the Jewish Church had not hundreds of High Priests that met at one time as there hath been of Bishops in one Synod so that all the Catholick Church visible must have one Catholick Bishop else his Argument is lost 3. The High Priest being properly a Type of Christ the most eminent Type is not sufficient to make an argument here 4. Why not as well one Temple though many Synagogues if he will needs argue from the Jews but we have more than one Cathedral in Christendom 5. Christ the Builder of that house then hath built his house now under the Gospel Why should we look back to that old building which in this sense is pulled down Observe how differently he builds there he set up no Officer but all the Officers continued so long as that polity continued but here his chief Officers were but for a short time so that you see he makes a vast difference in the building Also the Deacon was properly appointed to serve Tables to regard the poor Were there Deacons for the poor amongst the Jews 6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Priests appointed by David which some say were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrews called them Roshe aboth the chief of the Family there had been more likelihood of an Argument and it is likely we should have yielded as much now to the Ministers of the Gospel if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Priests of that Order which was not eminency of power and office sure enough His second Argument is taken from Christ in the new Testament Arg. 2 Who appointed Twelve Apostles superiour not only in gifts but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Disciples Now Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the Seventy This Argument I see is much insisted upon by others Answ let us try the strength of it I Answer 1. Had the Apostles shewn any of that power and authority in the mission of the Seventy there had been some probability in this Argument but there was not the least appearance of any such thing the Seventy had their Mission as immediatly from Christ as had the Apostles they contributing nothing towards it But our Bishops tell us our sending depends upon them we can be no Presbyters without them so that they will be ten times more superiour than the Apostles 2. As there was no difference in their Mission so neither in their Commission Read both their Commissions and you find the same Preach the Gospel Heal the sick Cust out Devils c. Bishops then and Presbyters have the same Commission and Mission Agreed 3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles Bellarmine saith but impropriè Had the Dr. drawn his Argument into form I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism Limit he must then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superiour to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction so that the Seventy had not this Power For if the Seventy had this power also we are well enough but this he cannot prove Besides to say though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction is but the begging of the question 4. Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles but let the Bishop in the question be Ens first which we cannot find in divine Writ 5. How proves he this that Bishops are the Apostles Successors and Presbyters of the Seventy and not of the Apostles This is his proof it is omnium ferè patrum constans doctrina Had he said unius Apostoli it had prevailed much more with me We are seeking for jus divinum but he mentions some Fathers and those not the most ancient neither But have none of the Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23. de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph 1 Cor. 12.28 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episcopacy by the roots God hath set in his Church Where shall we find the Bishop in question set not among the Apostles I hope not among the Prophets then it must be among the Teachers so the Text thirdly Teachers but are not Presbyters Teachers Well met honoured Dr. 6. The Apostle Peter 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presbyters calls himself a Presbyter Had the Apostle written thus The Bishops which are among you I exhort whs also am a Bishop this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors for he writes to Bishops and calls himself a Bishop Gentlemen give us fair play I beseech you the Argument is ours to prove Presbyters are the Successors of Peter the Presbyter To say the Apostles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers and so we cannot draw any thing from them there may be somthing in it but I add no more His third Argument is Arg. 3 The Apostles before they passed from earth to Heaven did constitute in great Cities one Bishop superiour not only over the Laicks but also the Presbyters as James in Jerusalem Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Creet c. I hope he takes Bishop properly Answ as we intend in the question else he deceives us I Answer 1. Why did not the Apostle Paul or some other Apostle constitute such a Bishop in Gorinth before his departure I am sure Corinth was none of the least Cities His Epistles to Corinth mention no such thing and that is much if there were one Paul wrote to them Anno 52 as Buchol and Alsted Or about 54 as Dr. Hammond When Clemens wrote his Epistle to them is uncertain saith Learned Mr. Young but he supposeth not before his banishment which was two years before his Martyrdom and gives his reasons for his opinion he suffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan Anno 103. saith Sixtus Senensis Hence then almost fifty years passed between the Epistles of Paul and Clemens to the Corinthians Clemens p. 8. mentions Pauls Martyrdom but in all his Epistle there is not one word to shew that there was such a Bishop in his time for in the winding up his Epistle p. 73. he exhorts them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not a word of such a Bishop whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there This Epistle is the most pure piece of all Antiquity next the Scriptures 2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti he saith indeed afterward p. 195. Certum
