Age we find Pothinus to have been Bishop of Lyons and Clement of Rome and Denys the Areopagite of Athens and another Denys of Corinth who mentions Philippus Bishop of Gortina and Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus I say though the Names of these and other Primitive Bishops in the very next Century to the Apostles do still stand upon good Record yet 't is not modest ingenuous or reasonable for any Man to require us either to nominate every one of the Apostles Successors in all parts of the World or to lay down our pretensions of a setled Episcopacy in the Ages next to them especially since Ireneus hath told us that he was able though Iren. ubi suprà Idem affirmat Tertullianus de Praesc Adv. Her we are not to reckon up the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches Were there no exact List of the former Prelates of England yet I hope it would not follow that these Churches have not been all along under the Government of Episcopacy It will trouble the best Antiquary to tell us all the old Bishops among the ancient Britains and Scots and yet we know that they had Bishops before the Saxons came in hither which was about Anno 450 and many Ages before the Bishops of Rome claimed any Jurisdiction in this Island 3. But then supposing a Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches nevertheless it is Objected Thirdly that Antiquity is no sufficient witness of a setled Episcopacy in the first Ages because the Ancients speak ambiguously and doubtfully of those Bishops calling them sometimes Presbyters so that we have no certain account whether those Men were superiour to Presbyters in Order Power and Authority or whether they were above them only in a Degree of Honour like the Chair-men in Assemblies or like the Archontes at Athens and the Ephori at Sparta who had an equal power but gave a deference of Honour and Dignity to one above the rest Now I cannot but wonder that Men should invent doubts where there are none for nothing is more clear then that the Bishops thus succeeding the Apostles had a Superiority of Power over the rest of the Clergy not only to ordain but also to judge and censure them without any Authority given them by a Bench of Presbyters though not always without their Aid and Advice For the removing of this third Scruple then these five things are to be noted 1. That in many of the writers of the first and second Age after Apostles we find a plain distinction between Bishops Presbyters and Deacons as three distinct Orders 2. That in not one of these writers can we find that this Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters was thought then what ever was imagined in after-times to be founded on any act vote or consent of the Church as bestowing this Power upon them 3. But on the contrary that the care of all Ecclesiastical Can. Ap. 39. matters was acknowledged then to belong to the Bishops that Presbyters were charged to obey the Bishops in all things and to do nothing without them or contrary to their Sentence is plain and evident out of Ignatius and other writers of that Age and all this was grounded upon the Sacredness and Superiority of their Power which they all owned to have been derived to them not from the Presbytery but from God and Christ by Divine appointment and institution and through the hands of the Apostles who left them for their Successors Suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes as Ireneus said delivering to Iren. l. 3. c. 3. them their own Office Power and Authority 4. Therefore whereas it is alleaged that a Father or two of that Age do sometimes comprehend Bishops under the general Name of Presbyters it is granted that the Prelates were so humble and modest as upon occasion to stile themselves Presbyters thereby giving a deference of Honour to those as were such only But yet they looked upon the Offices to be distinct and saith St. Clemens Ep. ad Cor. pag 57. the Apostles fore-seeing that a contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy for that reason they appointed the Orders aforesaid and divided their parts and Offices among them meaning to the Bishop his Office and to the Presbyter his that they being dead other fit Men might succeed them in their Ministry Office or Apostolic function Now how all this can consist with that novel pretence that Presbyters had an equall Power with Bishops and that Bishops had only an Honorary Dignity above Presbyters seemeth to me to be altogether unimaginable 5. But fifthly to put all out of doubt we are beholding to a very Learned Prelate of our Church for Two useful and choice Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Observations which we may well take upon his Credit First that no writer of that Age next to the Apostles did so promiscuously use the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as to give the Name of Bishop to one who was only a Presbyter of the second Order Though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters the greater Office including the less yet