of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both arch-Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not
the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church that divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the Nature and Aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Privileges of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints and Promises of Everlasting Life which shews how the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One Norwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are caused by the Quarrels of Bishops and Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Jurisdiction Thus have these Learned and Sober Gentlemen made up those defects which the Lord Verulam complained of in his day Advance of Learning l. 9. p. 472 473. he sets down amongst the Deficients and recommends us a wholesome and profitable work a Treatise touching his degrees of Unity in the City of God and he tells us It exceedingly imports the Peace of the Church to define what and of what Latitude those points are which discorporate Men from the Body of the Church and cast them out and quite Casheir them from the Communion and Fellowship of the Faithful The bounds of Christian Community are set down one Faith one Baptism and not one Rite one Opinion the Coat of our Saviour was entire without Seam but the Garment of the Church was of divers Colours In the mean time it is very likely he that makes mention of Peace shall receive that answer Jehu gave to the Messengers Is it Peace Jehu What hast thou to do with Peace Turn and follow me Peace is not the matter that many seek after but parties and siding To conclude this point Dr. Stilling-fleet Irenic p. 121. God will one day convince men that the Union of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection than in the Uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies since the Unity of the Church consists in the true Catholick Faith and Christian Affection whereby Men are knit to Christ the Head and to one another None are out of the Unity of the Church but those that are destitute of these fundamental Graces and to affirm this of Protestant Dissenters in general is a piece of Diabolism which the Gospel abhors and Humanity it self will be ashamed of We must first prove that Men are without Faith before we can prove that they are without the Church and not with the Papists condemn them as void of Faith because out of the external Communion of their Church It is a very foolish and misleading method to prove our interest in the Faith by our interest in the Church as if we must first know the true Church and that we are in it before we can know the true Faith or that it is in us this way of arguing has been always condemned by Protestant Writers The Scripture Test for the trial of our Faith is a serious endeavour to perfect Holiness in the fear of God to be careful to maintain good works c. And indeed nothing but gross Heresie and known constant Immoralities can warrant us in saying that any who profess to be Christians are destitute of the Faith and whether Dissenters in England do not generally shew as much of the fear of God both in their Fumilies and common Conversation as their Neighbours must be left to the Consciences of all observing Men here and the righteous judgment of God hereafter And I hope they may modestly justifie their pretensions to Christian Love and Charity too I am sure their quiet and peaceable behaviour under so many years severe Persecution will plead more strongly for them than for those by whom they suffered such things all the World will take notice how unable those Gentlemen were to bear a very small share of those Severities themselves which they had for a long time so liberally inflicted upon others I am far from the thoughts of charging these things upon the Episcopal Party in general or even the Clergy themselves but all the Nation will bear witness 't is too true concerning those Bishops and others that were formerly most uneasie and troublesom to their Dissenting Brethren How odd a thing was it for this Gentleman to begin his Book with Panegyricks upon Peace when the avowed design is to justifie all those Violations thereof that have been the scandal of the Protestant Religion He tells us of a blessed Legacy left us by our dying Redeemer and why then should we not be suffered to enjoy it I am sure we should have been glad to have lived in the obscurest places and circumstances where we might have enjoyed that Sacred Bequest but there were a Generation of Men amongst us who having spent their own Legacies would needs deprive us of ours unless we would surrender the dearer Peace of our own minds I am afraid it is the conscienciousness of their former guilt that makes many of them so very suspicious and jealous of Dissenters as they are they can hardly believe that we have any Charity for them because they know how little they have discovered towards us And thus the remembrance of what is past pushes them on to farther abuses instead of producing fruits meet for Repentance whereas I do verily believe the generality of Dissenters can heartily forgive all that 's past and would be glad to see any ground of hope that the same men would not greedily embrace the first opportunity of acting over again their former excesses CHAP. II. Of Obedience to our Governours Spiritual and Civil That the Jurisdiction of our English Bishops is not Jure Divino but Presbyters have as much Power by the Law of God as they An Answer to the Gentleman's Allegations out of Antiquity The Judgment of the Fathers and Councils and School-men and our first Reformers and the Divines of the Transmarine Churches I Hope we have safely passed the Ordeal of Catholick Unity we now proceed to defend our selves from the dreadful Accusation of Disobedience to Superiors for though our Non-Conformity should not utterly exclude us from the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church yet if it involve us in the guilt of Sedition contempt of our Lawful Governours and disobedience to their just Commands our Cause would be bad enough and we could by no means justifie it before God or the World The Indictment charges upon us a twofold Disobedience First Disobedience to our Spiritual Governours the Bishops And secondly To the Civil Magistrate likewise but we do verily believe our selves to be innocent and desire an impartial hearing of our just Defence which will proceed in this Method 1. We plead that Bishops have no Power by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they 2. That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws
process of time their Reverence for these Bishops so encreased that they began to obey them as Children do a Father c. 2dly Not only the same Title but the same Powers are ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture both that of Jurisdiction and that of Orders as they are usually distinguished As to the former we read of ruling Presbyters 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour If this Rule be not the same with their Jurisdiction where lies the difference and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Jurisdiction of Prelates as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters and that Admonition of the Apostle Peter is worthy our observation 1 Pet. 5.1 2 The Presbyters which are amongst you I exhort who am also a Presbyter and a witness of the Sufferings of Christ Feed the Flock of God which is amongst you taking the Oversight thereof c. The Spiritual Jurisdiction of Presbyters is here express'd by two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend does not signifie barely to Feed but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family and is often used for Government and sometimes that of Princes but however it certainly signifies the office of a Pastor and is a good Argument that the Pastoral Power is vested in Presbyters The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the oversight or the Episcopal Office doing the work of a Bishop if this will not prove that the Episcopal Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyters I despair of ever understanding the meaning of words The Power of Orders is with the same clearness attributed to Presbyters Timothy himself who they say was a Bishop receives his Office or Gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this the Gent. replies Dr. Hammond says that those Presbyters were Apostles but that is only the Doctors conjecture and yet if the Apostles were concerned in it it is plain they acted as Presbyters whether they were Apostles or Bishops or Evangelists they acted as a Presbytery I doubt not but if it had been said The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Episcopacy these Gentlemen would have presently concluded that Ordination belongs to Bishops as such and would have given us very hard words if we should have dared to dispute it Barnabas and Paul themselves who are called Apostles received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers Acts 13.1 2 3. and it is observable before this neither of them were called Apostles but presently after they were Chap. 14. Vers 14. These things have so gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Diocesan Prelacy that they have not agreed amongst themselves how to find out a tolerable Evasion Dissert 4. Cap 19 20. Vind of Dissert p. 26. but their most famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths Dr. Hammond saw there was no way to come off but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture were Bishops and that there was no inferior Order instituted by the Apostles but that presently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them Now this is as much as we desire for it fully proves that by Divine Right Bishops and Presbyters are the same and that the distinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule but only an ancient Constitution I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all these instances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture by saying Those were not meer Presbyters and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters they answer such as were not also Bishops and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the signification of it nor were there any such meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand says Vnreason of Separ p. 269. That the Apostles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themselves and therefore there was then no Bishop but they were all one with Presbyters but that as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be settled in the several Churches Now though it is most certain the Apostles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themselves but put it into the hands of the Presbyters they themselves still holding an Universal Superintendency yet we gladly accept the Concession of this learned Prelate 't is indeed à regione adverse to Dr. Hammond but will equally serve our purpose the one says there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Bishops the other there were no Bishops superior to Presbyters Our conclusion flows alike naturally and freely from both that in Scripture times Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order 3dly We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Bishops but what are the same with Presbyters in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons described and no mention made of Presbyters because they were the same with the Bishops and unless we acknowledge that we shall be utterly at a loss for a Reason of that Omission and there are few Commentators but understand it so The learned Grotius upon this place says the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Bishops or Inspectors but that afterward that Name was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of them that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of those Elders Ch. 1. v. 5,6 and as a reason it is added For a Bishop must be blameless this would have been no reason had not the Elder and Bishop been the same A late Author thought this so considerable that he puts a new sence upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordain Elders in every City as if the meaning were advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Bishops but this is a stretch upon the word which it cannot bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly signifies to constitute and ordain and when the Persons are mentioned it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced as Aristot in Polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the instauration of Princes and Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case if alone always representing the State unto which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had raised them nor do I believe any one instance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer Now if this distinction of Order had been known in Apostolical times it is very strange we should not have a distinct Rule for the Ordination of the one and the Consecration of the other especially since by the acknowledgment of all it is not having many Congregations or Presbyters under him that makes a Bishop but only a peculiar and higher Ordination And yet we find no footsteps of it but on the contrary in the very Directory for Ordination