Ecclesiam must be the great healer under God of our Schisms else the Bishops within the Church will make them much worse but never heal I am sure by all power Episcopal If the Keyes of the Gate-house and other Prisons be at their command then they may do more with those Keyes than their Episcopal Keyes Yet I think Prisons will hardly heal us 8. There was an honest way found out how to cure wrangling schismatical Bishops and the same cure is proper and very apt for Schismatical Presbyters Concil Carthag 4. Can. 25. Dissidentes episcopos si non timor Dei Synodus reconciliet A more apt means than a Bishop because that is Apostolical To wind up all my Discourse concerning this Episcopacy which the Dr. hath asserted now commended as necessary against Schism I will only give the Reader the judgment of Musculus upon the question how effectual it is towards the cure After he had proved Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by Scripture then he comes to give the original of the Bishop out of Jorom Loc. com â— 195. and thus he writes Verum post Apostolorum tempora cum inter seniores Ecclesiarum sicuti Hieronymo placet dissentiones schismata subnascerentur ut mihi vere simile est tentatio illa de majoritate mentes seniorum pastorum at doctorum invaderet paulatim capit de numero seniorum unus aliquis eligi qui reliquis praeponeretur in sublimiori gradu positus Episcopus nominaretur atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipse solus ac singulariter vocaretur Profueritus vel seous hoc consilium Ecclesiâ— Christi quo tales sint Episcopi magis consuetudine ut Hieronymi verbis utar quam Dominioa dispositionis veritate introducti qui majores ossent Presbyteris melius est posterioribus seculis deelaratum quam dum haec consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debeâ—â—us omnem illam principalium equestrium Episcoporum insoleâ—tiam opulentiam tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi corruptioneâ— quam si Hier. cerneret dubio procul consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicuti praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad vastanda perdenda prisca pascendi Dominici gregis ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub â—ominum istorum larvis ociâ—sos ventres ac magnificos Principes qui non modo non pascant ipsi populum Domini doctrina sana Apostolica sed improbissima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam â—lium fiat c. I am far from applying this to all our Bishops no verily This Learned Davenant Hall Brownrig I do much reverence their names now dead and gone and no man upon earth have I so much honoured as that Archbishop Usher but what talk I of him he was in all Respects for Learning soundnesse in the Faith Humility and Holinesse a None-such In what an ill time as to us was he taken away but God is wise CHAP. II. Of Presbyterial Ordination VVHether that which made the greatest Argument against our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away I leave to the Christian Reader who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by Now then for a few Arguments to prove The validity of Presbyterial Ordination These two Propositions however denied by some yet I presume they will be granted by these scorners of our Presbyterial Ordination 1. That Ordination is still an Ordinance of God in force in the Church and so shall be while there is a Ministry 2. That it is an Act of Authority and can be performed by none but by those who are in Authority in the Church Hence then I thus argue Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination Arg. 1 But Presbyterial Ordination is Scriptural Ordination Ergo. Deny the major who dare The minor I thus prove That Ordination which is performed by persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture Authority is Scriptural Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture authority Ergo. Minor If the Scripture hath now invested any others with the power of Ordination they are persons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order But neither Ergo. Not Inferiour is granted not Superiour the whole Discourse before proves by the judgment of the Scriptures and many agreeing thereto Presbyter and Bishop are the same Objection Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain Answer Prove that your Bishops are and I will prove my Presbyters are 2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Administer the Lords Supper or Baptize Finde that Command and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it I doubt not our Authority descends from that Command and Commission to the Apostles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requisite to encrease to edifie or continue the Church we have the Authority by Succession and so are Pastors and Rulers II. Arg. 2 That Ordination which is performed