that a bare Presbyter was ever then called a Bishop is not to be proved by any one instance out of the Monuments of those times Secondly that no writer of that Age did ever give the Name of Presbyter to a Bishop when he reckoned up the Degrees and Orders of Church-men and where he spake of some single Minister then living So that as you shall never find a Presbyer called Bishop so you shall rarely find Bishops called Presbyters and where they are so the writer mentioneth things in a lump not counting up the Degrees orderly nor speaking of one single person of his time With these two positive Assertions I shall rest 'till I see some body to have either the confidence to contradict or the Learning to confute them By what has been briefly said it may appear to any unprejudiced person that in the earliest and first times when Christianity was but green in the World the Churches were under the Government of Bishops We find innumerable instances of it in those Churches planted by St. Paul St. Peter St. John and other Apostles We find in undoubted Monuments of the best Antiquity the very Names mentioned of several Primitive Bishops who presided over some Apostolical Churches and a certain Succession avowed of other Bishops in other Churches whose particular Names do not occur We find that these Bishops were then looked upon as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy sometimes called Bishops in contra-distinction to Presbyters and always own'd as Superiour unto them not by any Ecclesiastical consent or grant for the avoiding of confusion only but by an Antecedent Charter derived to them from the Apostles All which do abundantly satisfie me of the Truth of that declaration of the Church of England that it is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Pref. to the form of
making or ordaining Bishops c. ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And in that our Church mentioneth the reading of Holy Scripture it is clear that in her account she taketh in the very times of the Apostles and meaneth that from the Scripture it may be proved that Episcopacy was erected while the Apostles were living Which shall give me warrant to take one step more backward from the Age next to the Apostles to the Apostolical Age it self and to affirm that even then there was such a Sacred Order of men as we now call properly strictly and by way of eminence and distinction Bishops Now that we meet with the Name frequently in our Translation and oftner in the Original is altogether out of doubt The grand Question is about the thing whether in those days the Office Power and Order of a Bishop was distinct from and in any respect superiour unto the Office Power and Order of a Presbyter And though the Sence and Practice of the succeeding Age be enough to make us morally certain that it was so because it cannot be reasonably suppos'd that men so harassed by Persecution so zealous for Truth and Honesty and so careful to observe the Apostles orders even in the least things could or would conspire together to make an universal defection from so main a part of Christianity as the Government of the Church is yet setting aside that consideration to me it seemeth obvious and certain that Christ the great Bishop of our Souls erected an Episcopal Power and that the Apostles continued and propagated it I mean still a Power above that belonging to Presbyters This I shall endeavour briefly to shew 1. By making good the Affirmative and then Secondly By clearing up those difficulties which are usually brought from Scripture to prove the Negative 1. For probation of Episcopacy we begin with the Ordination of the Twelve Apostles which evidently differ'd from the Mission of the Seventy two Disciples in whom 't is conceived that the Office and Power of Presbyters was founded Now the Twelve Apostles were indeed Bishops though they were not clenched to any particular Sees and Chairs which the necessities of those times would not give way to For the clearing of this it is observable that the Mission of the Twelve Apostles as to their own Persons was extraordinary and that which none could pretend to in following Ages because they were sent immediately by Christ himself and had a common jurisdiction and care over all the Churches that should be and were endowed with a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of their Doctrin But then their Authority and Charge as to their Function was an ordinary and standing Power that was not to dye with them nor to cease as Miracles did after a little interval but such as was to be transmitted to others from time to time and so to continue to the Worlds end Now if it doth appear First that the Twelve had a Superiour power over Presbyters Secondly that this Power was to be imparted and communicated to their Successors for ever Thirdly that this was no other than the Ordinary Episcopal Power Then this will suffice to shew that the Twelve Apostles were truly and indeed Bishops in their ordinary capacity and consequently that Episcopal Power was erected in their Time First then That the Twelve Apostles had a Superior power over Presbyters appeareth not only from the Extent of their Commission which compared with that given to the Seventy two Disciples was much larger for as the Father sent Joh. 20. 