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
make the Dioceses of Ephesus and Creet to take in one another and the whole Christian World too The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical Power This Gent. undertakes to prove it may but by such kind of instances as signifie nothing but his own inadvertency viz. When two Persons are Heirs to one in the same Estate the Law calls them Successores partiarii But this will not do an Estate may be divided into a Thousand Parts and each of them have the Nature of an Estate still but the Apostolical Power is Universal the same in all places and division here will make it another thing according to the Account that Mr. Bradford Dr. Barrow and the best Protestant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apostle and Bishop Paul as an Apostle had the same Power at Ephesus as at Crete and if Timothy had succeeded in the Apostolical Power he must have had so too His Argument from the Division of the Empire is as defective as the former Empires how great soever are limited within certain Bounds and may be divided it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World as it was of the Apostolical 't is a vain thing to talk of any Provinces to which the Apostolical Power was limited they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World and so must those have too that succeed them in the Apostleship The Vindicator also desired to know how Timothy and Titus could succeed Paul in his Apostleship whilst he was alive and in Plenitude of Power This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle but so it was chuse what the Consequences may be for says he it is evident the Apostle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserved to himself But pray Sir think better of it a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province is not the Plenitude of Apostolical Power and if he reserved any Power to himself within those respective Charges they had not the Plenitude of Power there but were under his Apostolical Jurisdiction still and therefore did not succeed him in it and if the Apostle reserved to himself no Power over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete he divested himself of his Apostleship for he that had not Apostolical Power every where had it no where But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremise the matter betwixt them T. W. must call the Bishops Coadjutors only whilst the Apostles were living and the Vindicator must give them the Title of Successors after their Death And if by Successors he means those that after them were employed in the great Work of the Ministry of the Gospel we grant all true Bishops are their Successors but then we must put him in Mind that the Bishops we read of in Scripture were as much Bishops before the Apostles Death as after and therefore their Episcopal Power did not come to them by Succession nor did there at the Apostles Death any new Accession of Power devolve upon them It was therefore the most needless thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter Review p. 42. what if they call Bishops and Presbyters the Apostles Successors so do we too but do they say that they succeeded them in the Apostolical Power or that the Apostleship was devolved upon them by the Right of Succession and yet it is that T. W. after his weak manner struggles to prove and indeed no less will serve his turn This Gentleman is not so thoughtful as he should be when he says We make it such a mighty Mystery for a Bishop to Constitute his Successour if by Constituting he means Naming or Appointing who shall be his Successor it is not impossible supposing that God preserve his Life and the Church Consent to that Appointment tho' it be very inconvenient and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils but it is impossible for one Bishop to devolve his whole Episcopal Power upon another and yet to keep it himself in as great amplitude as ever Decret par 2. caus 7. Quaest 1. c. 5. Vivente Episcopo Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ c. The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Successor comes not in place till the Predecessour be gone that as long as the Bishop liveth no man can succeed him that there cannot be two Bishops in one Place this is most certainly true in the sence wherein we now speak of Bishops and sufficient to our present purpose That which follows about the certainty of Linus his succeeding Peter of an uninterrupted Succession of the Concession of Papists Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem Aetatem seniorem quadragessimi aut quinquagessimi anni habens Dom. noster c. has already been largely discussed in these Papers It is possible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Bishops and yet be Mistaken in their Order of Succession and 't is certain all is not to be taken for Gospel that Irenaeus reports even in matters of Fact for he tells us our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years and said he had this from all the Elders of Asia who received it from St. John himself How well is it that we have a more sure Word of Prophesie and History too than the Testimony of Irenaeus As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death accounts are so various and the probabilities on each hand so fair that no modest man will be Positive in it but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it and his Disciples make no Question but he has done it infallibly The Vindicator had some Reason to put that Question concerning the Apostolical Succession in the Patriarchal Churches which this Gentleman quarrels with because he observed T. W. made Linus succeed Peter in the See of Rome Simeon James in the Chair of Jerusalem Ananias I suppose it should be Ananias the Cobler of whom before St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria and the account runs upon this Supposition that the Apostles divided the World into several Provinces and each of them was Bishop of his proper district and those are called the Apostles Successors that came into their several Sees after their Death and these being but such a number it would follow that the Succession must be only propagated in these Patriarchats this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the consequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succession which he only erected in those Churches where he had an Apostle at the Head of the Roll he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other that none but the Patriarchs were the Apostles Successors but intimated that such a Succession as T. W. described would only be found in those