by persons which have the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven committed to them that is valid Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by such Nomine clavium signisic tur omnis potestas Ecclesiallica Suppl cham lib. 4. chap. 4. Ergo. Major The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination saith Cor. Ã Lapide Chemnitius Bucer c. Minor Though the Pope Bishops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them is confessed by the Papists Objection The Key of Knowledg Answer I proved before the Key of Jurisdiction I adde That Distribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Distribution as we say Distinguendum est ubi Scriptura distinguit Sic distribuendum est c. But this distribution of the Keyes so as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter is not grounded on Scripture Ergo It is vain To thee do I give the Keyes said our Lord he did not civide the Keyes give one key to one and both to another he gives no single key to any person but keyes and so whatever those Keys serve for Busil and Dr. Fulk speak fully for the Keys of jurisdiction belonging to all Pastors then the Key of Order as well III. Timothies Ordination was valid Ordination Arg. 3 but Timothies Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination Ergo. Laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Against this is objected 1. Paul did impose his hands in Timothies Ordination and that was sufficient without the Presbytery Answ 1. Diodati conceives That by Pauls hands the miraculous gift was conveyed by the Presbytery Timothy was installed in the Ministry See him on 2 Tim. 1.6 I have spoken to this in another Treatise 2. However the Presbytery imposed hands they had a power to do the work else Paul would no have called them to it Paul did not ordain Timothy quatenus Apostle then your Bishop is gone
pag. 240.390 Fâ—â—b but when Cresconius or other Donatists would bring any thing out of him to prove what Augustin judged an errour he knew how to set the Scriâ—tures and Apostles above him So doth Cyprian sharply speak against those who brought Tradition for their proof qua ista obstinatio qua presumptio humanam traditionem divine dispositîoni anteponere c Vnde ista traditio Vtrumne de dominica evangelica auctoritate descendens Ep 74. c So Tertullian Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert Bellarmine saith enough Patrum scripta non sunt regula nec habent authoritatem obligandi To the Scriptures then let us go which speak so clear in this controversie that all men even the Papists who call those men Hereticks that deny this superiority of Bishops yet are forced to yield it that in the Apostles time the Bishop and Presbyter were the same Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard upon Tit. 1.5 7. Vbi adverte eundem gradum idemquè officium significari à Paulo nomine Presbyteri nomine Episcopi as cross to Bishop Davenant as can be Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Comment upon the same verses brings all Hierons Comment where he proves Bishops and Presbyters to be the same and no way opposeth it Estius who in the beginning of his Disputation calls them Hereticks who will not yield the superiority of Bishops and that jure divino in the midst of his Disputation hath these words Quod autem jure divinâ— sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores Senten l. 4. d. 24. S. 25. etsi non ita clarum est è saoris literis aliunde ramen satis efficaciter probari potest probatur tam ratione quà m testimoniis veterum It seems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this superiority in his opinion and which is divinely spoken though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures yet he would prove it by reason and testimonies of Ancients Had a Presbyterian written thus he should have been scorned to purpose Take the Papists again in their I. C. dist 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos enimsolos primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia According to these then your Antiquity for Episcopacy must not go so high as the Primitive Church One more Papist and I have done with them I find Greg. de Valen. De Sacr. Ord. disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. quoting of Michael Medina one of their own affirming that Hierem and all the Fathers he had named before which were Angustin Ambrose Chrysostom Primasius Theophylact and Otcumenius fuisse planè in errore Acrii but the Church did not condemn this errour in them but bare with them because they were otherwise orthodox but did condemn it in Acrius being otherwise in multis nominibus hareticus Then it seems Acrius who was against this Superiority by divine right had these worthy men in that point to agree with him in Medina's judgment with whom Valentia is not pleased To conclude as to Testimonies Learned and Sober Jewel a Jewel indeed in his defence against Harding p. 101 202. quoting testimonies out of Hierom Ambrose Augustin concludes that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Presbyter are all one thus this Reverend Bishop I wonder these Testimonies grounded also on Scripture could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controversie We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be so contemptible at last I have but one thing to add and it is considerable the Syriack Translation which is so ancient that in time it came near the Original and is thought by some to have been made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians do not use two words one for Bishop and another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only the word which signifies a Presbyter unlesse in one place Tit. 1.5 7. For a Presbyter must be blameless So 1 Tim. 3.1 If a man desire the Office of a Presbyter V. 2. A Presbyter then must be blameless So in Phil. 1.1 With the Presbyters and Deacons In Acts 20.28 There it alters the word is originally Greek the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only it hath a Syriac termination being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione In 1 Pet. 2. ult Where Bishop is referr'd to Christ there it hath another word Now this to me carries strong proof that this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for there is not so much as any different names but Presbyter is the only word Whether any have taken notice of this before I know not And though some say that it is a Trite Argument that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bishop being used promiscuously yet it is such an Argument as hath so much strength in it that it was never answered We use to say that Nomina sunt rerum notae symbola whence if the same persons are called Presbyters or Bishops surely their power cannot be distinct Officers are known by their names and distinct Officers by distinct names in some places in the Scripture though in others they may have a general name common to others Though Paul in one place calls himself a Minister and Peter an Elder yet in other places we find they are called Apostles So the Officers have their distinctions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 But Presbyter and Bishop are never thus differenced no not in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus where of all places they should have been if in those Epistles the Apostle lay the foundation of Episcopacy as say our Brethren but there they are the same as is plain to see and confessed by the Fathers Papists and Protestants Yea and besides the same Names what qualifications are required of one are required of the other the same work is enjoyned both Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Names the same Qualifications the same Charge conclude the same Function How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apostles let us now consider His first Argument is taken from the Jewish Church thus Arg. 1 God appointed the High Priest superiour in authority over the Priests and the Priests over the Levites Ergo The like order is to be stablished in the Christian Church To which I Answer 1. There was and is still superiority of Officers in the Christian Church there was when there were Apostles Prophets Answ Evangelists Pastors c. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon But he means amongst the Preaching Elders then I answer 2. This Argument will better prove a Vniversal Bishop Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. than a Diocesan Bishop and is used by Bellarmine for the same purpose it is his third reason
est Timotheum Titum Jacobum multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis c. yet adds in the conclusion quasi affixos Well then certum est but how I pray certitudine fidei divinae else 't is not certain to us in this controversie I regard not mens words without Scripture but what mean these words quasi affixos this quasi spoils the certainty for if but quasi affixi they were but quasi Episcopi as I could soon prove from the Scriptures and the Canons of Councils I wonder the Dr. should say that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and that propriè dictus I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spake next to Peter because James was Bishop of Jerusalem where the Council was held But 1. He was an Apostle one of the Pillars Gal. 2.9 whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome because he was an Apostle and so not fixed 2. If James were a Bishop why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15 For in v. 4 6 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters but not a word of a Bishop this is very far from this certainty 'T is certain indeed he was no Bishop As for Timothy and Titus there hath been a huge stir about these I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatise which he cals the unbishopping of Timothy and Titus and that so strongly that as none yet ever went about to answer him so none can I could never see the Book but refer the Reader to him I shall be the briefer I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus because he said 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopprick And Titus because he said Chap. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions Could not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others or if not with others Ministers and Titus left at Crete to do the same but it must follow necessarily Ergo they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places But the Fathers say they were Bishops that 's a proof not sufficient to make jus divinum The Papists and Dr. Hammond say they were Archbishops both alike for truth Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so It was the saying of a great Bishop that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Tiâ—les Sure I am that Paul gives him another title of which presently If the Fathers did so might they not be deceived with the subscriptions of the Epistles which this Learned Dr. meddles not with knowing they were not Canonical Name I pray the most ancient Fathers and tell us if they call these so in your sense Sure I am that Ignatius cals Timothy a Deacon and joynes Linus with him Epist ad Tral p. 71. But what if the Fathers call them so if I find strong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers if a hundred Fathers say they were ordinary Bishops I regard them not Searching the Scriptures we find for Timothy that 1. He is often joyned with Paul in the Inscription of his Epistles as Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 1. Thes 1. 