21. Christ so Christ sent them with full power to Teach and Govern the Church according to God's Will and to ordain Successors and in all respects to execute that power which he was invested with and had delegated unto them but moreover it is clear from the Exercise of this their Authority for they ordained Deacons Act. 6. They Ordained Matthias and took Act. 1. him into the number of Apostles who before was one of the Seventy two as Eusebius tells us twice they made Decrees Euseb lib. 2. c. 1. and sent them abroad to be observed in all Churches Act. 16. They had power of Censure and Jurisdiction every single Apostle had over inferiour Presbyters for St. John threatned ambitious Diotrephes that when he came he would remember his deeds meaning that he would correct him with the Rod of 3 Joh. his Apostolical Power And so were Hymenâ—us and Alexander delivered unto Satan by St. Paul after that he was ordained an Apostle This is enough to shew the Superiority of the Apostles 1 Tim. 1. 20. power 2. Again This power of theirs was no Temporary thing that was to vanish with their breath but that which was to be communicated to others to be transmitted unto Posterity and to hold as long as there should be need of it that is as long as the World should hold For so the promise of Christ runs Lo I am with you always even unto the end of Matt. 28. 20. the World Here our Lord did engage not to be with their Persons alone for they were to dye within a short time but to be with their Successors too that is to assist their Function for ever And truly had not Christ assisted it marvellously it would have fallen e're now since it hath been so lustily beav'd at especially in these last Ages 'T is plain that our Saviour intended that the Apostles power should continue to the Worlds end I mean their Ordinary power which was for the Regiment of the Church For their Extraordinary power of speaking all Languages and working Miracles which was for the Planting of the Church was not to last long but to cease after a while So that it was their ordinary and standing power to Administer Sacraments to Preach to Govern to Ordain and to exercise the power of the Keys this was that which was to hold to be delivered and banded down from Generation to Generation Now if there be any truth in that Promise of Christ this Apostolic Power and Office doth last and still continue and is even at this hour in the World 3. Thirdly then this Power we speak of is really that which we now call Episcopacy The Apostles Function is part of it in Deacons more of it in Presbyters and all of it in Bishops there the whole Ordinary power centers and is united The Twelve were called as their immediate Successors were many times also called Apostles in respect of their Mission and Authority from Christ but in respect of their Office and Inspection over Christ's Church they were indeed Bishops They were the first possessors of Episcopacy and the Bishops now are their Successors to the Apostolate 'T is plain that they themselves and the Church following them understood them to be no more than Bishops in their ordinary capacity For as on
to order the public Service of God and to take care that decency and a grave decorum might be in Christian Assemblies He was to see that such as would be Bishops and Deacons should be rightly qualified c. 3. 2. and himself to keep up his Authority by being an Example of Believers He was to allot a double Portion of c. 4. 12. maintenance to Elders that Ruled well under him and c. 5. 17. laboured in the Word He was to take cognizance of the 19. irregularities of Presbyters but with this caution that he should not receive an Accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses And such as sinned he was to Rebuke before all He was to hold Ordinations but with 20. this Proviso That he should lay bands suddainly on no man 22. Briefly St. Paul gave him a plenitude of that power which he had himself And if to Model Churches to prescribe Rules to confer holy O deus to command examin judge and reprehend O fenders Openly and even Presbyters themselves I say if these are parts of Episcopal Power then was Timothy a Bishop indeed And I should be loth to see half that Charter given to a single Presbyter as is here given to Timothy by this Great Apostle 3. The third instance to shew that the Apostles setled the Episcopal form of Government is Titus whom Antiquity acknowledgeth to have been Metropolitan of Crete an Island consistng of an hundred Cities and to have been intrusted with the power of Modelling and Governing of all the Churches there That St. Paul left him there is clear from his own words and Tit. 1. 