was too easie a Task these Gentlemen were engaged in to require so much help it 's a beaten Road in which they were to Travel and as I do not find that the Papists offered any thing of late but what has been in substance answered a thousand times so it was not necessary for our Doctors to set their Wits on the Rack for a Reply not indeed do I perceive any thing Method and Language excepted that pretends to be new nor is this any Diminution of their Honour but a Peace of Justice to the Memory and worth of those that have gone before them And I might add Fuller C. H. l. 9. p. 74. This clause was left out of the Art in 1571 but A. B Land would have it inserted again Parker Cartwright Walker Boyes Farmer Slater Manby Good all c. the Presbyterians had little Reason to fear that any of their Perswasion would be perverted their distinguishing Principle of the sufficiency of the Scripture will infallibly secure them whilst they adhere unto it But many of our Churchmen had instill'd into their Followers very odd Notions concerning the Power of the Church in Matters of Faith as in the twenty Article and of the Apostolical Succession and Authority of Bishops and their Power of Judging what is fit and decent in the Worship of God to which all others must submit and concerning the binding force of old Canons and Councils and such Doctrines as these would be in danger to betray men into the Arms of that Church that can pretend as high in these matters as any and it is certain in Fact some of their Bishops and Doctors and Clergy fell in with them and it was time for them to bestir themselves to deliver their men out of the Snares which they had helped to lay for them And the Dissenters were very well pleased to see those Learned Men baffling the Papists upon such Principles as they had reason to hope would set the Authors themselves more upright than before some of them had been those that read Dr. Sherlocks Preservatives against Popery and what he there says concerning the Nature of Gospel Worship That God will not now have a Temple nor is his Presence appropriated to any place and the like and compare it with that he has formerly writ especially in that Book wherein he told us Vind. Defence of Dr. St. p. 13. that Christianity is nothing else but Mystical Judaism will find that his late Polemical Engagements were so very beneficial to himself that it had been a thousand pitties to have taken the work out of his Hands And what I have collected out of these Modern debates concerning Church-Unity Communion Succession c. may convince any man that we had all the reason in the World to make them fair way and room when they were got into the good old Road of Scripture Catholick Notions that would infallibly confound the Papists and when they had done that would very much contribute to the reconciling of Protestants amongst themselves The Author of the Review takes upon him to affirm that none of our Ministers endeavoured at that time to fortifie his Conventicle against Popish Delusions but how can he expect to be believed in that which 't is as impossible for him to know as to be an Ubiquitarian and in all the Conventicles in England at the same time and as he can never prove it to be true so there are thousands in England know it to be false and are able to testifie that notwithstanding their Obligations to the Government their Ministers never failed to confute Popish Tenets when they fell in their way and that not seldom they would go a step or two out of their way to meet them As unhappy is he in the little stories that follow Dr. Owen was in Fee with King James and yet was dead several years before Our present Patrons were the men pickt up at Court to compleat our Ruine and yet I know of no Patrons we have for our Liberty but the King Lords and Commons I hope he does not mean them We know very well what Bishops and others were of the Ecclesiastical Commission in the Bishop of Londons Case and in that of Cambridge and Maudlin Colledge in Oxford not one Presbyterian amongst them Let this Gentleman prove that any Ministers of ours assisted at Jesuitical Intreagues or had Mony sprinkled amongst them to carry on those designs and by my Consent whoever is found Guilty shall be his Bondslave but by no means let Confidence and Noise and loud Appeals be taken for Evidence against them Amongst all that Croud of Writers that give us the History of the late Revolution there is scarcely one of them but acknowledges that the Dissenters were aware of the Popish design of taking away the Test and would not consent to it though for the Penal Laws they thought many of them might be very well spared and I challenge him to prove that either Mr. Lob or any other Person amongst those called Presbyterian and Congregational and we have nothing to do with others ever advised King James to any thing but what our Present King and Parliament have thought fit to establish by Law If as this Gentleman tells us a little Money Review p. 33. and a Toleration will make the Dissenters so easie and quiet and well satisfied it is a sign they are not the worst tempered People in the World and it were well if our Churchmen were as easily pleased for what my Lord Falkland a great Royalist said of some of the Bishops in 1641 they were so cordially Papists that it was all that fifteen hundred Pounds a Year could do to keep from Confessing it I am afraid is too true concerning many of our Clergy in another respect it is as much as some hundreds a year can do to keep them Quiet and Content under the present Government However we are obliged to him for telling us what the sober thinking People judge of us it seems They do not stick to say that our Zeal against Popery is all Counterfeit that we would be better Conformists if Popery should prevail than we are now but he should have told us who these sober thinking People are for many will presume to dignifie themselves with those Epithets See the Review Ibid. that have as little right to 'em as any People in the World and it is usual enough for a Mob of Ecclesiastical Politico's to get together and when they are well heated with drinking Healths to the Church of England and have liberally Cursed and Damned the Dissenters then step forth and look big and think themselves capable of reporting the opinion of all the sober thinking men of the Nation and I am the more inclin'd to believe that it is a Cabal of such men as these that have chosen this Gentleman for their Speaker because our own experience assures us those Conformists that are really most sober have always