2 Thes 1. Philem. 1. 2. We find him journeying with Paul and sent up and down by Paul 3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken largely yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used but thrice in the New Testament is never taken but for a peculiar Officer He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11 To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels is absurd Matthew and John I hope were Apostles and Philip was an Evangelist Acts 21.8 yet wrote no Gospel If he were no Evangelist but bidden to do the work of one this is strange an inferiour order do the work of a superiour However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well though they be of an inferiour Order But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist he must not fixe at Ephesus No more fixed at Crete was Titus though for a time left at Crete In 2. Cor. 8.23 Paul cals him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words sutable to an Evangelist sent up and down by Paul as we may observe in the Epistles and journeying with Paul After he was at Crete Paul sends to him to Nicopolis Tit. 3.12 which was six hundred miles distant from Crete as Bunting saith p. 566. How long he stayed with him or whither he went next I find not But towards the end of Pauls life 2 Tim. 4.10 11. he was at Rome with Paul and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia saith Lapide How these things sute with a Bishop in our sense I know not Hence Junius Zanchy Polanus Beza Calvin Diodati and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist As for Evangelists Ensebius will give us some light to understand them Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles c. Taking their journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangelists that is they preached Christ unto them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith These men having planted the Faith in sundry new and strange places ordained there other Pastors committing unto them the tillage of the new ground passing themselves unto other people and Countries being holpen thereunto by the Grace of God which wrought with them for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously so that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty c. Thus Eusebius If this description of Evangelists sute any doth it not Timothy and Titus who were indeed divine Disciples of Paul a principal man sent up and down by him and if these wrought miraculously must it be denied of Timothy and Titus as for the gift of Tongues that was also needful for men travelling and preaching in so many several Countreys I find some forced to yield they were Evangelists at first but afterwards were made Bishops of these places 1. Was the being made a Bishop a degree above an Evangelist Answ was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer then some truth may be in this I find Concil Sard. Can. 13. that the Bishop must ascend
I know God hath his hand in this and we do pray the conditions of others though we know it not while we pray our own But yet way we not then use these Forms also which are common to the whole Congregation as it were to make amends Burdened souls when indeed tentations ly heard cannot but minde themselves though none should be the mouth of the Congregation 5. The thing being in it self good and doubtlesse a man may pray graciously though he doth use a form Why may we not yield in such a point to take off prejudices from our Ministry and if they would join with us more willingly in Prayer why should this be wholly denied If you look on it as being such a thing as you will rather lay down your Ministry than use any form at all I desire we might see those grounds which may warrant you and us thereunto and we shall thank you CHAP. IV. Of Ceremonies and in particular of the Surplice I Intend but a few words We are told the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and this is swallowed down so readily as if there were no bones in it What they mean by the ambiguous word Ceremony and what by the Church we must learn from their practice And I pray see through all Pauls Epistles where the Church is often mentioned whether you can find such a Church as decreed our Ceremonies God having appointed his Day for Worship what time of the day is fittest for it we doubt not the Church may determine so for place and other things which of necessity must be as if there must be Wine and Bread at the Supper c. then Vessels must be whether Woodden as when they had their golden Priests or Pewter or Silver there is no determination by God the Church may here appoint but these deserve not the names of Ceremonies Were we in our purest estate in Adam had God appointed such Ordimnces these things must of necessity follow these things must be place and vessels c. but it would not then have necessarily followed we must have garments Considering sin indeed which hath brought this shame upon us we must now from sin have garments but