5. questionless his design was that Titus should remain and continue there unless summoned away upon some Emergency and for a Time only and even then St. Paul promised to send either Artemas or Tychicus to be his Vicar and Procurator c. 3. 12. in his absence Now that Titus was indeed a Bishop superior in Authority to Presbyters and invested with a Superintendency and Power over all his Clergy doth plainly appear from the Authority he had both to Ordain and to Judge of so many Bishops as St. Chrysostom declares he had For this cause Chrysost Hom. in Tit. 1. it was that when the Apostle himself could not stay in Crete to put every thing into due Order but was obliged to be gone he left Titus behind him to set in order the things that Tit. 1. 5 11. c. 2. 10. were wanting and unsettled at S. Paul's departure to ordain Bishops and to dispose of them into Cities into every City one to provide against the heterodox Preaching of Deceivers to stop their mouths to silence them and to rebuke them sharply and to admonish Hereticks once and again and then to excommunicate them upon their Contumacy This was Titus his Office and this was plainly the Exercise of Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction And to confirm this further two things are observable First that this Authority was given to Titus alone not to a College of Presbyters which 't is presumable S. Paul appointed before his going away but to Titus singly for this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set things in order that thou shouldest ordain c. This argues a supreme and a sole Superintendency and Authority in Titus Secondly that there was a necessity for S. Paul's committing this Authority unto him for otherwise the things that were wanting could not be set in order nor could Ordinations or Censures be there for this cause left I thee in Crete Which is a manifest Argument that the Presbyters in Crete had no power either to ordain or to excommunicate or to do such acts of Jurisdiction for then why was Titus left to those purposes And yet we see S. Paul left him and for this cause left him so that unless we will offer violence to the Sence of Scripture we must confess that Titus was left and fix'd at Crete as Bishop and Metropolitan of the whole Island To these three Apostolical Bishops I might add many more Const Apost l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Names we meet with in Ecclesiastical Writers either occasionally and scatteringly mentioned as in Irenaeus Eusebius and divers others or more orderly collected as in the Book of Constitutions commonly called Apostolical But because the truth of this dependeth upon the Credit of Church History which yet we have no reason to question I shall forbear further Instances having already and I hope sufficiently shewed out of Scripture that the Order and Authority of Bishops was in being 〈◊〉 in the Apostles days and from them continued and transmitted to succeeding Ages 2. Having done then with the Proof of the Affirmative I proceed next with what brevity I can to answer that grand Argument usually brought to make good the Negative viz. that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are indifferently and promiscuously used in the Apostolical Writings as if onely one Order of men were meant by them As for instance in Tit. 1. 2 5. Paul tells Titus that he left him in Crete as for other reasons so for this that he should Ordain Elders or Presbyters in every City Then ver 6. he layeth down the Qualifications of these Elders and as a reason for it he saith ver 7. for a Bishop must be blameless c. Here a Bishop and a Presbyter seem to be not two distinct Orders but one and the same and so some say that by a Presbyter is here meant a Bishop and others affirm that by a Bishop is here meant a Presbyter and hence are willing to conclude that in the Apostles time they were not thought to be two distinct Offices but Bishop and Presbyter to be one both in Name Order and Authority and so Prelacy must fall to the ground without any help from Scripture For the removing of this Difficulty three things are to be observed 1. That Aerius the Heretic was the first that ever found out or insisted on this Community and Identity of Names for the Writers before him in the first and second Age after the Apostles did not discourse at this rate could not discover such a promiscuous use of the words 2. The Catholick Writers after Aerius who thought as he did that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were common in the Apostles days did not yet think as that Heretic did affirm that the Office and Order were ever the same No they held that though Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops yet Bishops were a rank of Ministers above Presbyters both in Degree and Authority even in the Age of the Apostles 3. But then there is one Observation more for which I must thank a very Learned Prelate of our Church viz. that notwithstanding Vindic. Epist Ignat. p. 184. this Construction and late Pretence of the Promiscuous use of the words yet it doth not appear that the Scripture gives the Titles of