ignorant in saying that Timothy and Titus and Linus were made the Successors of the Apostles in their Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles were still living for in this case the Apostles might have outlived their Successors and if we believe some Historians they did so and if this be ignorance in the Vicar it can be no extraordinary piece of Wisdom and Illumination in the Citizen he confesses this is a mystery and so he says is all the Gospel but he must not take upon him to obtrude such stuff of his own upon the World because the Gospel is a mystery thanks be to God a man may easily discern betwixt the mysteries of the Gospel and those of T. W's making But if this Notion won't pass under the pretence of Mystery he will invent a reason for it which we have in these Words They could not have been said to be Successors of Apostolical Power if the Apostles whilst living had not conferr'd it upon them could the Apostles have ordained then after they were dead No truly no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead but were all that the Apostles ordained their Successors in Apostolical Power then the Presbyters which they ordained must be so too He says The Apostle by ordaining them in his Life-time secured the Succession to them and the Government too in the Apostles absence But I wish he had told us how they could secure the Succession to them unless they could have secured them from dying before them and for securing the Government to them in the Apostles absence that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters but if they were invested in Apostolical Power they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apostles Presence as in their Absence for the Apostles had all the same Power and had it alike whether together or asunder In short if it be really true that the Bishops must either be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical Power whilst the Apostles lived or they could never be so we must conclude they could never be so for whilst the Apostles lived they could not have Successors in their Office especially such as claimed their Power by such Succession The second Point is equally censurable viz. That he is no true Bishop that was not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards to the Apostles This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved and that the Papists whose Interest it is to make men believe so confess there are insuperable difficulties about the Succession of Popes in the Roman See The Gentleman replies I never discoursed with any of that Church who did not zealously affirm the Succession that all established Catholick Churches do assert it and that in every Diocess it is as sacredly recorded as the Succession of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones and challenges his Adversary to prove the contrary Well I 'll be so civil to him as to tell him that which it seems he knew not before touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succession Eusebius himself notwithstanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Successors of the Apostles Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuously confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But how many or who were the true Successors of the Apostles and thought sufficient to govern the Churches founded by them is hard to say excepting those which perhaps some one may gather out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate says What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones Name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures Are all the outcries of Apostolical Tradition of Personal Succession of Unquestionable Records resolved at last into Scripture it self by him from whom all these Pedigrees are fetched Then let Succession know its place and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them There are two things to be done before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line first He must have a true Catalogue of the Names of all such Bishops as have filled the See and then he must be able to demonstrate that none of them came in after a Surreptitious manner without Episcopal Ordination the former is difficult but the latter much harder and yet without it the former will amount to no more than a Wild-goose row of hard Words and Names 1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a satisfactory Catalogue even in that See whose Bishops have made the greatest noise and figure in the World and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will consult Baronius for him I suppose he will forbear making challenges for the future Licet plerique sive vitio Scriptoris acciderit sive alia ex causa c. the learned Annalist shews Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearsing the Catalogue of Roman Bishops down to his own times begins thus In the principal Chair sate first Peter then Linus succeeded to him Clemens to him Anacletus passing by Cletus as thinking him the same with Anacletus but on the other hand Epiphanius omitting Anacletus mentions Cletus speaking thus The Succession of the Bishops of Rome is in this Order Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Clemens Evaristus St. Austin following Optatus omits Cletus thinking him the same with Anacletus St. Jerom speaking of Clemens says he was the fourth Bishop of Rome from Peter that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the second of these Jarring accounts Baronius says Num. 48. Si in ordine tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur The Author of the Roman Ceremonial endeavours to reconcile these things by a fine Conjecture Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse Jesus primum denominatione Successorem constituit ea ratione c. Jesus Christ appointed his Successor by Name and after the same manner Peter also named Clemens but on this Condition that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him but they knowing that this way of naming ones Successor would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church would not accept of Clemens but chose Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter but that afterward when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was chosen by the Senate it self Of these Primitive times the great Scaliger thus speaks Prolog in Euseb Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo c. That interval of time
