridion was bishop of the Town Trimethus and said to be Keeper of sheep in that Town after he was bishop There is also sufficient proof that bishops were ordained in Villages or in places that were no Cities Majuma was the port of Gaza and because it had many Christians it was honoured by Constantine with the name of a City and a bishop of its own And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City it still kept its own bishop tho it had the same Magistrates and Military Governours with Gaza And when the bishop of Gaza sought to subject the Clergy of Majuma to himself saying 't was unmeet that one City should have two bishops a Councel in Palestine called for that purpose confirmed the priviledges of Majuma Sozomen l. 5. cap. 3. Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth as Pyraeus of Athens yet we find a Church constituted there Rom. 16.1 They who say it was a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having only a presbyter assigned to it are bound to prove it Clemens Apostolical constitutions lib. 7. c. 84. saith that Cenchrea near Corinth had Lucius a bishop Sozomen l. 7. c 19. saith when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one bishop there are other Nations where bishops are ordained in villages as among the Arabians and Cyprians and Phrygian Montanists In the Counccil of Sardica Can. 6. it was decreed that bishops may not be ordained in villages or in small cities where one presbyter will suffice lest the name and authority of a bishop should become vile But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century and the decree implies that till then bishops had been allowed in villages and small Cities The Chorepiscopi were placed in country villages when Christians grew so numerous as to have Churches in them and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compass The Canons made to express this sort of Ministers and to turn them into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
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
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any