the one hand many Bishops besides the first Twelve were called Apostles so Timothy Titus V. Bovii Scholia in constit Apost And Dr. Hammonds Praef. to St. James Clement and abundance more had the Title given them which is the ground of that conjecture of Albaspinaeus and others that the Canones Constitutiones Apostolorum were the Canons and Constitutions virorum Apostolicorum or of these Secundary Apostles so on the other hand the Primary or Twelve Apostles were looked upon to have been Bishops I am sure when St. Peter moved that one should be chosen to succeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. 20. in the Apostolate of Judas he look'd upon it as a Succession into his Bishoprick or Episcopal Office that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the part of Apostleship which each of the Twelve had namely a Function and Power Episcopal And accordingly were the Epiph. lib. 1. cont Carpocr Ancients wont to style the Apostles Bishops So Epiphanius saith of Peter and Paul that they were Apostles in respect of their Mission and Bishops in respect of their charge And St. Cyprian bids Deacons to remember that our Lord chose Apostles Cypr. ep 65. ad Rogatianum id est Episcopos Praepositos that is Bishops and Governours and tells them moreover that the Apostles ordained Deacons to be Ministers to the Church and to them in the discharge of their Episcopal Office Episcopatûs sui Ecclesiae ministros And St. Austin is positive that when our Lord laid his hands Quaest in vet Nov. Test q. 97. upon the Apostles ordinavit eos Episcopos he ordained them Bishops Besides many more Testimonies to this purpose which are ready at hand and which yet I omit because this was evidently the Sence of the Ancients because they frequently affirm that Bishops are the Apostles successors that they hold their Place and are of their Degree and come after them in their Office and Function and the like which they would not have said had they not judged the Apostles themselves to have been I mean in their ordinary capacity no more and no less than Bishops 2. Which thing had it been well heeded might have prevented some Learned Tracts which have been written against the Divine Right of Episcopacy For to determin that Christ ordained not Episcopacy seemeth to me to be an Affirmation that He ordained not Apostles for they were invested with that Episcopal power which God be blessed hath continued in the Church hitherto notwithstanding all the gainsayings of Core Now this consideration leadeth us on to the next viz. That as the Apostles received this power themselves so it is proveable out of their Writings that they imparted it to others and invested them with their Apostolick or Episcopal Authority To shew this I shall make choice of three special Instances and they are these 1. First though the Scripture doth not expresly totidem verbis tell us that St. James was Bishop of V. Grot. in ep Ja. Jerusalem yet that he was so we are as certain as the most Ancient Records can make us And indeed St. Luke in his History of the Apostles Acts doth yield us such fair probabilities of this thing that the Testimonies of succeeding times seem to be unquestionably True For in Act. 21. 18. we read that when St. Paul was returned from his Circuit to Jerusalem the next day he and his company went in unto James and all the Elders were present Now certainly James would not have been named distinctly and by himself had he not had a preheminence over the College of Elders that were assembled with him St. Luke singles him out as the Person to whom St. Paul did after a particular manner address himself though all the Elders were there present yet they went in unto James intimating plainly that he was the President over that venerable Society And to confirm this it is likewise observable what is related of this St. James at the famous Convention at Jerusalem Act. 15. The occasion of that Synod was a Controversie about the Necessity and Use of Circumcision and great disputes there were about it at the Council But at last when Peter and the rest had given their Opinions of the matter St. James determins it and puts an end to the debate by his decisive Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I determine Judge and give Sentence saith he vers 19. and in his Judgement and Determination all did acquiesce This is a plain Argument that St. James was then Bishop of Jerusalem For otherwise why did St. Paul so particularly apply himself to St. James and why did the other Apostles and even Peter himself rest in the Determination of St. James Nay why should St. James take upon him to decide the Controversie For it is certain that this James was not one of the Twelve Apostles All do agree that he had been a Disciple and some think he was our Lords Cousin others do conceive that he was our Lords Brother in Law the Son of Joseph by his former Wife He is called by way of distinction James the Just And if he was not Bishop of Jerusalem how is it imaginable Euseb l. 2. c. 1. that he should have