Atheist or an Infidel is no true Pope This c. Is to be supplied with Arch-Bishops Bishops and all other Orders Advertisement on the Hist of K. Charles p. 193. and many such there have been of one sort or other whose acts therefore in creating Cardinals c. Being invalid it is exceeding probable that the whole Succession has upon this account failed long ago c. I may add hereunto that it is the opinion of Dr. Heylin where there is no Dean and Chapter to elect and no Arch-Bishop to Consecrate there can be no regular Succession of Bishops now where there are so many junctures in which this Line may fail it would be very strange if in all that Series of Ordainers and Ordinations none of those things should happen which break in upon the Succession Nay farther when a Bishop has advanced by lawful paces to the Chair yet it is not impossible but he may lose this power again I know the Papists have invented the Chimaera of an indelible Character to support the other Chimaera of an uninterrupted Succession But Bishop Jewel affirms Apology c. 3. divis 7. That if the Bishop of Rome and I suppose it will hold of any other do not his Duty as he ought except he Administer the Sacraments except he instruct the People except he warn them and teach them he ought not to be called a Bishop or so much as an Elder for a Bishop as saith St. Augustin is a name of Labour and not of Honour and that man that seeketh to have the Pre-eminence and not to profit the People must know he is no Bishop Defence of Apâ—â— part 2. p. 135. And he vindicates this Saying against Harding from other of the Fathers Chrysostom Hom. 13. Multi Sacerdotes pauci Sacerdotes multi nomine pauci opere And St. Ambrose Nisi bonum opus amplectaris Episcopus esse non potes Lib. 4. Ep. 32. de dignit Sacerdot c. 4. And Gregory speaking in the name of wicked Prelates Sacer dotes nominamur non sumus And the Council of Valentia under Damasus c. 4. Quicunque sub ordinatione vel Diaconatus vel Presbyterii vel Episcopatus mortali crimine dixerint se esse pollutos à supra dictis ordinationibus submoveantur Whosoever he be whether of the Order of Deacon Presbyter or Bishop that is convicted of deadly Sin let him be removed from the said Orders Now can any man imagine that in a Line of above 1600 Years length running through Babylon it self there should be none of these who by their intolerable wickedness had nullified their Title Wo unto Mankind if their Salvation depend upon such a Supposition Thirdly The third Part of this Gentleman's Position is That those Churches Reply p. 18. or if they must not be so called those Societies that are not under the Government of such Bishops are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry nor Sacraments nor Salvation This cuts off at a blow the Church of Alexandria and damns all her Members for the First two Hundred Years Of the Government of that Church we have this remarkable Account from Entychius Patriarch there That the Evangelist Mark in the Ninth year of Claudius Caesar Eutychii Annal Pococks Edit p. 328. came unto the City of Alexandria and called the People to the Faith of Christ and as he was walking in the Street broke the Latchet of his Shoe and presently applied himself to one Ananias a Cobler to get it mended in the doing of it Ananias prick'd his Finger with the Aul after that dangerous manner as caused a great effusion of Blood and much Pain insomuch as that he murmured against Mark who said unto him If thou wilt believe on Jesus Christ thy Finger shall be healed and added In his Name let it be made whole and accordingly in the same moment it ceased bleeding and was well from this time Ananias believed and was baptized by Mark and made Patriarch of Alexandria and with him were appointed twelve Presbyters Hitrom Ep. ad Evagr. 85. that when the Patriarchate was vacant one of them should be chosen on whom the other Eleven should lay their hands and bless him and create him Patriarch and then should choose some worthy Person and constitute him a Presbyter in his room who was made Patriarch And this Custom continued till Alexander the Sixteenth Patriarch without interruption which was about 235 Years This Story St. Jerome likewise tells us and by it proves the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and that Presbyters have not only Power to ordain those of the same degree with themselves but to consecrate Patriarchs too And this Assertion undoes all the Reformed Churches abroad that are governed by Presbyters To this the Gentleman replies That many very Learned and Pious Persons amongst them have declared their longing Desires for the Episcopacy but living in Popish Dominions cannot have any but those of the Popish Communion or in Republicks that will not admit of Episcopacy But are desires then of Episcopacy sufficient to bring a Man within Catholick Communion What then becomes of the Absolute necessity of Apostolical Succession if affectionate Desires after this Communion will free a Man from Schism Then surely Schism lies in the want of such Desires which comes nearer to Mr. H's Notion than this Gentleman I suppose was aware of but after all though 't is pity to put him out of a good humour since he happens so seldom into it if there be no Catholick Communion without Episcopacy and without such Communion our hopes for Salvation are but Fancies as this Gentleman tells us Desires after Episcopacy will not relieve Men it will only prove that they desire such Communion and to be in the way of Salvation but that at present they are not so And I wonder how it does appear that the Reformed Churches desire this Diocesan Episcopacy by what Publick Acts do they declare any such Desires What their Thoughts are concerning it we have already seen It may be indeed as the Honourable Mr. Feb. 9.40 Fines once replied in Parliament to this very thing there are some amongst them that desire Episcopacy that is the Dignities and Revenues of Bishops but that any desire Episcopacy as the fittest and best Government of the Church I do not believe for if they would have Bishops I know not what hindreth but they may they have Presbyteries and Synods and National Assemblies and Moderators therein and how easily might these be made Bishops Germany and Poland are Popish Countries and yet they have Superintendents or Bishops And why will not Republicks admit Episcopacy Is it because they have found it injurious to the Commonwealth Methinks that is no great Commendation of the Order or will they say it does not so well comport with that Form of Government That is a sign it is not of Divine Institution for as God will have Gospel-Churches in all Countries