it doth not follow properly from the Ordinance it self we must have Garments as if Wine and Bread we must have vessels to put the Wine into if sin then garments is true not properly if ordinances then garments though now it is true The only Text brought for these Ceremonies is 1 Cor. 14. ult Let all things be done decently and in Order whence thus the Argument runs If all the Worship of God for that I think the Apostle by All things properly aimes at must be performed decently in the Church then the Church may decree Ceremonies But the Consequence is denied For 1. The Worship of God may be decently performed without humane Ceremonies deny it if you can I will prove it afterwards 2. The Worship of God may be very undecently performed though humane Ceremonies be annexed we need not to prove what eyes have seen among your white Worshippers in your Cathedrals and Colledges how rudely have divers carried themselves very much unbecoming the Worship of God I am sure 3. Had Ceremonies been so necessary surely the Lord would have appointed them himself and not leave his Worship to be dressed by a vain wretched head of man opposite to him in all things He whose name is Jealous Exod. 34.14 and that in his instituted Worship would not let man have this refuge to run to while he was sinning against his Second Commandment to say I do it for decency 4. God would not suffer his Church of old to add one Ceremony Moses did as he was commanded repeated seven times over in Exod. 40. Did God take care of the pins of the Tabernacle then and will he not now of the Curtains Since Gods wisdom seeth meet to appoint none mans wisdome seeth meet to appoint what he please yea thus it must be else he is not Man-fallen i.e. Cross to God in every thing It seems God sends his worship into the Church under the New Testament naked and we must make Garments to hide the shame of it and with other Ribbands of our Inventions dress it up fine Will the great God thank you for this you potsheard man who will mend his work 5. What the Apostle meaneth by decency and Order you may see in the eleventh Chapter and this fourteenth Chapter in which Chapters you shall find Undecency and Disorder but not for want of Ceremonies 6. If from hence we may appoint Ceremonies where shall we stand Determ 20. may we not go in infinitum What hinders B. Davenant saith of these Ceremonies Si nimis excreverint in hoc graviter peccant and quotes Austin in his 119. Epist Complaining of the burden of Ceremonies preferring the Jews Ceremonies being Gods own Institutions before theirs But what saith the Ceremony-maker all these make the worship to be performed decently So this month he invents these the next month he invents others for so we are taught if we will believe the Church may alter and change the Ceremonies if she see cause yea and cast them out also if she be so true to her husband as she should be As for Apparel I think people commonly come decently enough some else will not come at all And I see not but if a Ministers civil Garments with his gown be cleanly as commonly they are in these his Civil Garments he is decent enough as to apparel Such Decency and Order as whose contrary is undecency and disorder I think is there meant and nothing more but I hope that is not want of a Surplice which I thus prove I. If different Garments appropriated to the worship of God Arg. 1 as a Surplice be requisite to the decent performance of it then neither the Apostles nor the Primitive Churches did worship God decently But they did deny it if you dare Ergo Such Garments are not requisite c. For the Apostles and those Churches will any say they had Surplices no man will I am sure About the year 261. I finde indeed Pope Stephen decreed The Garments for Divine Worship should be consecrated and used only in the Church But his Decree is not early enough by many years to reach the Primitive Churches Bishop Jewel quoting Valafredus Abbas Des Apol. 326. tells us out of him that the old Fathers ministred the Holy Communion having on their own common apparel very undecently certainly It is a wonder that holy Paul could not see his exhortation to decency did force in a Surplice which he and others should have used but older and wiser I pray let the Rule of Irenaeus before mentioned here take place II. Arg. 2 If a Surplice be requisite to the decent performing of the worship of God Then all the Congregation ought to wear Surplices The Reason is Because they are all worshippers at least pretend
3. In respect of the President and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Christ it was necessary that the Presbytery should impose their hands Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra ord p. 226. sed addit etiam Presbyterii 1 Tim. 4. ne existimetur discrimen esse sive ab Apostolis sive à Presbyteriis quis ordinetur saith Chemnitius Object 2. But who knows what Presbyters these were Chrysostome saith Bishops Answer So saith Lorinus Intelligit chorum Presbyterorum i. e. Episcoporum Be it so for now I am sure Presbyters and Bishops were the same Some say It was the Presbytery of Ephesus if they could prove this it were to the purpose indeed Junius saith the Presbytery of Lystra whence Paul took him What Presbyters are we know by the Scripture and Presbyterium is a company of Presbyters as Lorinus said If it please you not I pray teach us better The Rhemists render the word Priesthood and quote the 3d Canon Concil Carth. 