had at those meetings of the Apostles such Eminence Precedency and Authority The Truth is Eusebius tells that the Apostles declined the Honour of being in the Chair and See of Jerusalem and gave it unto this James as for other Reasons so for this Because he was our Saviours near Relation and so he took the Government of the Church with the Apostles saith Eusebius which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some do understand as if he was only taken into the number of the Apostles having been a bare Disciple before but this is a palpable mistake touching the sence of Eusebius for saith he this James the Just was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Jerusalem and a World of Testimonies more there are to confirm it Secondly my next instance is in Timothy who was ordained by St. Paul himself the Presbytery concurring as Approvers of his Ordination That he was an Apostolical Prelate we have the Joint Testimonies of all the Primitive Authors which speak of him some affirming him to have been Metropolitan of Asia and all confessing him to have been Bishop of Ephesus Out of those two Epistles which St. Paul sent him it appears that he himself constituted and sixt him at Ephesus requiring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide and settle there 1 Tim. 1. 3. Ephesus was the place of his Residence unless happily the necessities of the Church did oblige him to consult St. Paul for himself was young or the necessities of St. Paul required his attendance for he was his Convert 2. We find that he was to restrain Preachers within the boundaries of c. 1. 3. Truth and to charge some that they should teach no other c. 2. 1. 2. 10. 11. Doctrine He was
Bishop and Presbyter indifferently and promiscuously to those of both Orders There is no necessity for us to admit of a community of Names because those places which seem to infer this Community may be fairly understood though we do appropriate the name of Bishop to a Bishop and the name of Presbyter to a Presbyter This will appear from a particular view of the several Texts which if we can understand without being obliged to confound Names then farwell that grand Principle which the Classical Divines have taken for granted and which is the main and sole Argument to prove a parity and equality of power among all Church Officers above the Degree of Deacons One famous place alleaged is Acts 20. 17. there S. Paul sends to Ephesus and calls the Elders or Presbyters of the Church to him at Miletus and then he saith ver 28. Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 overseers or as it should be rendered Bishops Here say they the Names of Presbyters and Bishops is given to the same men and so the Office and Power of these men was the same But I pray my Masters why so What necessity is there for this positive Assertion Were none with S. Paul at this time but Presbyters Yes Irenaeus who lived near the Apostles time will tell you Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 14. that S. Paul called together both Bishops and Presbyters Were none there but the Clergy of the City of Ephesus Yes the same ancient Writer tells you that the Clergy of all the Cities round about were there too In Mileto convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civit atibus The Bishops and Presbyters were called from Ephesus and from other neighbouring Cities And indeed S. Pauls words do intimate thus much for saith he ver 18. Ye know from the first day I tame into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons Now S. Paul had been with the Bishops and Presbyters of other Cities in Asia besides Ephesus and S. Paul's speaking to them and appealing to their Knowledge of his Behaviour doth plainly argue that they were with him now and that this Convention did consist of very many of the Asiatic Bishops and Presbyters There is then neither necessity nor reason to imagine that onely the inferiour sort of Clergy appeared at the Apostle's Summons much less that he should call them Bishops Rather it is presumable that as he spake to all in general so that he directed his speech chiefly to the most honourable and principal part of that Reverend Assembly and that he called them Bishops who were so in truth and told them that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops over their respective Charges so addressing himself immediately and more particularly to them whose Office it was to superintend the Flock of Christ and to obviate the Incursion of Wolves And thus this place may be fairly understood without confounding of Names without offering violence to History or without robbing the Bishops to give their Title and Honour unto Presbyters because it is reasonable to conceive that the Apostle convened Bishops and Presbyters too and spake directly and immediately to the Prelates of whom 't is likely that Timothy was the chief and to the rest accommodating himself collaterally secundarily and by Grot. in loc way of reflexion Another place which has been hotly urged in this Controversie is that mentioned before in Tit. 1. 