warrantable and advantagious to the Publick Interest that they may formally oblige to Obedience how then shall we find out what Laws are purely penal and what are not so Truly here the Gentleman leaves us in the dark He tells us it is by accident that any Laws are purely Penal and not from the Specifick Nature of the Laws themselves but these Logical terms of Accident and Specifick Nature are not so proper in matters of Law nor are we ever the wiser in this case for them for who can tell what Accidents those are that make this difference since he has not been pleased to inform us And though he adds It is not from the different Authority of the Law but from the different Intention of the Law-giver that any Laws are purely Penal that is do not oblige absolutely to the fact yet we are never the nearer satisfaction for if the Obliging power of these Laws depend upon the Intention and Will of the Law-giver one would think where that Will and Intention are different the Authority of the Law must be different for the Authority of the Law and its Obliging power are the same thing but not to contend about the Phrase let us examine the Notion it self which is That it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal there are two inconveniencies I think attend it 1. The Will and Intention of the Law-giver any farther than it is exprest by the words of the Law is very doubtful and uncertain and more especially where the Legislative Power is in the hands of so many as it is with us for it 's possible the King may intend one thing the Lords another the Commons a third yea there may be an infinite variety of Intentions amongst both Lords and Commons and if we say the Intention of the Majority must carry it yet by what Scrutiny shall that be found out And if the Will and Intention of the Law-giver must be understood only by the express words of the Law I suppose it will be hard to find any Statutes that in express terms declare they do not intend to bind absolutely to Obedience and yet such Laws there are by the Gentleman 's own acknowledgment But 2. To say it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal will resolve the Obliging power of Human Laws into the Will of Man which is liable to considerable prejudices And I find this same ingenious Gentleman in another Treatise Miscellan consid of the Nature of sin Sect. 11 p. 370 371. has chosen to resolve the Obliging power of all Laws Divine as well as Human not into the bare will and pleasure of the Law-giver but in the fitness of the Laws themselves to promote the common good and this aptness fitness or tendency to promote the common good he tells us is the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes measures to all the rest and is the last reason of good and evil and he thus analyses the immorality of an Action into its last Principles It is to be avoided because it is sin it is sin because forbidden it is forbidden because it was in it self fit to be forbidden it was fit to be forbidden because naturally apt to prejudice the common Interest which is above all things to be regarded and prosecuted as the best and greatest End And though he acknowledges Authority is to be obeyed let the instance wherein Obedience is required be never so indifferent yet still the reason of this Obligation is not derived from the Authority of the Law-giver but from the common good P. 372. which requires that the Supream Authority be obeyed and yet by the way I cannot see how his foregoing Chain of Causes will admit of any meer positive Laws for did he not say a thing is therefore forbidden because it is in it self fit to be forbidden as naturally apt to prejudice the common good Now if this be so an indifferent Action which is not naturally and in it self apt to prejudice the common good cannot be either forbidden or commanded for according to his Scheme the fitness to promote the common good is not only the Reason of our obeying Laws but the Rule of God's making them also being as before the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes to all the rest Now if the Will of God must not be made the Ultimate Reason of our Obligation to obey his Laws but their fitness to promote the common good certainly the Will of Man must not be the Reason of the Obligation of Human Laws it would be very odd and dangerous to ascribe more to the Will of Man than to the Will of God therefore we must enquire for some better Reason why some Laws oblige absolutely to Obedience and other not than meerly the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver And I suppose the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this kind of Laws is to be found in the matter of them and those Laws are purely Penal which require things so very trivial and indifferent as naturally and in themselves have no fitness at all to promote the common good nor any tendency that way and though I dare by no means say that this tendency to common good is a Law so supream as that God himself must always observe it in his Commands and Prohibitions and that the Obliging power of his Laws is to be resolved into it for I doubt not God may command things that have no such tendency in themselves meerly to try whether men will obey the Authority of God for its own sake yet I am verily perswaded men should make the common good their Rule in every Law of theirs and that amongst men Salus Populi est suprema Lex and that God has not given them Authority to command any thing Demosthenes Natal Comit. Mythol l 2. c. 7. Aquinas q. 95. Camero praelec tom 1. p. 367. There was one saith the Bp. of Winch. on John 16. that would have his will stand for a reason 1 Sam. ch 2. Thus it must be for Hophni will have it so his reason is because he will God grant sayshe there be none such found amongst Christians and I say Amen but what has a tendency thereunto And therefore Cicero and others were wont to put the bonum publicum into the Definition of Human Laws and to affirm that those Edicts which command things no way tending to the publick good quidvis potius quà m Leges censendae sunt may be called any thing rather than Laws It is certain God has obliged Governours to steer by the Compass of Right Reason and to make the Point of publick good in all their Political actions if this be the Supream Law to all men it must be so to them they ought never to do an act Personal or Political but what has such a tendency if they do they act against the Authority