4. before named to open it by This is more for us against Chrysostome Thus also Cajetan Dicit pluraliter manuum Presbyterii fortè ad significandum plurium Sacerdotum concursum c. This Presbytery imposing hands on Timothy was no doubt the ground of Cyprians practice so of that Canon in the Council of Carthage and of our Bishops Canons whence I wonder any rational man should so scorn Presbyterial Ordination Object But there was Pauls Imposition and so there was the Bishops Imposition but not Presbyters alone Answ As for Paul the answer to the first Objection will satisfie For the Bishop true he was there but how came he there Jerome tells us and we have reason to believe him because he groundeth his discourse upon the Scriptures However the Bishop did not superadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters only for Order-sake he carried on the work So had we our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Association who was so and should have continued so dur ante vitâ for me But as in the absence of a Bishop the sufftagan might supply his room so as well in the absence of our President another might supply his being especially chosen and earnestly desired by his fellow Presbyters to do it IV. Arg. 4 If Prophets and Teachers may separate Apostles to their work by Fasting Prayer and Imposition of hands then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters and that Ordination is valid but the Antecedent is true Acts 13.1 2 3. Ergo. Teachers are inferiour to Prophets and all preaching Presbyters I hope are Teachers but these imposed hands the Prophets were inferiour to Apostles Object But this was not Ordination Answ I have spoken to this in another Treatise more largely but I could name and have named there several of the Fathers Lutherans and Calvinists who say it was Ordination and for the Papists divers of those I could mention who call it Ordination If it was not Ordination I pray what was it We find Barnabas after this Act is called an Apostle Acts 14.14 but so he was never before he was at the highest but a Prophet as the Text declares So Jerom Catal. Script Keeles speaking of Barnahas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was a separation to a work and what do you more in Ordination than is here set down But I speak no more of it in this place because as I said I have done it before V. Arg. 5 Those who have Authority to perform the greatest ministerial Acts they have power to perform the less But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greatest Ergo. For the Major those who will deny it give us a sound and convincing reason why they do so I cannot imagine one à majore ad minus valet consequentia in this case sure For the Minor When Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gespel surely Paul mentioned the highest Ministerial Act else Paul must say not to baptize nor to preach but to ordain Ministers Reverend Davenant saith Pag. 194. that in rebus maximi momenti ad salutem hominum Presbyters have power as well as Bishops and therefore the name Bishop may well agree to them saith he why not then in rebus minoris momenti I wish he had given a sound reason for it it seems they can do those Acts which tend to the end of the Ministry mainly and principally and not the lesser What rational man can swallow this If Ability be the question I think the Presbyters have shewn enough to answer it Compare Episcopal Ordinations and Presbyterial where did the Majesty of Gods Ordinance appear most And as for the Ordained by them compare them with others and see if not able for the work I will adde two or three Arguments ad homi nem VI. If Ordination by Bishops be valid Arg. 6 then ordination by Presbyters is valid but you suppose the first is true and we wish you had proved it more sufficiently that our-people might not have separated from us upon that account The consequence I prove thus 1. For Presbyters we are sure they are the Officers of Christ but for your Bishops especially such as are in England extending their power as I said in the beginning after that manner so vastly I dare say quâ tales they are none of Christs Officers nor as they take to themselves a power above other Ministers 2. Take Bishops in the fairest sence so Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order If of the same Order then Presbyters Ordination is as valid as the Bishops That they are of the same Order Learned Davenant doth in the beginning of his Determination name Gulielmus Parisiensis Gerson and Durandus among the Papists affirming it to which as a further confirmation I may add that saying of Ambrose on 1 Tim. 3. Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem subject quare Nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est for that he adds Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est I shall not stick at that still they are the fame Order For the Consequence I borrow this only out of Mr. Baxter who saith he had it from Bishop Usher to prove Ordination by meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid for ad ordinem pertinet ordinare VII Arg. 7 Ordination by Presbyters in case of necessity is valid So saith learned Davenant 191. But The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a case of necessity The Minor 1. Bishops were now put down by Authority 2. Solemn Covenant against them in part taken being imposed by Authority 3. Bishops dared not to Ordain openly why not we as much afraid to go to them 4. The eye of the State not so favourable upon those who were ordained by them and unless we were satissied they were Officers of Christ we had no