5 6 7. where Titus is left in Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might constitute Presbyters city by city if any were blameless the husband of one wife for a bishop must be blameless saith the Apostle Now they who accuse Bishops as Corah did Moses and Aaron for taking too much upon them triumph mightily Num. 16. from this Text as if the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were clearly synonimous But upon due examination we find that the Apostle's Sence doth not at all carry it this way much less is there a necessity for us to understand him after this manner For all that S. Paul requires of Titus here seemeth to be this that he would advance the Presbyters which were under him and ordain them Bishops and dispose of them into Cities fixing each of them to a certain Cure that is such of them as were approved men for a Bishop must be blameless This Sence is easie and the thing is probable For questionless there were many Presbyters now in Crete whether ordain'd by S. Paul before his departure or by Titus himself afterwards I will not dispute but many Presbyters there were it being impossible for Titus to take a due care of so considerable an Island without Assistants 'T is likely therefore that when S. Paul was going away either he left Presbyters behind him or appointed Titus to ordain some to take part of his burthen and advised him not to prefer them hastily but to prove them first and then to ordain them Bishops having made sufficient experiment of their Abilities and Fitness for so great a Trust And in this Epistle sent to him from Nicopolis he minds him of that which he order'd him before viz. that upon proof and tryal made of his Presbyters he should promote them and set them over Cities over every City one for saith he a Bishop must be blameless So that according to this easie and fair Construction there can be no pretence of any confusion of Names because the Apostle doth not mean that Titus should take Deacons or Laymen into the Order of Presbyters but that he should advance such as were Presbyters already into the superiour Order of Bishops and having first consecrated and ordained them to assign each of them his Diocese and City that they might be invested with their Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction too And this seems to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Constitution or Promotion of Presbyters which the Apostle requireth here Other places there are where St. Paul speaketh of Bishops and Deacons only without taking notice of an intermediate rank of Clergy as 1 Tim. 3. he gives instructions for the Ordination of Bishops and Deacons And in Phil. 1. 1. he saluteth the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Whence the Adversaries of Episcopacy do conclude that by Bishops there Presbyters are intended otherwise we must suppose them to be past over wholly which is not to be conceived the Apostle would do But by their good leave I do assert that where the Apostle mentioneth Bishops he ever meaneth such as are truly and properly Bishops not including Presbyters under that Notion And for the clearing of the Objection three things are observable 1. First that when Churches began to be gathered many Epiph. haeres 68. times it happened that two Churches were in one and the same City the one consisting of believing Jews the other
Affections 't would compose our Minds and our Affairs too 't would not only make us live together with one mind in an House but moreover it would establish our House and make it strong and firm and safe over our Heads For 't is not every difference in Opinion that exposeth a Church or a Nation to danger but 't is fighting and quarrelling about the Main way that ruins all We know that among the Turks there are several Sects and Parties and different persuasions and yet the Ottoman Empire holds though it be a most Arbitrary and Tyrannical Policy and the Interest of Mahomet is carried on though it be a most palpable and fulsome Imposture because though they jangle in matters of lesser moment yet they are true to their Common Interest and agree in the Main and closely adhere to their general Model of Government Religion and Worship In like manner among the Romanists themselves who boast so much of the Unity of their Church there are many very Considerable Divisions and more perhaps than there are among Us and those as hotly maintained and yet Herod and Pilate know how to agree against Christ the Scotists and Thomists the Molinists and Jansenists the Dominicans and Jesuits and the rest are wise enough to hang together under the Laws of their Church they go quietly and hand in hand in the main way they conspire in one Common Form they are tite to their Government and keep close to their Rubricks and Establishments and as long as the Pope can but keep things in this Channel either by the Terrours of the Inquisition or by other Politick Arts he knows that his and his Churches Interest is safe