of the Essence of the Power but only requisite to the due exercise of it So it is not of the Essence of the Investiture that it be performed by Ministers but other competent Judges may do it where they cannot be had or will not do it upon lawful Terms This Case of Ordination has been very weil argued by the excellent Mr. Baxter of whom England was not worthy in his Disputations of Church Government and because I do not know that any one has directly assaulted him in it I would refer this Gentleman to it where he will find it illustrated thus If the Soveraign Power make a Law that there shall be Physicians Licensed by a Colledge of Physicians to Practise in this Common Wealth and describe the Persons that shall be so Licensed This plainly first concludeth that such Persons shall be Physicians but secondly de ordine that they shall be thus Licensed So that if the Colledge should License a Company of utterly insufficient men and murtherers that seek mens death or should refuse to License the Persons qualified according to Law they may themselves be punished and the qualified Persons may act as authorised by that which bindeth quoad materiam and is by the Colledge not by them frustrate quoad Ordinem So it is in this Case in hand This is a rational account of the matter and such as may give all Christians full satisfaction in the Truth of their Churches Ministry and Ordinances without flying up into the Clouds and inventing the Mysteries of an uninterrupted Succession indelible Characters and such like stuff What has this Gentleman to Object against it why He tells us no man can preach unless he be sent and no man can send him but he that is Authorized for that purpose If he means by this that no man ought to Preach but those that are Ordained and this he must mean if he speaks to the purpose the Constant Practice of his own Church Confutes him which allows men to preach several times before Ordination that their Qualifications may appear and they may acquire a Title but if no man can lawfully Preach till he be Ordained they ought not to allow this upon any account whatsoever not so much as to make experiment of their Abilities I would ask this Gentleman when your Candidates Preach before Ordination is there no Possibility that their Preaching may do good to the hearers and should they not in Preaching principally intend their Edification If not 'tis taking the Name of God in vain but if they may do good and should make that their chief aim in those Sermons then the Gentleman must find out some other sence for that Text he mentions which has been already explained in the first Chapter of this Treatise He thinks Ordainers are obliged to follow the Example of Christ who when he sent out his Apostles Mat. 28.18 recites his own Commission All Vower is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go therefore as my Father sent me so I send you But it is the highest piece of Arrogance in the World to pretend to the same Power that Christ had in this matter He had Power to institute the Office and give the Authority of the Ministry Men have only the Power of Investiture as the Bishops in Crowning our Kings and as Christ never made these Words of his the set form of Ordination so ' tis-too bold for any Bishop how great soever to apply them to himself in that Office That which follows Review p. 52 about appointing Embassadors for Almighty God without his Order is already in substance answered if by appointing Embassadors he means giving the Commission and Power neither Lay-men nor Clergy-men must presume to do it if he means investing them that God has chosen with the Ceremonies of Ordination 't is fit that the Ministers should do it if they may be had or will do it on lawful Terms but if not better it were omitted than that the Embassy of Reconciliation should not be delivered to the World I suppose their unordained Candidates bring such an Embassy to their hearers I am sure they should do so and if they do then we have Embassadours without an appointment in his Sence of the Word The Cases of Necessity which the Vindicator mentioned are such as may happen and to neglect the publick Worship of God in expectation of a Gift of Miracles which I suppose he means by the reviving of the Charismata would be a profane Omission He thinks to ridicule us out of it by putting the Case concerning a company of Women cast upon an Island c. Well what if a man should say that the best qualified Sister among them might be chosen by the rest as the Abbesss to be most constantly employed in Prayer and Exhortation till better help could be had were not the Iberians Converted by a Captive Maid Russin l. 1. c. 10. and was it not the constant Custom of the Church of England till the Hampton Court Conference to permit Women to Baptize Children in Case of Necessity and how zealously did the Bishops endeavour to defend the lawfulness of it at that time The Bishop of London affirmed the words of the Common-Prayer-Book intended a Permission of Private Persons to baptize in such Cases and said it was agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church alledging the great numbers that were Baptized Acts 2. Which it was improbable the Apostles alone could do and added that some Fathers were of the same Opinion Fuller Cent. 17. l. 10. p. 9. and when the King opposed it the Bishop of Winchester replied that to deny Private Persons to Baptize in Case of necessity were to Cross all Antiquity and the Common Practice of the Church it being a Rule agreed on by Divines that the Minister is not of the Essence of the Sacrament Their great Ecclesiastical Polititian Mr. Hooker sets himself to prove that Baptism by any man in Case of Necessity is valid Eccles Pol. p. 320. and says it was the Voice of the whole World heretofore and elsewhere That God hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special men it is for Orders sake in the Church not that their Authority might add any force to the Sacrament Now is it not the most unaccountable perverseness in the World to make Episcopal Ordination so indispensibly necessary when the most solemn acts of the Ministry the Application of the Seals are allowed by themselves to those that have no Ordination at all yea to a Sister whether welll qualified or no in which they have quite out-done us no such thing being ever practised in the Presbyterian Churches He endeavours to prove the necessity of such Ordination from the Case of the Abyssines who were contented to be without those Ordinances which are to be dispensed by Priests till the return of Frumentius from Alexandria but pray what Ordinances are those that are to be dispensed by Priests only I thought