and he needs not make use of his pretended Infallibility to determine those points which are controverted I wish that we would learn so much wit of the Adversaries of True Religion as not to fall out there where the safety of us all is concern'd but walk together like Friends in that plain way which the Ancient Church hath beaten out before us and the Laws of our Land have fenced in for differences in matters of Speculation and points disputable could not hurt us or lay us open to danger if some among us were but True to our Common Interest if they would but stick to our Establishments which are the Rampiers and Bullwarks of the Church if they would but be as zealous for Christ as the Turk is for Mahomet or as the Jesuit is for Him whom some suppose to be Antichrist Nothing in all Probability can give us Rest to our Souls and Security to our Nation and Prosperity to our Religion but this one thing to seek after the good Old Way Men may please themselves with Fancies and try many fruitless Conclusions and make experiments of this and of that Expedient but the World will see in the end that nothing but the observing of the Old Path will put us into a good posture 4. But yet fourthly there is one huge Advantage more which the performance of this matter would bring unto us and that indeed which I shall chiefly insist on and it is this That it would justifie our whole Cause before all the World and cut off all just occasion from those who wrongfully upbraid us all for Innovators and under that pretence trepan many a Soul Where say they was your Religion before Luther Now the Dissenter is not able to answer this Question truly throughly or to satisfaction because a great part of his Religion was no where in the world no not in Luther's days and so the Romanists have a continual and unanswerable Objection to fling in his teeth But the Church of England as it is establish'd hath a fair and full Plea that her whole Religion was long before Popery that it was in the world in the days of the Apostles that it was in the Liturgies of the primitive Churches that it is to be seen still in the Tomes of the Greek and Latin Fathers nay she can justifie her Cause out of those very Writers in communion with the Roman Church both before and since the time of Luther whose Books they like dishonest men have corrected purged and mangled by the Expurgatory Indices lest they should tell tales I do not intend now to vindicate the Doctrine of our Church in this respect for that is not so much to my present purpose and our Faith hath been by others abundantly proved to be exactly consonant to the Sence of Scripture and to the Faith of all Orthodox Christians in the purest and best Ages and by this we are ready to stand or fall let the Papist bark at us till his Tongue and his Heart aketh But my purpose is to justifie the Government and Discipline of our Church to be the same which was used in Christian Churches from the beginning and that against a sort of men among our selves who accuse us of Superstition as the Papists do accuse us of Schism though God be blessed we are guilty of neither We tell our Dissenting Brethren that our way which they have forsaken is indeed the old Path we affirm our Government to have been Primitive and Apostolical and we say too that our Discipline Rites and way of Worship is the same generally which was establish'd in the first and best times and this I shall endeavour now to prove in some measure by instancing in particulars that men who desire satisfaction herein may see that the Frame of our Religion is de facto very ancient and that on that account besides many others it ought to be upheld and maintain'd which is the thing I have already argued for and withall that our Charge of Innovation would be unjust and ridiculous did we but unanimously resolve to tread in this Path our Brethren then would be free from guilt as well as our selves 1. The first thing to be spoken to is our Form of Government I mean our Episcopacy the thing that is such an Eye-sore to Papists Atheists and Schismaticks It is clear that for 1500 years it was the onely kind of Government in the Church And whatever some Learned men have pretended I believe you can scarcely instance in any ancient Churches perfectly and completely formed that were not under the care and government of Bishops in our present Sence of the word Bishops presiding over them either in person or by their Authority Those great Luminaries of the Church to whom the World hath been and is so much beholding the Austins Cyprians Chrysostoms Basils Cyrils Gregories and Ambroses were famous and renowned Prelates some of them Metropolitanes some Patriarchs all of them Bishops Those Fathers of the third Century after the Apostles as Theodoret Jerom and others who thought the Names of Bishop and Presbyter to be indifferently and promiscuously used in the Scripture did not mean to impair the just honour and dignity of Bishops for they acknowledged that though the Names were in common yet the Office Power and